PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] player on the ground presents the ball over his own try line



StroudBoy
05-04-16, 17:04
Hi i'm a newbie here and not a ref, but help with coaching a youth U14's team and find this site a useful source for understanding the 'Laws of the game.

Unfortunately for me at the weekend we did not have a ref available and as it was only a friendly youth game and with no-one else putting their hands up I ended up having to ref the game.

My question arises from a situation that occurred during the game.

A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground, at this point an opposition attacking player again legal on his feet competes for and gets hands the ball. The player on the ground presents the ball back over his own try line to his team whilst the attacking player is still in contact with the ball.

1. Does presenting (pushing the ball along the ground not touching down) the ball over your own line whilst on the floor act as carrying the ball over the try line and grounding it? - 5m scrum attacking team

2. since the attacking player had contact with the ball could/should a try be awarded?

In this case I deemed the player on the ground to be holding in preventing the ball being turned over, and as they were virtually on the try line awarded a penalty try to the attacking team, but wanted to clarify what the correct decision should had been if he hadn't held in. i.e the ball is presented back over the try line by the defending team and then downwards pressure is applied by an attacking player.

Luckily the result of the game was not effected by my decision.

Thanks

DocY
05-04-16, 17:04
I might not be picturing the situation correctly, but to try to answer:

1. No, if he didn't touch it down he didn't ground it (though it's a fine line and in practice I'd expect to see a defender ground the ball here for an attacking scrum)

2. That you're asking suggests that it wasn't clear and obvious, so no. It sounds like the defender was in possession, so he'd be the one who grounded it. Similarly if the attacking player was in possession and a defender still got his hands on the ball it would still be a try.

Hope that helps.

Rushforth
05-04-16, 17:04
First of all, congratulations on putting your hand up. Even if you don't ref all that often (while primarily coaching) it will help your coaching. And welcome ;)

You seem to have a good grip on the laws, but remember that "downward pressure" is not a requirement, and to confuse the issue rucks and mauls only exist in the "field of play", as opposed to the "playing area" (Law 1).

I personally would be inclined to have gone for the try, as you describe it, because that solution rewards the attacking player (the individual) without penalising the defender for something they'll see happen on tv elsewhere on the field.

My own rule of thumb is that if a player on the ground has support, I'll give benefit of the doubt for hands staying on the ball (not going back on, though), but not if they are isolated and a player from the opposition on his feet wants to play.

That said, a player on the ground only has three options - get up with it, pass it, release it - none of which are "ground it", particularly if the ball started in front of the goal line and ended up behind it. You can be lax on the "immediate" criterion, but not add an allowable action, IMO at least.

So in Law your PT was probably correct, it's just that I personally prefer to use those when there is no other option. Technically a PT should be accompanied by a YC, which I feel extremely harsh given the scenario you presented. And as you say, the attacking player had contact with the ball, so there is certainly a "could have" element.

leaguerefaus
05-04-16, 19:04
The only point which I can comment on is that if a player is holding the ball, another team's player putting his hand on it is not sufficient to negate possession. So it's certainly not a try. I will leave the penalty try question to others :)

Rushforth
05-04-16, 19:04
The only point which I can comment on is that if a player is holding the ball, another team's player putting his hand on it is not sufficient to negate possession. So it's certainly not a try. I will leave the penalty try question to others :)

A player on the ground in rugby UNION cannot be in possession of the ball. He (or she) may place the ball behind him - this would never ever happen in rugby LEAGUE to the best of my knowledge - after which the confusion of a "ruck-like thingy in-goal" becomes an issue.

