PDA

View Full Version : NO ACTION:question ref 410



cider66
13-05-11, 09:05
a blue player question 410 states that is taclked short of the gold line and the ball is " dislodged" from his grasp - surely this is a knock-on ,or is the question worded wrongly??

Phil E
13-05-11, 10:05
a blue player question 410 states that is taclked short of the gold line and the ball is " dislodged" from his grasp - surely this is a knock-on ,or is the question worded wrongly??

Depends if it goes forwards?

Can you cut and past the whole question?

L'irlandais
17-05-11, 22:05
Welcome to the forums cider66.

I hope I don't get in trouble for posting this :

Question Reference Number: 410
The Blue ball-carrier runs towards Gold's goal-line and is tackled there. The ball-carrier dives forward into in-goal, but the ball is dislodged from his grasp and falls straight down. The ball lands on the ground with the Blue player on top of it facing up. The ball is under his back. What do you do?

crossref
17-05-11, 22:05
ask the touch judge 'was it the correct ball?' and then award the try.

OB..
17-05-11, 23:05
The question says the ball went straight down, so it cannot be a knock-on. Back to you ....

chopper15
17-05-11, 23:05
If the ball fell straight down relative to the ball-carrier it would probably be no try.

The momentum imparted to the ball by the diving player would've carried the ball forward relative to the ground . . . knock- on.:hap:

Taff
17-05-11, 23:05
Question Reference Number: 410
The Blue ball-carrier runs towards Gold's goal-line and is tackled there. The ball-carrier dives forward into in-goal, but the ball is dislodged from his grasp and falls straight down. The ball lands on the ground with the Blue player on top of it facing up. The ball is under his back. What do you do? I would blow up and award a 22m Drop Out.

The Logic:
The ball is taken into in-goal by the attacking side.
It's not a knock on as it didn't go forward - it went "straight down"
Blue didn't ground the ball in-goal properly - the ball was under his back.
It can't be "held up" - because it wasn't.
So what's the correct answer? The suspense is killing me. :D

Jacko
18-05-11, 00:05
Dunno about you lot but I got a late call from one of my ARs regarding a forward pass in the build up.

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 00:05
22m must be grounded by defender, so can't be that
Try must be grounded by attacker, so can't be that

Leaves a 5m scrum to attackers.

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 00:05
Dunno about you lot but I got a late call from one of my ARs regarding a forward pass in the build up.
:rolleyes: :D :cool:

chopper15
18-05-11, 00:05
Taff, straight down has to be relative to the ball-carrier . . . but he was diving so forward relative to the ground, momentum imparted etc. I go with Robert, 5m scrum.

If he was stationary the ball could then fall straight down, but then he has to fall on it face down for a try. So 22m DO.

OB..
18-05-11, 01:05
Taff, straight down has to be relative to the ball-carrier Why does it? For me the point of specifying "straight down" is to be clear that it did not go forward.

Rit Hinners
18-05-11, 04:05
OK, if there was no knock on, the ball was not grounded by anyone, was not held up, and did not go to touch, why was the whistle blown?

Shouldn't play continue untill something happened? Since when is the whistle blown because there is a loose ball in goal?

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 04:05
It could become dangerous with people diving on bodies already on the floor, as the ball is also underneath a players back you don't want players falling on him and possibly causing a back injury to said player.

Chopper, stop reading too much into things! Straight down is as stated, straight down. not forward, not backward. Deal with the facts you have, don't make up things that might have been.

Ah! :wait:

Shh! :chin:

No! :nono:

Don't! :mad:

:noyc:





;)

Taff
18-05-11, 08:05
... Shouldn't play continue untill something happened? Since when is the whistle blown because there is a loose ball in goal?The trouble is that it isn't loose Rit - it's stuck under a player whose on his back.


It could become dangerous with people diving on bodies already on the floor, as the ball is also underneath a players back you don't want players falling on him and possibly causing a back injury to said player.I couldn't agree with you more RB; but why isn't it a 22DO instead of a scrum? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

We are forever being told to blow up asap when the ball is held up in-goal. With a player on his back over a ball on the ground this is far more dangerous, so assuming the ball isn't loose I reckon most would blow up pretty quickly (and therefore make the ball dead) rather than allowing a free for all.

As I see it, the balls been taken into in-goal by the attacking side and made dead. :chin:

Although Jackos suggestion does look tempting. :D

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 09:05
No team has made it dead, you have with your whistle.

