Sam Harrison's yellow card v Harlequins

[Masood]

I'm trying to understand the rules of the game, so apologies for the basic question...

I was watching highlights of the Tigers v Quins game and Sam Harrison was yelow-carded towards the end of the game for some offence. I couldn't figure out why. Does anyone know which rule he'd broken? Thanks

Highlights available here if you need to refer to it:
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/aviva-pre ... highlights

[longlivethecrumbie]

I've not yet watched the game back yet, but I think it was for collapsing/pulling down the rolling maul.

[ourla]

As I recall he came in from the side which is illegal.

He then tried to rip the ball out.

[covrich]

Was that the collapsing of the Maul??? If so I am surprised it wasn't a PT.

[ourla]

Was that the collapsing of the Maul??? If so I am surprised it wasn't a PT.

Harrison didn't collapse it, he tried to rip the ball out (from the side). Everybody apart from the ref thought it was a PT.

[DickyP]

Was that the collapsing of the Maul??? If so I am surprised it wasn't a PT.

Harrison didn't collapse it, he tried to rip the ball out (from the side). Everybody apart from the ref thought it was a PT.

Disagree - nobody except the Quins management and supporters - not even all their players - thought PT. As he didn't collapse the maul there we more than enough Tigers defenders around to make the scoring of a try uncertain.

Anyway his real 'crime' was getting caught.

[G.K]

Was that the collapsing of the Maul??? If so I am surprised it wasn't a PT.

Harrison didn't collapse it, he tried to rip the ball out (from the side). Everybody apart from the ref thought it was a PT.

Correct - penalty from in at the side. Harrison then tried to rip the ball and the Quins player then accidently on purpose fell over. There was cover so can't be sure a try was going to be scored. Correct decision by the ref (one of a few corect).

Another point was that Quins should not have even been there in the first place. They were incorrectly awarded a penalty at the scrum where the first offence was Sinkler not binding correctly, second was their Hooker standing up caused by Marler turning in.

[ourla]

He tried to rip the ball out because he knew a try was a near certainty. If you believe anything else you are wearing Tiger stripe specs.

[Masood]

Thanks for the replies. Yes it looks like a "side pull". Here's a picture of it:

http://i63.tinypic.com/2z5107b.png

You mention PT. What does PT stand for? Penalty?

The commentator on the highlights said that Harrison "took one for the team", which presumably means that Harrison deliberately committed the foul for the team's benefit. Is this because if Harrison had not intervened, there was a danger that Quins would have carried the ball over for a try in the maul?

[Norfolk & Goode]

Clearly no try was 'certain' to be scored because there were covering defenders, the maul was sufficiently far away from the try line before it got collapsed by (IMO) a Quins player going off his feet and folding in on the ball carrier. Right call ref.

If you believe anything else then you need specs.

[Masood]

Clearly no try was 'certain' to be scored because there were covering defenders, the maul was sufficiently far away from the try line before it got collapsed by (IMO) a Quins player going off his feet and folding in on the ball carrier. Right call ref.

If you believe anything else then you need specs.

I understand, thanks.
And I already wear specs.

[Doghashadhisday]

Clearly no try was 'certain' to be scored because there were covering defenders, the maul was sufficiently far away from the try line before it got collapsed by (IMO) a Quins player going off his feet and folding in on the ball carrier. Right call ref.

If you believe anything else then you need specs.

I understand, thanks.
And I already wear specs.

Masood I think you misunderstood Norfolks last sentence about specs, it was n response to another posters comments

[Masood]

Clearly no try was 'certain' to be scored because there were covering defenders, the maul was sufficiently far away from the try line before it got collapsed by (IMO) a Quins player going off his feet and folding in on the ball carrier. Right call ref.

If you believe anything else then you need specs.

I understand, thanks.
And I already wear specs.

Masood I think you misunderstood Norfolks last sentence about specs, it was n response to another posters comments

Ah yes,I realise that now. Thanks for pointing it out.

[fleabane]

PT means Penalty Try

[ourla]

Clearly no try was 'certain' to be scored because there were covering defenders, the maul was sufficiently far away from the try line before it got collapsed by (IMO) a Quins player going off his feet and folding in on the ball carrier. Right call ref.

The maul had not collapsed when Harrison came in from the side to rip the ball out. If it had the referee would have not pinged him for it. The covering defenders were covering the ball being passed out from the maul. They were not going to prevent the drive. The ref bottled it, pure and simple.