Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Adam Ashley-Cooper disallowed try against the Waratahs

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Adam Ashley-Cooper disallowed try against the Waratahs

The Brumbies are still fuming after referee Steve Walsh failed to award a try that they were certain they had scored in their 19-12 loss to the Waratahs in the Super 14 on the weekend. They have since called for Walsh to be stood down for the next match.

The game itself was pretty dull with not too much to talk about, except for the friction and bickering between Brumbies captain Stephen Hoiles and referee Walsh.

Hoiles found himself penalised a few times with what he called ‘rubbish calls’, and then Walsh failed to award a try to Adam Ashley-Cooper, despite it looking like a sure thing. He deemed that it was a double movement, and was happy with his call.

The Brumbies have since called for Walsh to be replaced as ref ahead of their meeting with the Reds on Saturday.

There will be a review today with the promotion and relegation system taking place.

"We'll wait and see whether he's the referee," said Brumbies coach Andy Friend.

"That's up to the selectors to give their view and we can only deal with what we see and I thought the first 30 minutes it wasn't a very even contest," he added.

Flyhalf Matt Giteau wasn’t quite as reserved, landing himself in hot water with what could be a suspension and a hefty fine for being so outspoken.

"Mate, I don't know if we will turn up (if Walsh is referee) - what's the point? Like anyone that knows rugby, that was a try," he said.

Players’ contracts have a clause that stipulates that they’re not allowed to publicly criticise a referee or assistant ref’s handling of the game. We saw that with former Reds coach Eddie Jones in 2007, when he was fined $10, 000 for having a go at referee Matt Goddard.

Sean Fitzpatrick and Michael Lynagh both seemed to think the try should have been awarded to Ashley-Cooper. What are your thoughts – try or no try?

Time: 02:36

In my humble opinion not a double movement because he was not held as the tackler immediately tried to regain his feet.

But a really close call.

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 1:24 pm
What a joke. He didn't stop, so not a double movement. Asswipe.

By JK, at April 27, 2010 1:29 pm
double movement

By Steve Walsh, at April 27, 2010 1:32 pm
A tough call to make. I think the ball carrier should get a bit of license and be awarded tries like this unless the second movement is just too blatant. From the front this looks like a clear try, but from the side it looks like Ashley-Cooper did make a lunge forward off his knees which maybe is what the ref saw as a crawl. But I reckon this try would be given 9 times out of 10.

By paulo, at April 27, 2010 1:38 pm
double movement, he used his legs to regain momentum after the tackle

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 1:44 pm
for me it was a try! coming from a tahs fan, the ref was weird the whole game!

By sebastian, at April 27, 2010 1:51 pm
From a neutral POV thats a clear try

By Kenny, at April 27, 2010 1:54 pm
i'm not certain if that's a try or not, but i'm certain that the referee should have requested the TMO.. now people may think that he's currupt.. i'm just saying..

By Diogo, at April 27, 2010 2:21 pm
TRY! TRY ! TRY! I think we've all seen how referees can be biased during this year's Super 14 season

By FINroD, at April 27, 2010 2:24 pm
no from a neutral pov and the RULES of the game that's a double movement! After his knees touch the ground, he clearly pushes on his feet to get to the line.

to have natural momentum is something entirely different than to keep moving...

When a player touches the ground with his knees (or any body part above the knee), and is being held, he is down, and has to release the ball, except when he's still going forward without own propulsion. Here he clearly uses his feet and the question wether he would get there just on momentum alone, is invalid. He used his feet. Double movement. Period.

As for the tackler: rules stippulate that he tackeld player must be held, not held DOWN, otherwise there would be no reason to make a rule about double movement.

Great decision and huge balls for the ref.

And players should stop bitching about it, even when the ref is wrong, this is RUGBY, not football...

By jente, at April 27, 2010 2:27 pm
try all the way, he got to the try line by inertia dont be confused by the fact the tackler got under him he never stopped moving

By eric, at April 27, 2010 2:35 pm
continuous movement and momentum (the rules clearly say momentum) are completely different things.