Coincidentally a standing ball-carrier - my side's scrum-half last sunday, I was just spectating - was pushed over the line and the flanker grabbing him managed to score a try. There was a brief discussion after the match, and the player was happy with the referee's decision that the attacker actively bringing the ball to ground deserved to be rewarded. The case is not identical - no chance of a penalty try obviously - but the referee has been at or above that (mid) level for well over 10 years, and was right there to see what was going on.

crossref
05-04-16, 19:04
A player on the ground in rugby UNION cannot be in possession of the ball..

that's clearly not correct.

a player who is tackled can reach out and ground the ball for a try. This is common place
so a player who is tackled can, equally, reach out and ground the ball behind own line for a 5m scrum

(in both cases would need to act immediately, of course)

I think the real question here whether a player can ground the ball 'accidentally' - ie if you place the ball behind you, intending simply to make it available for your own team in the standard way, but you happen to ground it behing your own try-line, without realising, is it still a touchdown and a 5m scrum? (I'd say yes)

Pegleg
05-04-16, 19:04
For me the the player omn the ground must act immediately. If another player gets to play the ball and not the player before he has done so then he has not complied with the law.

So for me it is a penalty.

Now on the the Question of the PT:

Did the defender by failing to release prevent PROBABLE try?

Only you can answer that one.


If he did then we have a PT. There is then the possiblity of a yellow card if you feel the action of the defender was intentional offending.

If not it is just a PK

OB..
05-04-16, 20:04
Basically I agree with Pegleg. Was the attacker a legitimate jackler? If so the tackled player failed to release the ball to him. However if the attacker merely got his hand on the ball as the tackled player placed it over the line, then it was not a try since you cannot decide which team "first grounded the ball" (22.15). 5m scrum.

A PT requires the defender to have done something illegal. If he has, you judge the seriousness of the offence (at our level anyway) when deciding if a card is also appropriate.

The Fat
05-04-16, 20:04
Trying to picture your scenario but it sounds like things happened in the following order.
1) Defender wins turnover ball at ruck and is now the ball carrier (BC)
2) BC is tackled (taken to ground)
3) Attacking player takes up position over the tackled BC (assume he get there legally i.e. through his gate) and gets hands on the ball
*4) To avoid losing possession, BC pushes the ball along the ground, towards his support players, to a point where the ball is now in-goal with BC still with hand on or holding the ball and attacking player still with hands on the ball.

My decision is PK against tackled BC for not releasing.
The tackled player only has the option to pass, place or push the ball if there is no opposition player, who is on his feet and legally in position, with hands on the ball attempting to win possession. If there is an opponent in such a position, the tackled player MUST release the ball. That has now become his only option.

I don't believe the OP to be a PT situation.

* Incidentally, if the tackled player did not have an opposition player over him with hands on the ball, and the tackled player presented the ball back on or over the goal line and he still has possession (i.e. he still has ball in hand or hand on ball), the ball has been touched down. He does not need to press down on the ball.
See Law 22.1(a)

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required

L'irlandais
05-04-16, 21:04
It is not clear in the OP if the ball carrier was tackled or if he went to ground.
It is not clear (to me anyway) if the attacking player was the would-be tackler or simply a.n. Other player.

I agree with OB 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.

tim White
05-04-16, 21:04
FIRST offence appears to be failing to release the ball to a legal player on his feet-this appears to be a PK offence.. Did this prevent a 'probable try'? (would the attacker probably have picked up the ball and scored before another defender intervened?) .

Rushforth
05-04-16, 21:04
It is not clear in the OP if the ball carrier was tackled or if he went to ground.
It is not clear (to me anyway) if the attacking player was the would-be tackler or simply a.n. Other player.

I agree with OB 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.

Crossref says that a defender can reach back over his own line, just as an attacking ball-carrier can forwards. He definitely is correct with the latter point, but does this clearly extend to a defender "pushing the ball along, not grounding" as per the OP?

I personally consider the scenarios as very different, but who am I?

The Fat
05-04-16, 21:04
Crossref says that a defender can reach back over his own line, just as an attacking ball-carrier can forwards. He definitely is correct with the latter point, but does this clearly extend to a defender "pushing the ball along, not grounding" as per the OP?

I personally consider the scenarios as very different, but who am I?

If the defender "pushes" the ball along the ground without losing contact between ball and hand and the ball touches the goal line, he has grounded the ball. Alternatively, he can simply reach out and place the ball into his own in-goal for a touch down with subsequent attacking 5m scrum

Nigib
05-04-16, 22:04
This is an U14 game. Keep it simple. Reward positive attacking play. Attacking player in contact with ball when grounded in-goal. No foul play. Try. No-one is going to argue, even in the bar.