In this event we go scrum down team moving forward, which must be the attackers as they moved forward into in-goal.

5m scrum attack.

Davet
18-05-11, 09:05
No knock-on since it was "straight down".
No try since it was under the attacker's back not chest.

Ball was taken into in goal by an attacker, and was made dead.

22m DO.

The fact that the ball was made dead by the ref for safety reasons is irrelevant. Dead is dead.

What matters is NOT who made it dead, but who took it into in-goal.

crossref
18-05-11, 09:05
the ball wasn't really dead, it was just in a dangerous place.
if play had been allowed to continue then most likey the attacker on top of it would have wriggled over touched the ball first to score the try...

so I think that
- in Law, and in equity an attacking 5m scrum is better than a drop out.
- but in real life if it happened you'd give lost forward in the tackle, scrum to defenders.

Taff
18-05-11, 09:05
the ball wasn't really dead, it was just in a dangerous place.But the ref made it dead as soon as he blew his whistle.


.. The fact that the ball was made dead by the ref for safety reasons is irrelevant. Dead is dead. What matters is NOT who made it dead, but who took it into in-goal.I'm starting to see the logic of RBs post. If we blow up for safety reasons (whether in-goal or not) it would be a scrum - I think the wording is put in to the team "last in possession".

Davet
18-05-11, 10:05
Crossref



in Law, and in equity an attacking 5m scrum is better than a drop out


No. In Law a 22m DO is correct. Equity doesn't come into it.



but in real life if it happened you'd give lost forward in the tackle, scrum to defenders.


Quite possible, and in real life no one would argue with you.

But this is not real life its a test question, mainly looking at law knowledge and sorting out the important bits from the red herrings.

If you actually separate out the stages in your head and look at it simply then the exercise can hep in real life - and even if you do award the scrum to the defenders at laest you will know why you copped out of the strict legal response.

crossref
18-05-11, 10:05
yes, but when the Laws talk about 'taken into goal and made dead' I think that they mean by the players.
If an attacker accidently passed the ball to the ref, who instinctively caught it, and carried it in goal, and then blew his whistle, I don't think you'd give a 22m then, would you?

Davet
18-05-11, 10:05
Like I said - analyse the question you just asked.

If the ball was passed to the ref before it went in goal then you would award a scrum to the side last in possession where the ball struck or was caught by the ref. Unless it was a forward pass.

The fact that the ref carried it in goal is not relevant, the ball was dead before then, ie when the ref caught it.

If the ball was passed to the ref while he was in goal then it either forward, or if the player was in-goal level or ahead of the ref then yes I'd award a 22m DO, and I suspect the attacker would shot by his coach, and fined a jug at least.

The law doesn't say "made dead by the players", just "made dead" - so any of the ways that the ball can become dead are appropriate.

Stop inferring things that are not there.

Taff
18-05-11, 10:05
Doesn't the end result depend on which law you used to make the ball dead? :chin:


.... If the ball was passed to the ref while he was in goal then it either forward, or if the player was in-goal level or ahead of the ref then yes I'd award a 22m DO and I suspect the attacker would shot by his coach, and fined a jug at least.If the ball is touched by the ref in goal after last being played by an attacker, I thought it was a try. :o

chopper15
18-05-11, 12:05
Chopper, stop reading too much into things! Straight down is as stated, straight down. not forward, not backward. Deal with the facts you have, don't make up things that might have been.

A forward moving ball-carrier is seen by the ref to apparently drop the ball 'straight down' and it hits the deck.

Knock forward or play on, Robert? You're the ref.:hap: I think we all know the answer if he was stationary.

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 13:05
The law doesn't say "made dead by the players", just "made dead" - so any of the ways that the ball can become dead are appropriate.

Stop inferring things that are not there.

Yes it does!

Law 13.10 Definitions:


A drop-out is a drop kick taken by the defending team. The drop-out may be taken anywhere on or behind the 22-metre line.
A drop-out is used to restart play after an attacking player has put or taken the ball into the in-goal, without infringement, and a defending player has made the ball dead there or it has gone into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

My bold, none of those have occurred, it's a 5m attacking scrum.

So, IT DOES matter who grounded it.

(In poker terms, I'll see your statement and raise with law, your move :D )

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 13:05
A forward moving ball-carrier is seen by the ref to apparently drop the ball 'straight down' and it hits the deck.

Knock forward or play on, Robert? You're the ref.:hap: I think we all know the answer if he was stationary.
I said no, chopper!