Get your physics strait...

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 2:39 pm
imho, that wasn't double movement.. however, and even if it was (but would be a difficult decision), in this kind of competition (where rules are often misread in favour of spectacularity) I would have assigned that try..

By BilloK, at April 27, 2010 3:00 pm
double movements are almost never given thats why they are pissed.
however it is clearly a double movement, he is on his back then rolls and lunged off his knees.
a try would be given most of the time but this is the
correct decision

By mat, at April 27, 2010 3:04 pm
the momentum only applies to a slide
if the pitch was wet he may have glided over maybe he should play in the Magners league! its usually wet

By mat, at April 27, 2010 3:07 pm
Just to be clear on this: The term double movement is not in the laws of the game anywhere. Either he failed to release after the tackle or he played the ball immediately. Given that the try was not awarded, I would suggest that the referee (perhaps with some help from his AR) deemed that the tackle was completed and then A-A Cooper rolled over and played ball. Tough call.
Would the TMO not have been a better option?

By whatdidyousay, at April 27, 2010 3:08 pm
I find it hard to take seriously people who refer to rugby's laws as "rules". This error in itself denotes a lack of knowledge of the finer points of the game. Try.

By Disco, at April 27, 2010 3:08 pm
Double movement. What is the tackler meant to do exactly if the guy can just crawl 5 metres more to the line and score?

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 3:09 pm
Neutral view

This isn't even close. He was clearly dragged down and held and then rolled over and kept going. Clear double movement.

I'm not sure what the controversy is here.

By jpm, at April 27, 2010 3:10 pm
100% Try. The tackler wasn't holding him, so he is allowed to reach, but it has to be in one movement. In my opinion he never stopped, which makes it a single movement.

Shame that the Ref made a mistake, it would have been a hell of a match!

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 3:35 pm
seiously want of the worst game in super 14 so far this season. too many penalty and free kick, i'm not enjoying the match at all. even my father started to complaint about the ref frequently blowing the whistle. BTW ii'm neutral. just want to enjoy super 14 rugby

By Hasif, at April 27, 2010 3:43 pm
interesting to see both sides having their case. I can see it go either way. If AAC didn't do the lunge gesture he might have a case.
I think even with the TMO it might just end up depending on the ref's question and ref's call.
Walsh made his decision, and it's standard practice to stick to it.

By Jeroz, at April 27, 2010 3:45 pm
I am saying try, the tackler definately wasn't holding him so he had the right to move for the line.

By Promethean, at April 27, 2010 3:48 pm
I reckon that that took balls from the Ref but he should have handled it differently. He's supposed to keep the order on the pitch and he doesn't help that by not explaining the decisions he makes when he makes them. Also should probably have gone to the TMO but if you watch closely then the player clearly pushes off from his knees and from another angle you can see the tackler is about to release before he has to grab hold and stop the player again.

By Tom, at April 27, 2010 3:49 pm
Disco, get off your high horse please? What difference does it make if someoone refers to them as rules? You still know what the f*ck they're talking about! You choose to moan about that rather than comment on the try? lol okaaay.

I'd say if this was awarded as a try, the waratahs certainly wouldn't be complaining or bat an eyelid. But it could be the right call if it's decided that the tryscorer pushed off to get over once he was held. There's also the factor of the player/s behind him pushing him over, which in some ways acts as momentum.

Tough call.. definitely a close one. Surprising that Giteau has made such a statement.

By Benson, at April 27, 2010 4:25 pm
Try...

By Vassili, at April 27, 2010 4:27 pm
Perfectly good try.
See Law 22.4 and specifically (e). This allows a player tackled near the goal line to reach out and score but if he cannot reach then he must abide by the tackle law and quickly release the ball.

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 4:38 pm
giteau's reaction doesnt really help no one, except people who make fun of aussies because they complain to much

By sebastian, at April 27, 2010 4:42 pm
TMO shld have been called up. but double movement....frm a dude million miles away and with benefit of replays.

on another note....Super 14 round 11 review pretty pls? haha

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 5:07 pm
Hum... I agree the ref. But difficult decision.