Rushforth
05-04-16, 22:04
If the defender "pushes" the ball along the ground without losing contact between ball and hand and the ball touches the goal line, he has grounded the ball. Alternatively, he can simply reach out and place the ball into his own in-goal for a touch down with subsequent attacking 5m scrum

14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.

I have no problem whatsoever with the modern interpretation of allowing a player on the ground to push the ball back, in the sense that he is releasing the ball "immediately" somewhere more convenient for his team.

I think we can agree that law 14 - ball on the ground, no tackle - is not any MORE restrictive on the ball carrier than other cases, right?

The player is allowed to do three things. Get up with it. Pass it. Release it.

Law 22.9 clearly refers to players on their feet in-goal from (a) to (e) too, so we can't look there.

There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

ChrisR
05-04-16, 22:04
There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

Rushforth, where on earth did you get this idea? If an attacking player, carrying the ball, slides into his opponent's goal and grounds the ball you disallow the try and then do what .....?

The Fat
05-04-16, 23:04
14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.

I have no problem whatsoever with the modern interpretation of allowing a player on the ground to push the ball back, in the sense that he is releasing the ball "immediately" somewhere more convenient for his team.

I think we can agree that law 14 - ball on the ground, no tackle - is not any MORE restrictive on the ball carrier than other cases, right?

The player is allowed to do three things. Get up with it. Pass it. Release it.

Law 22.9 clearly refers to players on their feet in-goal from (a) to (e) too, so we can't look there.

There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

You do realise that your last sentence would never allow a player who is tackled just short of the goal line to reach out and place the ball for a try don't you?

ctrainor
05-04-16, 23:04
As described, I would go for 5m scrum attack, both players for me are trying to do something legal and there is doubt over who is in possession.
Scrum attacking is a much easier sell to all around.

Rushforth
05-04-16, 23:04
There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

Rushforth, where on earth did you get this idea? If an attacking player, carrying the ball, slides into his opponent's goal and grounds the ball you disallow the try and then do what .....?

Marauder, I realise it is very much à la mode to not read what people have written. I refer you to post #12 of this thread in which I wrote "... just as an attacking ball-carrier can forwards. He definitely is correct with the latter point ...".

I must be extremely stupid, because I do not see any similarity whatsoever with an attacking ball-carrier diving and sliding into goal and a defending ball-carrier on the ground under either law 13 or 14.

Alternatively, one might hypothesize that where I got this idea is the fact that I've been interested in the laws of rugby for over 30 years before I became a referee, and thought it might be a good idea to know what those laws are, or at the very least to go back and check them by, you know, reading them.

Incidentally, when there is something that looks like a quotation, but without a name and a bright yellow background instead of a pale green one, that means that someone has used the LAWS tag. You can use it yourself if you click the blue and green rugby ball logo, just like I did. However, you will need to copy-paste from http://laws.worldrugby.org/ to make it convincing. Here is an example:

22.4 (d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.

Note in particular how the wording looks nothing like "defensive push-back. If a defending player with the ball goes to ground in front of his own goal line, he is entitled to push the ball back in goal and touch it down because Marauder says it's just the same".

There is, instead, a specific exception in law for the momentum try, and it has been there for quite a long time.

Anyway, I should go to bed. You should learn the laws. Good night.

Rushforth
05-04-16, 23:04
You do realise that your last sentence would never allow a player who is tackled just short of the goal line to reach out and place the ball for a try don't you?

My apologies, I scrolled back past your post when checking what Marauder had said without realising you were making almost the same comment.

Yes, I do realise that. I have no idea exactly how long 22.4(d) has been on the books, but I can't recall the momentum try being a recent change, or for that matter even in my lifetime, as opposed to the momentum pass which entered the book a few months ago (and that book technically not yet relevant for NH, in at least one case I know of).

My thanks for your politeness. If only because sometimes I don't realise! But more because I am getting a bit sick of "where on earth" and that kind of thing. And I am guilty of that myself at times, all the more so when I am sleeeeeepy.

