PDA

View Full Version : Defender Held Up In-Goal



pwhaling
16-06-15, 15:06
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

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.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
16-06-15, 16:06
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

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.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?

I thought you were correct but then I thought about it and I think you may be wrong. The more I think about it I'm tending to agree with your Society view although I can appreciate where you are coming from.

I think I would concentrateon the who put it in goal bit and less of the player held up although the same could be said for attackers carrying the ball into in-goal and getting held up.

I honestly don't know and will watch this thread with interest! :biggrin:

Hopefully the decision you made was sold with a swagger and a degree of ťlan. Don't forget bullshit baffles brains!

talbazar
16-06-15, 17:06
I'll give it a go... :confused:

I believe Pwhaling was.... Drum roll.... Correct :clap:

Because:
1. Law 22.10 doesn't precise attacking vs. defending
2. Law 22.9 (just before) describes what happen for defending player in in-goal
3. Law 22.11 called "Ball dead in in-goal" doesn't cover held-up
4. It is in-line with law 22.15 "Doubt about grounding" which gives scrum attacking team

What do you think LLP? :biggrin:

Cheers,
Pierre.

crossref
16-06-15, 17:06
It's a great question.
Attacking 5m scrum feels rght, to me

Dixie
16-06-15, 18:06
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

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.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?

The law you quote covers the situation. Those who have doubts (including your Society) presumably follow the "who took it into in-goal" principle - which works for pretty much every other situation. The question is ... is there a law that supports them?

The principle derives from law 22.11, and specifies the ways that the ball is made dead if that law is to apply. 20.10 specifies a different way for the ball to become dead, and a different outcome. 22.10 immediately precedes 22.11, so it seems clear that it is intended to stand on its own.

You were correct; your Society is wrong. I'd have got it wrong too, without the luxury of time to review the texts.

Womble
16-06-15, 18:06
Is the aw specific that it should be attacking put in? why not defending put in? Attacking team held up in goal. scrum 5 attacking put in. Defending team held up in goal, scrum 5 defending put in. Just putting it out there as I have no law book here but would make rugby sense to me

ddjamo
16-06-15, 19:06
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

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.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?

Did the defending side revolt?

Dixie
17-06-15, 13:06
Is the aw specific that it should be attacking put in? why not defending put in? Attacking team held up in goal. scrum 5 attacking put in. Defending team held up in goal, scrum 5 defending put in. Just putting it out there as I have no law book here but would make rugby sense to me

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.

beckett50
17-06-15, 20:06
Like Dixie, my initial thought was 22m would be the answer, however he argues a very good point and one with which I find myself agreeing.

Thanks for bringing this scenario to light and one awaits some form of WR clarification on this point

pwhaling
17-06-15, 22:06
Did the defending side revolt?

No, it was an NRU B game. I could have awarded a virtually anything and no one would have argued.

The Fat
17-06-15, 23:06
If we go by the law book, it's a 5m attacking scrum.
I would have got it wrong in the game.

Learn something every day.

TheBFG
18-06-15, 09:06
Perhaps one for the SArefs, could be an interesting response? I've asked Laws@RFU too.

irishref
18-06-15, 09:06
I too think that on the day - if it was prior to last week when we had a similar scenario with a maul going in and out of the in-goal - I too would have applied the who brought it in logic to award a 22-drop.

But now I think 5m attacking scrum is the correct decision.

pwhaling
19-06-15, 23:06
I've emailed SA refs. We see what they say.

TheBFG
23-06-15, 09:06
Response from Laws@........

hi
Apologies for the late answer but I have been asking around the office and colleagues and no one has ever seen what you have described. We all agreed he was a Wally and should have touched the ball down for a 22 metre drop out but as he missed that opportunity it is a 5 metre scrum attack ball.

rugbyslave
23-06-15, 10:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JKFisxfSk

crossref
23-06-15, 10:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JKFisxfSk

this is posted on the wrong thread --odd that we have two such similar incidents in the same week... but this is the other one...

Browner
23-06-15, 14:06
Response from Laws@........

hi
Apologies for the late answer but I have been asking around the office and colleagues and no one has ever seen what you have described. We all agreed he was a Wally and should have touched the ball down for a 22 metre drop out but as he missed that opportunity it is a 5 metre scrum attack ball.

Agreed he was a Wally, isnt exactly a professional reply.


Did they try asking the office tea lady?!! , seriously though, does anyone know who these office/colleagues are? that possess the authority to share such opinion! ?

TheBFG
23-06-15, 16:06
Agreed he was a Wally, isnt exactly a professional reply.


Did they try asking the office tea lady?!! , seriously though, does anyone know who these office/colleagues are? that possess the authority to share such opinion! ?

I believe that one of them IS Tony Spreadbury

Browner
23-06-15, 18:06
I believe that one of them IS Tony Spreadbury

LOL.

What's he doing in the 'referees dept', surely he should be out heading up 'developing professional referees' !:biggrin:

Wombles suggested logic makes more sense, Its possible that 22.10 omits forgets that a defender' could get held up, otherwise law might have said


. Whenever a ball is held and not grounded inside the in-goal area, a 5-metre scrum is awarded with the attacking team throwing in the ball.

Phil E
24-06-15, 09:06
I believe that one of them IS Tony Spreadbury

Spreaders is a tea lady at the RFU :wow:

crossref
15-07-15, 17:07
so this one made SA Refs


Question: An attacking player kicks the ball into in-goal, and a defending player picks up the ball and is swamped by attackers so he cannot ground the ball. What would be the correct restart?

Thanks, Paul.

Marius van der Westhuizen: Hi Paul,

Good question as you donít see that all that often! The outcome would be a scrum and the attacking team would feed the ball as per Law 22.10.

Regards, Marius

which is exactly the decision made by pwhaling in the OP....

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-498--marius-van-der-westhuizen/2829630/

ddjamo
15-07-15, 18:07
Right in the ole van der Westhuizen