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Momentum dragged him over, never stopped moving. Don't like that ref, he seems to like making massive calls his own interpretation.

By Darren, at April 27, 2010 5:50 pm
I'm impartial score-wise but I agree with Jente - you can see he pushed off the ground when he was down. If it wasn't a double movement then possibly playing the ball on the ground?

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 6:08 pm
Well don't agree with what a lotta people have said about Steve Walsh. He made a call, 50 50, woulda said benefit of the doubt from my part but seriously, THAT does not constitute all the Cr*p the poor ref has taken from this! But then the Aussies are like the most competitive sportsman, so it obvs meant a lot to Gits!

By Alexander, at April 27, 2010 6:24 pm
No try and as for that abo no.8 he should be shot

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 6:38 pm
Try or not try. Who cares. The Brumbies are being whiny bitches, though, in suggesting the referee step down - or at least doing so publicly.

Are they just trying to stir shit up to gain some publicity for the sport? While I agree he should've gone to the TMO, the Brumbies should've just moved on after the call was made. Pretty immature, in my view.

By pat, at April 27, 2010 6:45 pm
*"no try"

By pat, at April 27, 2010 6:46 pm
definitly a try. Everyone who plays rugby can say it : it is in the movement. Even the tackler is turning the ball keeper over the try line so how we can say it is a double movement. I am asking !

By Nemeketh, at April 27, 2010 7:14 pm
No try....

he is tackled and scampers towards the try line...

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 7:20 pm
1)Double movement isn't in the rules (in belgium we reffer to them als regels/rules not wetten/laws)because it leads people to conclude that there has to be one movement. But that's wrong logic. It's al about momentum. So stop talking about "he didn't stop moving". As I said before. Momentum en movement are 2 completely different things. So yes, penalty was for playing the ball on the ground.

2) "held" means that a player is on the ground and someone of the opposing side is bound to him by at least one arm or part of the arm. Once the tackled player is on the ground, the opposing player doesn't have to exercise force. holding doesn't mean holding down or holding back or holding so he can't move.

By jente, at April 27, 2010 7:34 pm
Double Movement. He was clearly making an effort after he was brought down to drive towards the try line.

By BeachBok, at April 27, 2010 7:41 pm
He's clearly tackled fallen to the floor and landed on his knees. The tackler then puts a finger in his bum because he has always wished to experiment but thought that doing it on his own team mates is kinda mutinous. Adam Ashley-Cooper clearly does not like this matter of a foreign object within his rectum and has sprung forward, thus scoring a try in the process.

Verdict: Try allowed to quell homosexual tendiencies happening in the tackle / breakdown area.

By Gary Barlow, at April 27, 2010 7:52 pm
No try for me.

More importantly, Steve Walsh was back to his usual pompous, self-important way. Watching the game, it was clear he was very confrontational and aggressive with the players. He wasn't a good ref before his time away from the game and he still isn't now.

By jackohos, at April 27, 2010 8:01 pm
Not double movement,he had momentum, made an effort to get to his feet and only played the ball once as he went over. Try time!

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 8:48 pm
this is silly. its a try. once the player carrying the ball is tackled he is allowed to place the ball once, in ANY direction. AA Cooper was tackled, then placed the ball forwards over the tryline. To penalise him for that, you would have to penalize every player at ever breakdown who, after they are tackled, turns slightly and places the ball towards their own team. Steve Walsh always has been an Arse.

By George, at April 27, 2010 9:03 pm
There is no such thing as a 'double movement' in rugby union, thats a rugby league thing. And law 15 is that you're allowed to immediatly reach out and place the ball on or over the try line. I scored a try like this a few months ago, although i was much closer to the line.