RobLev
06-04-16, 02:04
14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.

I have no problem whatsoever with the modern interpretation of allowing a player on the ground to push the ball back, in the sense that he is releasing the ball "immediately" somewhere more convenient for his team.

I think we can agree that law 14 - ball on the ground, no tackle - is not any MORE restrictive on the ball carrier than other cases, right?

The player is allowed to do three things. Get up with it. Pass it. Release it.

Law 22.9 clearly refers to players on their feet in-goal from (a) to (e) too, so we can't look there.

There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

You've quoted 14.1(a), but this is a tackle; in which case 15.5 applies; specifically 15.5(b):

A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.

and, particularly relevant here, 15.5(c) and (d):

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.

It would in any event be a fair reading of the Laws (as follows from what you say) to read "release" in both Laws as meaning the same thing; so he can release by placing whether tackled or not.

And then there's 15.5(g):

If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down

Dickie E
06-04-16, 04:04
So ball carrier tackled 1 metre from his goal line and jackler and tackled player both have hands on ball as it is slid across goal line?

5 metre scrum, attacking team's fed.

Ian_Cook
06-04-16, 04:04
Of course, not only can a maul/ruck thingy NOT take place in goal, but a TACKLE cannot either. A tackle can only take place in the field of play.

The question then is, what determines if the tackle is in the FoP or in-goal; the position of the tackled player, the tackler or the ball?

If its the ball, then if the tackled defender is in the field of play, but holds the ball over his own goal-line, does he now have to release?

* * * pulls pin, drops hand grenade, and runs * * *

L'irlandais
06-04-16, 05:04
If one reads the OP correctly, it does not clearly state that it was a tackle. It shows it was a messy phase of play, player turning over the ball in a ruck and not getting very far with it.
Also since it is U14 rugby, it might be better served in the Junior Rugby sub forum. iMHO

Pegleg
06-04-16, 07:04
You've quoted 14.1(a), but this is a tackle; in which case 15.5 applies; specifically 15.5(b):


In fairness to Rushforth, The OP is not clear as to whether or not it is a tackle:

This is the confusing bit



"...A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground,,,"

Rich_NL
06-04-16, 08:04
It's not clear whether the defender was tackled. If so, does the tackle assist not have to go through the gate to play the ball?

didds
06-04-16, 08:04
I think the real question here whether a player can ground the ball 'accidentally' - ie if you place the ball behind you, intending simply to make it available for your own team in the standard way, but you happen to ground it behing your own try-line, without realising, is it still a touchdown and a 5m scrum? (I'd say yes)

I'd agree with CR here - if you are into the realms of "did he deliberately ground the ball or not" you are into a whole mire of reasoning. Ball touching the ground behind the try ,lone with a defending player in possession = grounded and in the OP a 5m scrum.

didds

Dickie E
06-04-16, 08:04
like when a ball carrier in his own in goal gets tackled trying to run the ball out. Don't dick around trying to see if he applied downward pressure. 5m scrum (unless it is a 22)

The Fat
06-04-16, 08:04
From OP:

A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground, at this point an opposition attacking player again legal on his feet competes for and gets hands the ball. The player on the ground presents the ball back over his own try line to his team whilst the attacking player is still in contact with the ball.


The OP suggests a sequence of events. The bold section is as far as we need to go. He states that the player on his feet is there legally and has hands on the ball. Tackled player/player on the ground, must release the ball immediately. OP goes on to say the player on the ground then presents the ball back towards his team mates whilst the attacking player still has hands on the ball.
Not sure why we can't agree this should be a PK against the player on the ground for not releasing.

I can here some of you saying, "What about a PT?" The OP states there are other defenders near by. If the BC had released immediately, there may have been well positioned defenders to stop the jackal from scoring. I think we would either need to see it or have a more detailed description to be able to judge on a possible PT.

didds
06-04-16, 08:04
Seems to me we have OB's classical mexican standoff scenario here - and there is discussion that the tackled player now has one o his options (place in any direction) being removed from him.