:p

:D

Davet
18-05-11, 13:05
If the ball is touched by the ref in goal after last being played by an attacker, I thought it was a try.

If it's in the possession of an attacking player. This is a loose ball that has been passed by an attacker.

Robbie,

OK - But I still don't buy it.

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 14:05
Aye, fair play.

It's an unusual scenario I agree, I suppose I'd better go and check the answer is right on LRUL now, lol.

Rit Hinners
18-05-11, 14:05
It could become dangerous with people diving on bodies already on the floor, as the ball is also underneath a players back you don't want players falling on him and possibly causing a back injury to said player.




Well, if players throwing theirselves onto the ground in the vicinity of a ball and other players already on the ground why aren't more of what passes for a ruck in today's game blown up as unplayable?

If a situation is deemed unsafe ingoal why is it acceptable 5 meters back up the field?

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 14:05
You can't have a ruck or maul in goal, and players are all diving legally to ground the ball.

Within the field of play the players must stay on their feet.

Question is right, 5m scrum to Blue.

Rit Hinners
18-05-11, 14:05
That was not my point Robert.

If it is UNSAFE in goal, what makes it safe elsewhere? Especially considering it is actually against the Law elsewhere and within the Law ingoal.

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 14:05
It is safe elsewhere because players are staying on their feet over the top of the players on the ground, the law prevents them from falling on a player on the ground.

The player on the ground must move out of the way of the ball to allow others to play it, so it is not unsafe in the field of play.

However, in-goal the players do not have to roll out of the way, there is no tackle, ruck or maul laws, and players are allowed to attempt to ground the ball, which is under a player who is the wrong was up on the floor.

Quick peep and 5m scrum will a) stop anyone getting injured b) stop any flare ups from players being unpleased at being landed on and c) be in keeping with the law.

Rit Hinners
18-05-11, 14:05
You obviously haven't seen much "elite" rugby if you state that "players are staying on their feet over the top of the players on the ground".

crossref
18-05-11, 14:05
If a situation is deemed unsafe ingoal why is it acceptable 5 meters back up the field?


I have to say that if somehow we ended up with a player on his back with the ball trapped beneath him anywhere on the pitch, I'd probably blow for safety. It just sounds like a potential broken back scenario...

(unless I guess there are no opponents anywhere near )

Robert Burns
18-05-11, 14:05
You obviously haven't seen much "elite" rugby if you state that "players are staying on their feet over the top of the players on the ground".
I don't referee elite rugby, and neither do you.

There is occasions where players go to ground, but they are not diving on the player on the ground, they generally dive over to seal the ball (illegally of course). And as stated, the player on the ground is supposed to move.

None of which are the case if in-goal.


Crossref, I'm of that opinion too.

OB..
18-05-11, 16:05
How often do you see a player on his back on the ball? That is the crucial fact. It is not a generic ruck/maul/pile up question.

L'irlandais
18-05-11, 21:05
The possible answers were :

A. Award a try to Blue.
B. Award a scrum, with Blue throwing-in, five metres from the goal-line and in line with where the ball landed.
C. Award a scrum, with Gold throwing-in, five metres from the goal-line and in line with where the ball landed.
D. Award a drop-out to Gold; a drop-kick taken anywhere on or behind the 22-metre line.

Davet
18-05-11, 21:05
Where's the option to fine the blue player a jug? - which is what would happen, plus he'd be eating his after match meal in a frock.

Robert Burns
19-05-11, 00:05
Where's the option to fine the blue player a jug? - which is what would happen, plus he'd be eating his after match meal in a frock.
Laws of the club are not laws of the game.
:D :D :D :D

Taff
19-05-11, 09:05
How often do you see a player on his back on the ball? That is the crucial fact. It is not a generic ruck/maul/pile up question.So this was a "safety" question, rather than an ingoal or ruck question?

Robert Burns
19-05-11, 11:05
It was a 'you have blown, what's next?' question.

chopper15
19-05-11, 12:05
Before this winds up, can somebody confirm the 'straight down' issue please?

I do appreciate in context of that scenario it was acceptable.

Straight down, to me at least, has to be relative to the ball-carrier . . . but he was moving so it was forward relative to the ground, momentum imparted etc.

So, throw forward sanction?

