Elsom's Try

Lots of emotion

There were two incidents in Saturday's gripping encounter between the All Blacks and the Wallabies in Auckland that have whipped up lots of emotion.

We shall deal with the more difficult one first – Elsom's try. Later we shall deal with the Tuqiri tackle.

We are – let's say it again – dealing with a law discussion. It's not an emotional issue and not a matter of taking sides. It does not matter whether we support a team or not.

The All Blacks have the ball going to their left when Mils Muliaina is tackled near the 22. He loses the ball and Wycliff Palu picks it up and pops it to Mortlock who charges for the line. Pulled down short, the Wallabies recycle the ball moving left. They put the ball through seven phases. From the seventh phase, to the right of the New Zealand posts as the Wallabies look at them, the ball comes back to George Gregan of the Wallabies. Gregan passes to Stephen Larkham who passes to Rocky Elsom who goes beyond Luke McAlister on his outside. McAlister dives at Elsom, gets arms round him but slips off. Elsom falls to ground beyond McAlister and now a metre of so from the All Black line.

Elsom rolls over and with the ball in his grasp looks to place it on/over the line as Isaia Toeava and Doug Howlett seek to prevent him from doing so.

The ball goes to ground and then bounces forward.

The referee consults the television match official who eventually advises that a try should be awarded.

It is a tough decision. When people write afterwards about the idiocy of the decision they are wrong and unfair. It is a hard decision.

The first point to make clearly is that what happens to the ball after it hits the ground is, in this case, irrelevant. It does not matter if it bounces away. If the ball is grounded and a try is scored, the play stops. That is the end of play. The ball can then bounce where it likes. It is just not relevant.

So we must look to Elsom's hands and the ball.

The question is: does the ball leave Elsom's hands and go forward?

Go forward is important. If it does not go forward from his hands, a try is still possible.

There are two things for us to look at:

1. Does the ball go forward off Elsom's hands?

2. Is Elsom holding the ball when it is contact with the ground?

1. It is a hard decision. Watch it as slowly and it is not at all clear that a. the ball leaves his hands (For he has two hands on the ball at least for most of the way down) and b. the ball goes forward from his hands. Go to what Soundsure which can make it slower than slow and still clear, and you would say that Elsom's hands have the ball all the way and that it does not go forward from his hands. The slower the motion the more like a try it looks!

That it goes forward from the ground is not in dispute but it, as we have said, does not matter.

2. Elsom's hand is in contact with the ball when the ball makes contact with the ground. That is all that is required for a try.

People who talk about control are wrong. People who talk about downward pressure are wrong.

If Elsom is holding the ball, he does not need to put downward pressure on the ball. All that he needs is contact between ball and ground when he is in contact with the ball.

Law 22.1  When attacking players are first to ground the ball in the opponents' in-goal, the attacking players score a try.

GROUNDING THE BALL

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. 'Holding' means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck inclusive.

There may be debate as to what constitutes holding the ball. Elsom gives every impression of holding the ball. He has the ball in both hands, at least until the last millimetre or so when his bottom hand may – may – have left the ball.

It would seem that the try is the likely decision. It certainly was not a "ridiculous" decision. But it was a hard decision. Damned if you give it and damned if you don't!

If the try had not been given, what should the referee have done?

– If the grounding was uncertain – a five-metre scrum to Australia.
– If knocked forward – a five-metre scrum to New Zealand.

Uncertainty would have been the easy way out.

Just a thought: If the referee refers the matter to the TMO, it means that there is doubt. That doubt should be solved only by certainty – as was the case with Jason Eaton's try.

That's just a thought.