TBH, from the description given, this so0unded like a standard tackled players's actions... land, push ball towards support, hands on to rpevent some oaf hoofing the ball accidentally. If at THAT juncture he fails to release to a oppo jackler then PK I agree. (or trying to continue to push ball away and not releasing it, but that doesn't sound really what happened here) Then in the act of presenting the ball it happens to touch the trry line... so defender grounds in goal/touchdown = 5m scrum.

Talk of positive play being rewarded? What about the positive play by that player having previously jackled and won the attacking ball first?

didds

didds
06-04-16, 08:04
Also since it is U14 rugby, it might be better served in the Junior Rugby sub forum. iMHO


Nahh. This sequence is just as likely to happen in a vets game. Its not confined to youth games after all - its standard law discussion

didds

Dickie E
06-04-16, 08:04
Not sure why we can't agree this should be a PK against the player on the ground for not releasing.



Hand on ball is not same as a firm grasp of the ball. It doesn't sound as though tackled player has prevented the jackal.

didds
06-04-16, 08:04
Hand on ball is not same as a firm grasp of the ball. It doesn't sound as though tackled player has prevented the jackal.

I "liked" Dickie's post cos it it is clear and consice wrt hand on ball etc.

I would however say that form my reading of the OP the jackler had failed to complete a jackal - he has "hands on the ball" ie by D8ickie's own description not a firm grip.

5m scrum.

didds

Pegleg
06-04-16, 09:04
Hand on ball is not same as a firm grasp of the ball. It doesn't sound as though tackled player has prevented the jackal.

Perhaps he was unable to complete the jackal because the player is not releasing the ball. Sound that the player on the ground has prevented but not being complient.

Pegleg
06-04-16, 09:04
I think that, depending on how the ref reads what he sees. two calls have validity.

1; The defender minored the ball = Scrum 5 attacking ball.

2; The defender did not act quickly enough so was holding on PK.

I can't see a try there at all. At "best" we have a doubt over who grounded the ball.

As I am inferring from another post; what is "positive play"? A positive attempt to attack and score or a positive attempt to defend and thus prevent a score? For me both are "positive play". Positive is within the laws.

A PT is highly improbable.

To the OP you made a call and it seems reasonable from your post. If you ere to spend an hour or so watching the video, you might change your mind. If any of us had been there we might have seen things from a different angle.

The players seem to have accepted your call. You are the sole judge etc.

Well done and try the "dark side" more often you might enjoy it!

DocY
06-04-16, 09:04
Positive is within the laws.

Are you sure you don't mean "within the spirit of the laws"?

FlipFlop
06-04-16, 10:04
A few areas to discuss in this post. Firstly - U14 rugby, so give them some leeway. Lets not get cards out, and do we really need a PT. Probably not.

1) Was it grounded by defender. Always seems to cause confusion. Best way to look at it is, if the defender had been an attacker in this scenario would you give the try? If so, then the defender grounded it. Give the relevant scrum. Don't look to play on, or assume they didn't want to ground it. So to answer your first question, if a defender pushes the ball along the ground, and it touches the tryline - then it is grounded in my opinion, and we have attacking scrum. (Second question - possession is more important than touching, so attacker can't claim a try)

But more points raised:

2) Was the ball carrier taken to ground, or went to ground. Big difference. First is a tackle, and he must be given time to release/pass/place the ball, and jacklers must come "through the gate". Second one - he is fair game from the start, and opposition can play from anywhere until a ruck forms.

3) Was it a PK by the defender for holding on. Again - I like to switch it round. If the attacker did this, or if this was elsewhere on the field - was it a PK? Bear in mind - was the "jackler" actually trying to pick up the ball? If not, there is no holding on, as the jacker isn't trying to take the ball. Was the ball carrier being pushed backwards, and using his hands? If so, what did he stop?

4) Was it a PK against the attack for not releasing? If the ball carrier was tackled (see above), was he released? Was he given the opportunity to place/pass/release?

5) What is the "equitable" answer to this? Would everyone have accepted the 5m attacking scrum? Defenders happy as no try, attackers happy as they have the ball back close to the line?

