PDA

View Full Version : [QUESTION ISSUE] Confused?!



Ovey
26-10-11, 13:10
Question Reference Number: 399

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?

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.

Incorrect - You answered C.
The correct answer is: B.
22.1 : There are two ways a player can ground a ball in in-goal: by holding (holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms) the ball and touching the ground with it (no downward pressure required) or when the ball is on the ground and a player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck inclusive. The ball was not grounded, but held up, thus a 5-metre scrum is awarded to the attacking team.

I'm confused here - why isn't Gold given a scrum for a knock forward (dropped in the process of trying to ground)? I can't understand why the scrum is given as though the blue player was held up. Any ideas, or have I totally misunderstood the question and answer?

crossref
26-10-11, 13:10
the question says


the ball is dislodged from his grasp and falls straight down.

which is saying : it's not a knock on, as it didn't go forwards.

In practice if this bizarre, chopperesque incident ever actually happened I am sure 99% of refs would

a) laugh
b) call: lost forward in the tackle, scrum gold, 5m out.

rubyref
26-10-11, 13:10
The point is that ball goes straight down, not forward, so no knock-on.

Ball is not touched down or made dead so held up.

Ovey
26-10-11, 13:10
Ah, yeah I suppose I did read it as "lost forward" and not as "straight down". Thanks guys! Although I think I'd have to agree with you Crossref that most would probably see it as funny and a knock forward!

Taff
26-10-11, 14:10
The phrase "held-up" is a bit peculiar as the ball isn't actually held up at all - it just can't be grounded. How can it be "held-up" when it's on the ground?

Personally, I would have thought that 22.11 was more relevant than 22.10.

The Logic: The ball was taken into in-goal by the attacking side and became dead, in which case I would have given a 22DO. :chin:

rubyref
26-10-11, 14:10
Taff, ball doesn't go out of in-goal across DBL or TiG (or touch a player who is) so 22.11 is not relevant.

Ball is dead (contrary to my earlier post when I meant that ball had not gone out of in-goal) by virtue of player being held-up and not able to ground the ball. 22.10 applies.

Taff
26-10-11, 14:10
Taff, ball doesn't go out of in-goal across DBL or TiG (or touch a player who is) so 22.11 is not relevant.But by that logic, 22.10 doesn't apply either, as we haven't got a player carrying the ball - he dropped it.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

I accept it didn't cross the DBL or TIG line, but it is "BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL" ie the title of law 22.11.

crossref
26-10-11, 14:10
perhaps you could apply


22.15 DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING
If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal, play is re-started by
a 5-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team
throws in the ball.


(but it's a lot easier if the ball actually went forward a smidgeon.

Taff
26-10-11, 15:10
perhaps you could apply doubt about grounding.But we know it wasn't grounded. There is no doubt.


... but it's a lot easier if the ball actually went forward a smidgeon.Wouldn't it just? I'm sure it went forward. :biggrin:

crossref
26-10-11, 15:10
Wouldn't it just? I'm sure it went forward. :biggrin:

yep, it certainly looked forward to me...

OB..
26-10-11, 17:10
Question Reference Number: 399

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?Answer: Wait to see if some quick witted player rushes up to ground the ball, and then award a try or touchdown accordingly.

The ball is not dead at that point, so you do not have to blow your whistle.

If you do blow it, then why not apply Law 20.4 (d)?Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

Waspsfan
26-10-11, 20:10
'The ball went straight down'

Relative to the ground or to the player who is of course moving forward! Oh dear, what have I done.

chopper15
26-10-11, 22:10
Shouldn't the ref order an immediate scrum and give the throw-in to the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage?:hap:

If not, why not play on? Penalise the ex.ball-carrier for not attempting to roll away? Am I getting warm?:biggrin:

Would I be wrong in thinking any of these would be OK?:sad:

OB..
27-10-11, 01:10
Shouldn't the ref order an immediate scrum
.Why?

chopper15
27-10-11, 01:10
.Why?

. . . . 15.8 perhaps?

Davet
27-10-11, 09:10
Why does the ex ball carrier have to roll away?

Dixie
27-10-11, 09:10
Chopper, we are in-goal. There can be no tackles, no rucks. This is why people are asking "why" the ex ball-carrier should be required to roll away, or indeed to do anything.

Taff
27-10-11, 10:10
Chopper, we are in-goal. There can be no tackles, no rucks. This is why people are asking "why" the ex ball-carrier should be required to roll away, or indeed to do anything.But by not doing anything, the former ball carrier has effectively made the ball unplayable. So my logic is the ball's been put in-goal by an attacking side and gone dead - 22DO.

crossref
27-10-11, 10:10
But by not doing anything, the former ball carrier has effectively made the ball unplayable. So my logic is the ball's been put in-goal by an attacking side and gone dead - 22DO.

it's not really dead -- it's unplayable.

a common scenario when


ball's been put in-goal by an attacking side and gone unplayable

is when a player gets over the goal line, and maul-like-thing happens in goal and collapses, ball invisible
- ball taken in by attackers
- became unplayable
- we normally call this 'held up' and attacking scrum 5m .... don't we?

OB..
27-10-11, 10:10
Why are we assuming the ball is unplayable?

crossref
27-10-11, 10:10
well, if it's still playable then as ref you don't need to do or decide anything... just watch.

OB..
27-10-11, 11:10
The original composer of the quiz, Rob Boyd, was unusual in that he took up refereeing without having played rugby. Many of his questions are designed to test your knowledge of the laws. This one appears to me to be aimed simply at the fact that you cannot score a try with your back, since the law specifies the front of the player's body.

However he set it as a scenario question, which does not really work. If he had added: "Blue rolls off the ball as a Red defender touches it down", then he would in effect be asking if Blue had scored a try or not. Without something like that, it is a classic "What happened next?"