By Marc B, at April 27, 2010 9:13 pm
double movement

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 9:35 pm
Marc B:

once tackled you can place the ball in any direction (this is correct) you cannot however do what cooper did here, he scrambled over the try line...

he used momentum, he then used his legs to push over the line....this in effect was the 'double movement'

By Towelie, at April 27, 2010 9:47 pm
i tell you what,it was not only steve walsh decision, it was also the touchjudge call.

By Little Chief, at April 27, 2010 9:57 pm
poor refereeing. questionable double movement. 50/50 chance of a try. not using the TMO at his disposal shows a lack of professionalism. he owes it to any player on the field to fully investigate any questionable scoring opportunity. the word of the touch judge is golden, but not law.

By Unknown, at April 27, 2010 10:21 pm
No try, now stop arguing with ref, we are not footballers

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 10:49 pm
I agree he should have gone to the TMO, but you can hear him tell Elsom (i think) afterward that he's "not allowed" to go upstairs for the so-called double movement. Does anyone know if that's true? If so, why? Surely the TMO should be allowed on any big decision involving a try.

By hmoore, at April 27, 2010 11:15 pm
try brruu try

By othello, at April 27, 2010 11:33 pm
DOUBLE MOVEMENT = NO TRY

and i agree with the comment about this not being football. so stop whining about the ref.

By Anonymous, at April 27, 2010 11:46 pm
double movement. watch his legs in the first angle showing his try

difficult decision but ultimatly the right one. its just luck depending on what team it goes to, no point in criticising the ref

By JJ89, at April 28, 2010 12:03 am
According to the rules of what the TMO can be asked to review, the TMO can only be consulted on the grounding of the ball, not the issue in this case. And i'm telling ask a REF...there is no such thing as a "double movement" in Rugby Union.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/referee-steve-walsh-should-be-replaced-for-brumbies-v-reds-match-in-canberra/story-e6frg7mf-1225858112480

By Marc B, at April 28, 2010 12:19 am
Double Movement......Not Releasing......Whatever you what to call it. It is not a try!

By TigerRight, at April 28, 2010 12:55 am
Unless my opinion is clouded due to me not knowing what a double movement is, that is a try.

By USA7, at April 28, 2010 1:14 am
AAC gets brought down, rolled onto his back, rolls back over and uses his feet and then walks on his knees all while being held.
No try.... great decision!!!

By Anonymous, at April 28, 2010 1:18 am
Any chance Steve Walsh can make a prick of himself, he'll take.

By Anonymous, at April 28, 2010 2:32 am
Marc B, that article is shit. Clearly, it's not taking an unbiased look at what happened, rather bitching that Steve Walsh is what cost the Brumbies the game (when it wasn't - they just didn't earn a win).

"It should not have mattered that the assistant referee advised against awarding it. Walsh was in charge and could/should have ignored the advice."

What a bunch of horseshit. If both the touch judge AND referee say "no try", then the article is just bitching, basically saying, "Steve Walsh should've given the try. That's what I think, so it must be right. Who cares if no one else thinks that; they're wrong."

Seriously, the Giteau et al. are giving Australian rugby a bad name, whining like a bunch of babies.

By Marc C, at April 28, 2010 3:09 am
double movement?

that's bullshit.

straight up, that's a try

By Anonymous, at April 28, 2010 3:16 am
There's no such thing in rugby union as a double movement.
That's a rugby league rule.
The laws are clear.
Once tackled, a player can play the ball once, in any direction. This includes lunging over the try line.
Ashley-Cooper had been tackled, and then played the ball, to score the try.
That's legal, no problem. It was a try.
The worrying thing is that the ref talked about a 'double movement' which isn't in the IRB law book. It's also worrying that the ref didn't go to the TMO.

By Anonymous, at April 28, 2010 3:28 am
2:05, he's clearly still moving himself forward with his feet, despite being held. So, while it might not be called "double movement" in the lawbook, the try isn't there because he didn't release the ball or immediately play it after the tackle was made (ie - he continued to hold the ball and move his body forward).