To me, from reading the scenario, so not 100% sure what really happened, I would say that in a U14 match, the scrum is a much "better" outcome. Let the kids play, let them decide the game. It isn't C&O either way, and the ball was touched back (even if there may have been a PK), I'm guessing it was quite messy with players. So stop the game, and restart it. The PT and PK seem a bit OTT for me. In a Senior game - maybe a PK if the holding was clear. But not seeing a PT unless no defence in the resulting ruck.

OB..
06-04-16, 11:04
2) Was the ball carrier taken to ground, or went to ground. Big difference. First is a tackle, and he must be given time to release/pass/place the ballNo.
15.6 (b) ​After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession.

Dixie
06-04-16, 12:04
Am short of time, so haven't gone through the entire thread which is a very interesting one - well done to the OP for a) reffing the game; and b) spotting that this was an issue warranting discussion. It's probable that these comments are somewhat behind the curve, so apologies if so.

I very largely agree with The Fat:


Trying to picture your scenario but it sounds like things happened in the following order.
1) Defender wins turnover ball at ruck and is now the ball carrier (BC)
2) BC is tackled (taken to ground)
3) Attacking player takes up position over the tackled BC (assume he get there legally i.e. through his gate) and gets hands on the ball
*4) To avoid losing possession, BC pushes the ball along the ground, towards his support players, to a point where the ball is now in-goal with BC still with hand on or holding the ball and attacking player still with hands on the ball.

My decision is PK against tackled BC for not releasing. Mine too.


I don't believe the OP to be a PT situation. And here is the interesting bit. Tim White at Post #11, as a quality L7 ref (from recollection) and a respected advisor/assessor, asks whether, in the absence of the PK offence, the Jackler should have been given possession of the ball within touching distance of the try line. Is it probable that a player picking up a loose ball within a few feet of the line would score? We don't have all the facts, but I think it would be the probable outcome in the vast majority of situations. However, that is NOT the test of a PT - demonstrating how easy it is to fall into a trap here. The PT is only possible if a Law 10 (Foul Play) offence has been committed - and Holding On is not one of them. Some might argue that the defender deliberately held on to prevent the try - but holding on is almost invariably deliberate, with the intent of preventing a turnover. It is not separately called out in Law 10, so in my view is not a precursor to a PT.

h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.


This is an U14 game. Keep it simple. Reward positive attacking play. Attacking player in contact with ball when grounded in-goal. No foul play. Try. No-one is going to argue, even in the bar. As long as you are always prepared to award a try when an attacker is one of the many players holding the grounded ball, I could go with this. The more common approach, however, is a 5m attacking scrum

StroudBoy
06-04-16, 12:04
Firstly thanks for all your comments and interpretations.

To maybe help clarify the situation that happened.

The defending jackaling player who had hands on the ball was driven out of the ruck and to ground by an opponent coming through the ruck. In the process of being driven from the ruck the jackaling defending player ripped the ball with him. A second attacking player was then quick to jackal over him and IMO was from a legal position, on his feet and with hands on the ball. The defending player failed to release the ball to allow the attacking player to play it but pushed it away and over his try line. Anywhere else on the FoP this would had been a PK to the attacker.

All this however was happening 10-15cm from the defenders own try line. If the defender had released the ball and with no other defending players presently rucking over I believe that the attacker would have been able to simply reach forward with the ball to score the try, thus the PT awarded. I can live with this decision be it right or wrong, but this raised a question to myself.
Had the situation been slightly different and there be no attacking jackaling player as above just a simple tackle or ruck, can a player on the ground who has been tackled close to his try line whilst in the FoP push the ball along the ground over the try line to claim the grounding for a 5m scrum. From the responses it appears as long as this is performed in the act of ‘releasing’ the ball the grounding should stand.
As a point with regards to yellow cards being issued, I would not punish a youth player for this type of infringement, simply explain my understanding of what he had done to result in my decision. I would only ever consider issuing a card for any form of intentional dangerous play, fighting, kicking, punching or any form of insulting or abusive behaviour towards myself or another player.

