Gloucester have poked fun at the controversial turnover that Maro Itoje won for England in the 16-15 Calcutta Cup victory against Scotland.
In a clip posted to social media by prop Jamal Ford Robinson, entitled “taking some inspiration from the weekend”, Lewis Ludlow is shown mimicking Itoje by acrobatically diving off his feet over several tackle bags at Gloucester’s training ground.
Credit: X/@jfordrob
The incident occurred just before 60 minutes with Scotland attacking inside the England 22 when Itoje appeared to go off his feet to jackal Blair Kinghorn. However, French referee Pierre Brousset, taking charge of his first Six Nations match, allowed the turnover to stand despite the protests of several Scotland players. Alex Mitchell subsequently relieved the pressure that had been building on England with a box kick clearance.
That was one of several decisions that did not go Scotland’s way from Brousset instantly awarding a try to Tommy Freeman, when he appeared to be held up, to the incorrect placement of Finn Russell’s final conversion which the Scotland fly-half missed. As Telegraph Sport revealed on Monday, Scotland have decided not to lodge a complaint to the Six Nations over Brousset’s performance which contributed to their elimination from the Championship hunt.
What is the law and was Brousset wrong?
There were 192 rucks in England’s victory and if you look hard enough I am sure you would find something wrong with a fair proportion of them. However, Itoje’s turnover appears to be particularly egregious at first glance.
Russell bursts into the England 22 and arguably should pass to his right with Kinghorn and Kyle Rowe offering a two-on-one opportunity. However, Russell is dragged down and, a few phases later, Kinghorn is tackled by Elliot Daly which is where Itoje goes for the turnover.
Almost instantly the second row’s feet leave the floor as he gets his hands on the ball, which would appear to be in violation of law 15.12 which states: “Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck.”
However, Itoje could argue that his feet were on the floor when he started to jackal, only to be lifted by Russell who again could be interpreted as sealing off.
Perhaps Scotland’s biggest grievance is that a ruck was formed by the presence of Russell, which means Itoje would not be allowed to jackal for the ball according to law 15.11: “Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.”
Again there is a counter-argument to say the ball was rolling out of the ruck and therefore it was fair game for Itoje to claim possession whether he was on his feet or not. On the referee’s microphone, Brousset was heard telling Russell that Itoje was the “first man” so a ruck has not been formed when he gets his hands on the ball.
The verdict
As ever, partisan observers could quote different laws in their arguments, but at the very least you would say England benefited from a very generous interpretation from Brousset.