By rug, at April 28, 2010 4:03 am
@ Marc C
Before anyone accuses me of bias, a little history of Steve Walsh.
Suspened at the 2003 world cup for an altercation with an English Fitness trainer.
Sidelined by the IRB in 2005 after complaints made by British and Irish Lions after a test match.
Dismissed from the NZRU in 2009 because the problems he 'caused and 'drinking issues'.
Moved to the ARU, where he refed this match. The Brumbies submitted thier less than flattering match report.
And now he's been stood down and won't be refing their match coming up.

By Marc B, at April 28, 2010 6:53 am
Double Movement

By Steve Walsh, at April 28, 2010 8:06 am
Clearly a try...yet another poor decision by Walsh who having already received a suspension for poor discipline shows what a poor ref he is. He has already had run in with England before and it shows when he still Refs now.

By Unknown, at April 28, 2010 9:08 am
"suspension for poor discipline shows what a poor ref he is. He has already had run in with England before and it shows when he still Refs now."

That has nothing to do with his ability to referee. Most referees seem to back Walsh's decision. While the try COULD easily have been given and no one would have objected, it was perfectly legal to disallow it; in fact, it was the right judgment to make, since AAC's "momentum" wasn't what carried him over the line.

What's also important to remember is that Walsh was going partially off the recommendation of the touch judge.

I'm hoping Giteau gets called up by the citing committee for violating the "Don't be such a bitch" clause in the SANZAR contracts.

By tickle my pickle, at April 28, 2010 9:52 am
T - R - Y

By ciano, at April 28, 2010 10:27 am
100% Try, but it was the touch jdg to tell Walsh what to blow!

Walsh mistake was to not go upstairs and call TMO!

By Madflyhalf, at April 28, 2010 10:41 am
AAC was held, his knees touched the ground and he could not play the ball. Full stop.

By vinniechan, at April 28, 2010 1:46 pm
To those who said the tackler did not release him, this is because there's a new rule in place that the tackler has to release the player.

By vinniechan, at April 28, 2010 1:47 pm
if that wasnt a try then neither was bekkeräs try against the reds which was very similiar. bad call by Walsh.

i have not seen a badly reffereed game like that all season overall apart from some minor troubles with interpretaion at the start of the season the refs have been excellent!

By zacaria, at April 28, 2010 2:07 pm
Watch his knees at ~ 2mins into the video.

Referee should have gone to the TMO, but I think he was right.

By Emmet, at April 28, 2010 3:46 pm
Double movement. Used his knees while being held in the tackle. Good call

By Steve-o, at April 28, 2010 5:17 pm
No try. No way. You can't just keep going when your held on the ground. Place the ball yes, but keep propelling yourself forward no. Penalty. You have to release the ball. Simple as that.

And if you want to take about momentum, it is if your natural momentum takes you over, not continuing to drive yourself forward. Like Lyndon Bray (referees boss) said, he got that one right.

The brumbies just look like a pack of whinging little girls. No offence to little girls.

By Timbo, at April 28, 2010 5:19 pm
Walsh should have gone to the TMO, but I lean towards no try here, I thought it was a double-movement.

Which ironically made this one of the rare occasions when he was correct, he was utter rubbish for pretty much the whole game, both sides suffered though not nearly as much as the spectators.

Hoiles however still has something to learn - okay, when you got a ref like Walsh, you gotta make him feel guilty about the crap calls he is making. Just getting in his face and being pissed off, however justified, won't do anything for your cause.

By edbok, at April 28, 2010 5:24 pm
'if that wasnt a try then neither was bekkeräs try against the reds which was very similiar. bad call by Walsh.'

Well then if that wasnt a try then none of the welsh try's against scotland in the last few minutes should have been tries.....

see how pointless and stupid i can also be?

By Im an idiot like you guys, at April 28, 2010 8:12 pm
its the scrambling legs that convince me it was not a try

By Rory, at April 28, 2010 8:23 pm
I'm not saying anything about the try, decision was made, whatever.

The reason I'm commenting is because of Giteau and his comments. As soon as we allow this bullshit (players slamming refs) we will go the same way as soccer, little to no respect for the ref and complete abuse.