Thanks again

didds
06-04-16, 12:04
We do see on occasion PTs being awarded for offside particularly when its been a few offsides in a row - an obvious example that springs to my mind was paddy O'Brien (IIRC) awarding england a PT against Scotland at Twickers for this.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.rugby.union/scotland$20england$20penalty$20try$20o$27brien$20g omersall/rec.sport.rugby.union/M3gzOiGVP8U/uB49qmbEcE8J

didds

ChrisR
06-04-16, 13:04
I think StroudBoy's post #40 supported his decision in the OP.

However, I disagree with those who consider the ball to be grounded when it is pushed back on/over the goal line.

The definition for grounding from Law 22.1:

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the 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.

I think this allows a defending player, on the ground, to push the ball back into goal without it being considered grounding. Placing the ball back or placing the hand on top of the ball should be grounding.

Rushforth, if you have read this far then I apologize for the tone implied in my use of "Where on earth". Instead I should have simply asked you to support your statement in Law.

Dixie
06-04-16, 13:04
I disagree with those who consider the ball to be grounded when it is pushed back on/over the goal line.

The definition for grounding from Law 22.1:

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

....

I think this allows a defending player, on the ground, to push the ball back into goal without it being considered grounding. I don't see how you can apply the definition and come to that conclusion. No downward pressure is required. A player grounds the ball in-goal by touching the ground with the ball while holding it. How can you push it back (assuming constant contact) along the ground without the ball touching the ground?

DocY
06-04-16, 13:04
I don't see how you can apply the definition and come to that conclusion. No downward pressure is required. A player grounds the ball in-goal by touching the ground with the ball while holding it. How can you push it back (assuming constant contact) along the ground without the ball touching the ground?

The image I have is a player pushing the ball from the side, but making on attempt to hold, or even control it (as it's a hypothetical situation, let's even assume his fist is clenched when he's doing this). I wouldn't see a C&O grounding in this (albeit unlikely) situation.

crossref
06-04-16, 13:04
for me the haziness is : can you ground the ball unintentionally -- eg because you didn't realise you were so close to the try line, or perhaps you are holding the ball and slip and fall over.

I think you can, and in both cases that's a grounding.

Phil E
06-04-16, 15:04
When I read the OP I immediately thought taken back and grounded. Attacking scrum.

Nothing I have read in the last 5 pages has changed my mind on that.

ChrisR
06-04-16, 15:04
I don't see how you can apply the definition and come to that conclusion. No downward pressure is required. A player grounds the ball in-goal by touching the ground with the ball while holding it. How can you push it back (assuming constant contact) along the ground without the ball touching the ground?

No 'downward pressure' is required if the ball is 'held'. Is pushing it along the ground holding it? If, in your opinion, it is then you are correct in considering it grounded.

In my opinion, pushing is not holding unless the ball is grasped which would change the action to 'placing'.

This sounds like splitting hairs re. an event that would happen rarely but I make the distinction so that players tackled close to their own goal can make the ball available to teammates without grounding it and giving the ops the 5m.

crossref
06-04-16, 15:04
I make the distinction so that players tackled close to their own goal can make the ball available to teammates without grounding it and giving the ops the 5m.

that's the nub of it -- can they? or does that amount to an inadvertant touch down

OB..
06-04-16, 15:04
No 'downward pressure' is required if the ball is 'held'. Is pushing it along the ground holding it? If, in your opinion, it is then you are correct in considering it grounded.I don't see it as realistic to push the ball back along the ground without applying some downward pressure to keep control. I strongly recommend NOT trying to split this particular hair, because it relies overmuch on a limited interpretation of the words.

Pegleg
06-04-16, 16:04
Are you sure you don't mean "within the spirit of the laws"?

Considering how badly they are written, perhaps so. The point of my post, which I'm sure you understand, is that defending (legally) is as important as attacking (legally). Without the contest between the two the game is meaningless.

L'irlandais
06-04-16, 19:04
I think StroudBoy's post #40 supported his decision in the OP.

However, I disagree with those who consider the ball to be grounded when it is pushed back on/over the goal line.