If he was stationary, of course, it's probable the ball can fall straight down. So play on acceptable?:hap:

OB..
19-05-11, 12:05
Chopper - Phil-E raised the point in #2. What was wrong with the answers at #5, #12, #14, #17, and #26? How many times do we have to give you the same answer?

crossref
19-05-11, 12:05
in the context of this question 'straight down' meant 'in such a way that it was not a knock-on' (otherwise it would have been a trivial quesiotn, rather than an interesting poser)

in the general rugby world there's no official definition of 'straight down' so you would rely on natural meaning and context.

Robert Burns
19-05-11, 12:05
Chopper, straight down could men that the ball was released backward but because of it's motion it went straight down.

Don't get hung up on it, as said if it looked forward people would give the knock on, no arguments, this one didn't look forward.

Remember we only blow for clear and obvious.

L'irlandais
19-05-11, 20:05
Gentlemen,
Do they have cider in Cornwall?

Chopper imagine if you will Sir Issac Newton sitting under that apple tree, on the day when a historically ripe fruit, so inspired him. (You got the image, in mind?) Okay now imagine (if you will) the apple as it falls - the force of gravity causes it to fall straight down! Simple enough concept, although I do accept it leaves precious little room for any argument, but then again who's arguing?

chopper15
19-05-11, 21:05
Funny how much Sir Isaac's 'straight down' apple differs to Mr O'Driscols 'straight up' ball when he was on his forward run. :hap:

I assume you are familiar with that incident aswell?

Rit Hinners
20-05-11, 00:05
L'irlanddais, are you denying that the rotation of the earth imparted momentum to the apple and so it was actually traveling east at a velocity equal to that of the earth's rotation and so it only appeared to fall straight down? ;) :wow: :D

didds
20-05-11, 10:05
L'irlanddais, are you denying that the rotation of the earth imparted momentum to the apple and so it was actually traveling east at a velocity equal to that of the earth's rotation and so it only appeared to fall straight down? ;) :wow: :D

the ultimate momentum interpretation :-)

then of course you also have the earth's orbit around the sun to consider,. and the solar system's own movement around the galaxy and the galaxy's movement thru the universe...

didds

Davet
20-05-11, 10:05
And then the fact that the whole galaxy is simply a figment of someone's imagination.

I hope it's mine....

Robert Burns
20-05-11, 11:05
Don't forget to factor in the gravitational effect of the moon! :rolleyes:

chopper15
20-05-11, 12:05
Just for the record, gents, it's play-on for O'D's 'straight-up' throw and Sir Isaac's apple drop, but KO for the forward-moving big girl's blouse. :clap:

. . . . . in my most humble opinion you understand?:hap:

Phil E
20-05-11, 13:05
What about the giant turtle and the elephants? :confused:

Davet
20-05-11, 13:05
Phil E

That's reality.

We live in the fictional world. At least I hope so. Wouldn't it be a bummer if this was reality?

chopper15
20-05-11, 13:05
Phil E

That's reality.

We live in the fictional world. At least I hope so. Wouldn't it be a bummer if this was reality?

So why doesn't Steele get an orangutan to stop the RFU chasing after a dick-head?

Robert Burns
20-05-11, 14:05
Wow,

Who's really the patrician then?

Davet
20-05-11, 15:05
He's the man.

One man: one vote.

Taff
23-05-11, 23:05
.... If the ball was passed to the ref while he was in goal then it either forward, or if the player was in-goal level or ahead of the ref then yes I'd award a 22m DO ...


... If the ball is touched by the ref in goal after last being played by an attacker, I thought it was a try. :o


If it's in the possession of an attacking player. This is a loose ball that has been passed by an attacker.Sorry, but I still don't get it. Doesn't 6.A.9 apply?


6.A.9 THE BALL TOUCHING THE REFEREE
(a) If the ball or the ball carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues. If either team gains an advantage in the field of play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.
(b) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.

Davet
24-05-11, 10:05
(b) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.


6.A.9 is what I was referring to. In possession of....

ruareftrev91
25-05-11, 18:05
Fellas!
The ball can go straight down.

Laws are meant to be for guidance, aren't they?
It isn't always black and white, there are numerous shades of grey.
I agree with Robert Burns' decision. 5m scrum attacking side put in - the most common sense answer.
Can't say I've ever seen it happen though.

L'irlandais
27-05-11, 21:05
So why doesn't Steele get an orangutan to stop the RFU chasing after a dick-head?Perhaps, because he's not Ankh-Morporkian.

It is a bummer Phil. Appearantly what we thought was just a figment of our collective imagination, is in fact real ; or as "real" as things get, on this particular planet (...to be perfectly precise.)