1
The Nigel Owens review of 'double movement' Sipili Falatea try
By Liam Heagney
Nigel Owens has shared his thoughts on the much-debated Sipili Falatea try that clinched victory for France last Saturday night over the Springboks in Marseille. The replacement tighthead prop squirmed his way over to put his team 27-26 ahead with six minutes remaining in a fierce Autumn Nations Series encounter that eventually finished 30-26.
ADVERTISEMENT
The match generated numerous talking points, with red cards resulting in respective four- and three-game bans for the sent-off Antoine Dupont and Pieter-Steph du Toit. However, the decisive late France try from Falatea was also a major talking point and Test centurion ref Owens has now weighed in on the debate.
Reviewing the incident on the latest edition of Whistle Watch, his weekly Test rugby series, Owens said: “If we look at Sipili Falatea’s try in the France-South Africa game late on, people have been asking why isn’t this double movement?
“Well, it is a very, very interesting one and I have to say it is a very, very difficult one to judge as well because what you certainly have is a ball carrier who may not be tackled but is in a position where he is not supporting his weight.
“If you felt that he was tackled or he was on the ground, he is only then allowed to place out in one movement. So if you felt there was another movement and another movement whilst he was on the ground then you would be looking at the try being disallowed.
“If you felt that it was momentum, that he was actually going to ground and then managed to get over, like Wayne Barnes saw, then you would give the try. So I am afraid to tell you it is really one of these difficult ones which are very, very tough to call. The thing that people have been asking me is why didn’t TMO come in and why didn’t they look at this again?
“Well, the TMO couldn’t come in because the communication system was down at that time so the referee couldn’t hear the TMO and the TMO couldn’t speak to the referee. Wayne Barnes was there on the spot and gives the decision and he sees it, so it is one of those really, really tough ones to make.”
ADVERTISEMENT
According to the Laws of Rugby Union the referee is the ultimate arbiter of fact on what happens during the game. In other words he calls it as he sees it. Its been like that since I first played and coached for the last 60 years. Suck it up Rassie and get on with improving your team.
and again a team has to suck it up because of inept reffing. You go suck up that shit like a vacuum cleaner. Prick.
Ref has to decide a) when he was off his feet, b) why he was off his feet (ie tackled or not), and c) what movements he made after being off his feet (eg simply placed the ball, carried over by momentum, propelled himself forward, etc). In this situation he clearly propelled himself forward after the initial placing of the ball, and the only case in which that is legal is if he was still technically on his feet, ie not grounded (Rule 13 of the laws). I think that is what the ref saw, and I don't think it is unreasonable. But if the player was no longer on his feet when he first placed the ball then he was not entitled to propel himself forward.
There is no use in debating whether it was or wasn't a try, or whether it should or shouldn't have been allowed.
A try was awarded, and for the rest of time, it will reflect as a try.
It was a game with terrible inconsistencies, with so many infringements being ignored.
Hopefully WB can reflect on the poor job he did, and be better next time he has a whistle in his mouth.
that whistle in his mouth just affected winning bonuses for all on the team of the losing side. Have you ever wondered why you were so sh....t that you never got a year end bonus although you were the one person that shone in your company
Of course NO is not going to have a go at WB and say it was a bad decision .... he can't.
Watching several shows in NZ, SA and Europe not one of the panel says it was vague .... all say it was clearly a double movement lucky for France.
Can unserstand SA sports shows claiming this we are passionately biased toward the Springboks .... but when ex professional players around the world agree then its a different story.
But lets look at something less subjective ..... 3 time the Springboks were on the French try line twice the French gave away 3 penalties and once 2 penalties.
French on Springbok try line one infringement penalty awarded and yellow card that killed the game as we all know the next scrum was going to go one way with 6 vs 8.
Where is the consistency thats all we want .... why are referees so detemined to penalise the Springboks at every opportunity they get .... Blatent elbow ro the head of Kolbe, slap to the head of Mostert ... no sanction .... no consistency
I am sorry but WB had a shocking game, he was totally intimidated by the crowd .... sorry but if he is the best World Rugby has to offer and then defend that level of mediocrity. Well then I am think it maybe time for an alternative to World Rugby to be found, that is not dominated by one sector of the rugby playing world.
And these bad decisions and inconsistencies don't only play out against South Africa .... it is indemic in the game at the moment.
Last point ..... SA vs IRE.... World No1 team vs current world champs .... probably one of the biggest games of the international window ..... and World Rugby puts a referee in place for that game that does not even feature in the top 10 of referee rankings???
I would be curious to see you on the pitch to referee for 5 minutes and to see how people will judge your performance.
There will ALWAYS be inconsistencies because, a) the refs have to take decisions in a split second, b) refs cannot see everything c) if you stop the game for every little infringement, then there would be no game at all.
They just try to keep those inconsistencies to the smallest number possible.
Refs have to take decisions on the spot and if they don't see, or don't judge the infringement big enough, then they just let the game unroll.
The only blatant mistake is the supposed tackle on Macalou, that was a massive opportunity for France.
And speaking of Kolbe, although I think the red card for Dupont was the right decision on the spot, it could have been one for Kolbe too. He arrives with speed knee forward on Dupont's face, it is not because you jump to catch the ball that you can do a karate kick in your opponents face...
Inconsistency? Yes. Conspiracy? (Risible.) No!
I’ve watched the replay again and again, and something is pretty clear: Falatea ´s (the scorer) feet do not move.
He manages with the help of the pack to extend his arms to score. Is that a double mouvement ?
As NO says, it’s one of those very specific situations which have probably never been addressed by rules makers. Grey area as we say in French.
were his knees on the ground?? Yes!! That means you have to place the ball and leave it alone. He did not there was more than one movement after his knees were on the ground. Penalty to the Boks.
There is no reference to "double movement" in the laws of the game. That is a short-hand for what the law does say, which his that in the case of a completed tackle the tackled player is entitled to a) pass the ball immediately, b) push the ball sideways or backwards, or c) place it anywhere (forwards, backwards, sideways). In placing it they are entitled to roll (eg to put the ball on their own side of their body), but they are NOT entitled to propel themselves forward.
In this case you have to decide whether/when the player was off his feet, and whether he was tackled. He was certainly off his feet (technically speaking) when he first placed the ball on the ground, because he had his elbows on the ground and was supporting himself that way. And he was tackled, because the SA #13 was the one that caused him to go off his feet. So he is not allowed to propel himself forward, he only has the above choices.
I think the ref did not see it as a tackle, because he was still kind of on his feet. And if you say he was no tackled then he was perfectly entitled to propel himself over the line.
I think the ref was wrong, but it is not a crazy interpretation in real time. The TMO might have disagreed.
That was a double movement try. Lucky for France.
Nigel I expected you to know the the laws better.
I think that’s a very accurate analysis - as far as I can see, Barnes adjudged that the first time he goes to ground wasn’t a completed tackle, so he’s then entitled to lurch forward again.