Good call, Giteau nor any other player should not be able to slam a refs performance, the IRB do that privately.

I mean, Giteau has had some absolute shockers! Missing so many kicks against Scotland causing them to win, but a ref wouldn't publicly slam his performance nor slam it at all, because it isn't his place.

At the end of the day, it is just a job, and in a job you only answer to your superiors and Giteau isn't one of them.

By Les Bleus, at April 28, 2010 11:39 pm
Fair point Les Blues.
To be honest, Gitaeu doesn't have the best attitude, imo.
He has a strained relationship with some coaches and players and from time to time is a little petulent.
Nothing major, just not the most gracious and humble guy.
He was maybe a little out of line with his comments about Walsh.
The reporter led him to his answers with some loaded questions but he should have known better than to bite and crtisise Walsh so openly.
I'm glad Walsh got dropped though, he ruined that game with some pedantic reffing and at the very least he should have gone to the TMO for the Ashley-Cooper try attempt.
He made a mess of the scrums too.

By Jon, at April 29, 2010 5:12 am
Jon

I agree about the Giteau thing and in parts about the Walsh thing, he gave stupid penalties. But the try, he shouldn't have gone to the TMO. The TMO is only if you have a doubt he scored the try, he knew he grounded the ball, which is why you go to the TMO, the rest is up to the touch judges and the ref.

So he called a double movement, which to be fair it is a 50/50 call and in rugby, one team loses, one team wins. It would be different if it were 80 minutes into the game and the Brumbies needed it for a win but it was 9-3 and in the 28th minute. It wasn't a match decider, Brumbies didn't deserve to win, they played aweful rugby and the final score was 19-12, meaning if they got the try it would have been 19-19 but also considering the bad form of Giteaus kicking the Tahs would probably have won 19-17.

Conviction is a luxury of those on the sidelines.

My two cents.

By Les Bleus, at April 29, 2010 2:29 pm
Regarding Lyndon Bray saying Giteau deserved to be cited for his comments, "The Brumbies raised concerns over Bray's comments about Giteau to the Australian Rugby Union, and it was referred to SANZAR."

Good god...the Brumbies have to be the biggest group of little whiny girls in the S14; they'll look for any reason to complain.

By milo, at April 29, 2010 8:37 pm
Not a try...he was on his knee before using his hand to support himself for the drive. He MUST release the ball. Good refereeing and ARing by the officials. Guys just remember they only have a second to decide what is going on and they did get it right. Please read the law book!

By Anonymous, at April 29, 2010 10:04 pm
Not a try. BTW the Brumbies so called 'whinging' is fucking mild compared to some other teams who have 50/50 calls go against them.

By rapidgrowth, at April 29, 2010 11:54 pm
Had all the symptoms of bias in the referee; didn't even stop for a replay when it was far from a clear decision to make, but to then go and award two penalties against the attacking team immediately is ridiculous.
However, although initially I was sure for a try I think he was right in not awarding it..

By Anonymous, at April 30, 2010 1:09 am
........i just think that this shit that comes off where players complain about refs and trying to get refs banned is shit....

By Anonymous, at April 30, 2010 7:34 pm
No try. Ball carrier brought to ground and held in the tackle. Ball carriers options are now to pass or release the ball (release meaning to place the ball anywhere or roll it in any direction, except forward!) If you watch the view from behind you can see the reason he has continued movement forward was down to the fact he is crawling along on his knees. Walsh was spot on with his call. Admittedly his phrasing was bull - the penalty, technically, was for holding on (15.5 b) - there is no double movement in union.

By AndyB, at April 30, 2010 10:40 pm
I agree with the call - the replay makes it obvious (2min in) - but I think maybe it makes the case for a white card - a "challenge" if you will for the referee's call. I think players and coaches should never publicly criticize refs (this isn't soccer), but a white card could effectively resolve conflicts like this (assuming the TO was as keen as Walsh to see the "double movement" - aka, "not releasing").

By i've got to poop, at May 01, 2010 6:11 am