It was no try at Twickenham, but Care should have been carded
“Had Care not blocked Evans, in all probability he would have scored, which is the criteria for a penalty try”
Controversy, controversy... after last weekend’s Six Nations round of matches there are still so many unanswered questions, and that’s the great thing about this competition!
Did Gareth Anscombe beat Anthony Watson to the ball? Probably, but did he exert enough control as his hand just seemed to slide over the ball to ground as is required by law for a try to be scored? Probably not. As I watched the replay at Twickenham, I said as much to Paul Rendall (former England loosehead) sitting beside me, although he considered it a try.
I have to admit it is not too often that I agree with the TMO (Glenn Newman) or he agrees with me but unlike Warren Gatland, I think this time he got is right.
What was interesting as far as I was concerned was what happened next. Referee Jerome Garces awarded a penalty straight in front of the posts because of the actions of Danny Care in blocking Steff Evans who was racing towards the ball before the controversial Anscombe/Watson touch down.
Surely, if that act deserved a penalty, it should have been a penalty try as Care committed a professional foul which blocked Evans, allowing Watson time to get back and make a firm touch down?
Had Care not blocked Evans, in all probability he would have scored, which is the criteria for awarding a penalty try.
If you believe, as the referee did, that it was a deliberate act by Care (he would not have penalised him if he didn’t), it would not have been unreasonable for Care to have been issued with a yellow card, which could have completely changed the game and the result.
It also beggars the question; what did Garces ask TMO Newman to look at when deciding whether or not it was a try? With the right question, the interference from Care on Evans should have been looked at to ascertain if it was a deliberate professional foul designed to stop Evans from reaching the ball and then the appropriate sanction administered.
I am surprised Gatland didn’t touch on this because it was this first act, which denied Wales the try, more than the TMO’s ruling on the touch down.
What I also consider wrong is World Rugby’s public rebuke of Newman because like a referee, a TMO is asked to interpret the law but with the advantage of a number of camera views and an ability to review. However, he still made a decision based on his view of the facts. At the time Newman did not believe that Anscombe did enough to merit awarding the try and World Rugby had no right to question his decision.
By the end of the match Eddie Jones must have been more than a little relieved at the withdrawal of Leigh Halfpenny before the game as England conceded ten penalties to Wales’ two, many of which would have been within Halfpenny’s range.
With a break in the tournament this week, I doubt Jones will just be focusing on the scrum (although it did creak a bit) with the visiting Georgia pack offering England a stern challenge, but also on not conceding penalties, particularly with Scotland’s Greig Laidlaw in a rich vein of kicking form.
More controversy in the Scotland game where the French, who always believe there is an Anglo-Saxon plot against them, could now have grounds for a Celtic conspiracy. Referee John Lacey (Ireland) made a number of decisions that (if I were French) would make me think he was biased, not least in the build up to the second Scottish try.
Laidlaw knocked the ball on and the French gathered so referee Lacey allowed the advantage. The French lost the ball in the very next phase of play, gaining no advantage whatsoever, and came under pressure from Scotland that led to the Huw Jones try.
I doubt very much if Lacey had said that advantage was over in the short period of play that ensued after Laidlaw’s knock on, but he still allowed the game to continue, thereby disadvantaging the French.
Later in the game, Scotland gained an advantage and played through eight phases before the French regained the ball, but Lacey then bought the game back to the original infringement that allowed Scotland to kick the penalty that took them into the lead.
I am, as most will know, an advocate for referees controlling the game with total authority, but there is one caveat I would impose: he must be consistent in his application of the laws for the whole game and for both teams.
However, unlike team management, I don’t expect all referees to control each game in exactly the same way because the laws of the game are complicated.
A referee must be free to bring his own interpretation in every situation but in areas like playing advantage, the number of phases before advantage is deemed to be over should be roughly the same for both teams, and Lacey duly failed in that.