1
Why the manner in which Maxime Medard foiled Freddie Burns' try was technically perfect
By Online Editors
There are only a few minutes to play. Toulouse are leading Bath by two points – 22-20 and then Freddy Burns blows a golden opportunity to win the match.
First, Burns kicks a penalty from slap in front. The ball strikes an upright and stays out and the fullback Burns gets a golden chance of redemption.
Bath attack again and, from a tackle, scrumhalf Max Green passes to Burns who is up in the line. Burns runs a good line, hands off a desperate defender and has a clear run to the line and victory for Bath.
Casual Burns blows a kiss and slows down to a saunter with the ball in the right hand of his arm extended to dot down. But the Toulouse left wing, Maxime Medard, has other ideas. He sprints across, extends his left arm and the contact he makes knocks the ball away and over the dead-ball line.
Continue reading below...
The referee orders a five-metre scrum to Toulouse who win the match 22-20.
Was what Medard did legal?
Was the scrum to Toulouse correct?
Yes. Burns was carrying the ball and so Medard was entitled to play him, including tackling him and knocking his arm.
He was not allowed to kick the ball from Burns’s grasp and clearly did not do so. If he had done so, the correct decision would have been a penalty try.
If Medard had knocked the ball from Burns’s grasp, it was also legal as he knocked the ball backwards, towards his own dead-ball line. If he had knocked the ball forward, it would have been illegal and a penalty try would not have been farfetched.
If Medard struck the ball with his hand, a drop-out would have been correct.
If he hit Burns’s forearm causing Burns’s hand to lose the ball forward, the scrum was the correct decision.
Well played Mr Medard, well played.
Trending on RugbyPass
2
All Blacks player ratings vs Italy
3
South Africa player ratings | 2024 Autumn Nations Series
4
Scotland's Sione Tuipulotu admits anger at Australian rugby
5
Latest Comments
I didn't mean to sound down on Dmac. Just looking hard at the bench sub's role of providing impact. I don't think he can do that at 15, and the bench is not really about injury cover anymore (you need to maximise it's use more than that).
He's my first choice of any New Zealander for the 10 jersey with the All Blacks.
Go to commentsAgreed. And I don't have much more to say on it, but I had been having one thought that sprang to mind at the tail of this discussion, and that is that it's not all about Razor.
It's not about any coach being "right". I think a lot of selections can become defense and while it doesn't really apply here I really enjoyed that Andy Farrell just gave into the public demands and changed out his team for the change that had been asked for. Like why not? This is the countries team, keep them engaged. The whole reason i've only just finished watching the game was because I wasn't interested in watching any of the selected players against a team like Italy (still actually enjoyed the first half with the contest Italy made of it).
Faz leap frogs a younger half back into start. He hands the golden child the game over July's golden child. He gives an old winger a go, a new flanker and hooker. None of them really did any good, certainly not enough to suggest they should have been promoted above others, but who cares? You won, and you gave the country what they wanted, that's all that matters after all. It's for the country, not the one in charge who thinks they have to have their own pied piper tune playing.
Go to comments