PDA

View Full Version : knock down after a pileup



ex-lucy
26-08-06, 18:08
pileup midfield, one of those rucky/ dropped mauly thingys ... ball comes out on black's side. Black 9 has both hands on and is clear of pileup. Green 2 leans over pileup and bec 9 takes his time, knocks the ball down out of black 9's possession. ref gives a pen against green.

Ball was out.
no ruck.
no maul.
no offside.
why penalty?

spmilligan
26-08-06, 19:08
Didnt see the incident, but if Green is on top of pile up, therefore in contact with the ground through the other players and off his feet when he knocks ball out of blacks hands he is technically on the ground and therefore out of the equation. Possible explanation? maybe, maybe not.

OB..
26-08-06, 20:08
Did the ball go forward with respect to Green (in the referee's opinion)? If so, deliberate knock-on.

SONA
26-08-06, 23:08
Or these come to mind when I think about that situation,

16.3 (d)

16.4 (d) & or (e)

I also view that as destructive play, not constructive play.

Robert Burns
27-08-06, 02:08
But if the 9 takes too long, tough luck, should be faster!

Davet
27-08-06, 11:08
What is wrong with destructive play.

Tackling is pretty destructive.

ex-lucy
27-08-06, 11:08
16.3 (d)
the ruck was over, the ball was out and in the 9's hands.
so no pens to do with rucks are an option.
16.4 (d) & or (e)
2 wasnt on the ground, he dived/leant over the pile up, not off his feet.

yes, it was destructive but it was a valid (IMHO) defensive option, if a 9 stands there with the ball in his hands looking around for options then knocking the ball out of his hands is a valid option.
the only possible thought for me that the ref said it was an intentional knock on ... but black 9 was in possession and green 2 knocked it down, i cant see how that is a knock on.
And as davet says there is quite alot of destructive play in rugby ... e.g. pushing in scrums, mauls etc .. if you mean negative ... then same really.

OB..
27-08-06, 11:08
If Green knocked the ball forward, I would prefer to rule that a deliberate knock-on. If you don't you open up a whole bag of worms. Players would have license to punch the ball forwards out of an opponent's hands as a means of advancing the ball, and you are not supposed to do that with your hands.

SONA
27-08-06, 14:08
I see your points if there is a delay by 9 in getting the ball out. Certainly that is fair play. More often I have seen players diving over the ruck or reaching up from the ground and an offsides position, reaching out from the fringe, and killing the ball as the 9 is getting the ball out of clearly won possession. Often we tell the othere team "Black ball" "Green hands out" to facilitate continual play. The idea is to keep the ball moving and not have to blow the whistle. Maybe "destructive" is not the right choice of wording. I feel we have an obligation to allow the ball to be available to the team that fairly won the ball in the ruck or maul by managing the players who are on the fringe, on the ground around the ruck and maul, and prevent players from diving over or on top of pile ups to prevent the ball from coming out that has clearly been won. The game is to be played by players with the ball while on there feet. No?

ex-lucy
27-08-06, 20:08
agree with nearly all that SONA ... when it relates to a ruck/ maul/tackle thingy... but in my scenario ... the ball was out and clear of the ruck, in 9s hands. 9 was taking his time choosing his option and 2 leant over and tried to dispossess him and knocked the ball out and down.
Perhaps Lewis went with OB..'s theory.
And i shall in future.
If 2 had leant over and tackled 9 or just pinched the ball off 9 then i guess, play on.

Deeps
27-08-06, 21:08
16.3 (d)
the ruck was over, the ball was out and in the 9's hands.
so no pens to do with rucks are an option.
16.4 (d) & or (e)
2 wasnt on the ground, he dived/leant over the pile up, not off his feet.


Ah! That's the other great misconception. As soon as 2 leaned on a player on the floor he himself is technically on the floor; being off your feet is a players' cry, it's not what the law says (and I quote) Law 15.6 (a)... Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground. So 2 was technically on the ground and therefore illegally playing the ball.

didds
28-08-06, 08:08
Ah! That's the other great misconception. As soon as 2 leaned on a player on the floor he himself is technically on the floor; being off your feet is a players' cry, it's not what the law says (and I quote) Law 15.6 (a)... Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground. So 2 was technically on the ground and therefore illegally playing the ball.

but ex-lucy said...

"2 wasnt on the ground, he dived/leant over the pile up, not off his feet."

We do not know from this that the player WAS leaning ON the pile of bodies. If he is behind the back foot and can lean over without touching anybody, then he's not on the ground, QED.

(Although short of being an 8 foot tall octopus then its unlikely I'll grant ;-)

didds

ex-lucy
28-08-06, 12:08
anyway .. from PR's analysis of the match's pens ..

South Africa
Tackle: 5 (Tyibilika*, Muller*, Du Randt*, Cronjé, Wannenburg)
Off-side: 1 (Tyibilika)
Scrum: 2 (Du Randt*, Botha)
Discipline: 1 (Smit - deliberate knock-on)

it was the last listed, so now it has been explained.

Deeps
28-08-06, 12:08
but ex-lucy said...

"2 wasnt on the ground, he dived/leant over the pile up, not off his feet."

We do not know from this that the player WAS leaning ON the pile of bodies. If he is behind the back foot and can lean over without touching anybody, then he's not on the ground, QED.

(Although short of being an 8 foot tall octopus then its unlikely I'll grant ;-)

didds

Agree entirely.