The definition for grounding from Law 22.1:you are entitled to differ from the overall consensus.
For my money when the TMO, is looking for a grounding, the ball touching the whitewashed line is good enough. Which it must have in this case. Downward pressure not required. YmMV

chbg
06-04-16, 21:04
The word 'pushing' seems to mean different things to different people. Plus ca change. If it is to be taken literally - hand to the side of the ball, like a train/car shunt - then there is no downward pressure nor carrying. If it describes what happens more often in rugby, where the player has (usually both) hands on the ball and extends his arms so that the ball moves along the ground, but under control, until the extent of his reach, then he is holding the ball and it is grounded as soon as it touches the GL.

OB..
07-04-16, 11:04
If you push the ball back with one hand under the centre of gravity, the ball will go up in the air. If your hand is above the centre of gravity, the ball will tend to stay on the ground. Instead of splitting hairs I suggest what counts is whether or not the ball stays on the ground, because if it does, there must have been some (slight) downward pressure.

(Downward pressure is needed because otherwise knocking the ball forward could score a try.)

ChrisR
07-04-16, 11:04
I think gravity comes into play.

OB..
07-04-16, 11:04
I think gravity comes into play.Of course, but in what way does that make a difference?

BigClothesSir
07-04-16, 11:04
When I read the OP I immediately thought taken back and grounded. Attacking scrum.

Nothing I have read in the last 5 pages has changed my mind on that.

^^^^

So very much, this!

Nigib
07-04-16, 16:04
From the OP, defender on the floor deemed to be holding on, not releasing while attacker on his feet "gets hands on the ball". From that, I would say advantage to attacking team. Defender pushes ball over while still contact on ball from attacker. The defender's force is horizontal, attacker's downward. I stay with my original take - try.

Dickie E
07-04-16, 22:04
not releasing while attacker on his feet "gets hands on the ball". From that, I would say advantage to attacking team.

We have a concept here that the jackaler has to "survive the cleanout" to have rights to the ball. This means a grasp of the ball, not just hands on the ball

Nigib
07-04-16, 23:04
We have a concept here that the jackaler has to "survive the cleanout" to have rights to the ball. This means a grasp of the ball, not just hands on the ball
Agreed; really difficult to tell what's happening without a video, but my interpretation of the OP is that the defender was holding on to the ball to prevent the attacker taking it, and in doing so pushed the ball backwards on the ground and over the goal line. So the 'cleanout' phase IMO is over, we are beyond where any sort of ruckus was (I'm avoiding breakdown or ruck terminology here) with two players grappling for the ball. Defender is off his feet, so therefore illegally grappling - hence advantage to the attacking team. As the attacker must have had downward pressure on the ball as it is pushed horizontally but not pressed by the defender, I would award the try.

The Fat
08-04-16, 00:04
Agreed; really difficult to tell what's happening without a video, but my interpretation of the OP is that the defender was holding on to the ball to prevent the attacker taking it, and in doing so pushed the ball backwards on the ground and over the goal line. So the 'cleanout' phase IMO is over, we are beyond where any sort of ruckus was (I'm avoiding breakdown or ruck terminology here) with two players grappling for the ball. Defender is off his feet, so therefore illegally grappling - hence advantage to the attacking team. As the attacker must have had downward pressure on the ball as it is pushed horizontally but not pressed by the defender, I would award the try.

The defender does not have to exert downward pressure. If he is in possession/holding the ball and is pushing it along the ground, the instant it touches the goal line it has been made dead by way of a touch down. No further advantage available to the attacker so come bake to PK against the defender for not releasing.

Nigib
08-04-16, 08:04
The defender does not have to exert downward pressure. If he is in possession/holding the ball and is pushing it along the ground, the instant it touches the goal line it has been made dead by way of a touch down. No further advantage available to the attacker so come bake to PK against the defender for not releasing.

Agreed again - doesn't need to be downward pressure. But why should the defender's action in this instance take priority over the attacker? From the OP, the attacking player, if the defender had released the ball, was likely to score (the OP rationale for the PT decision). Why should the defending team benefit from an illegal act, and get a 5m scrum rather than a score against them?

didds
08-04-16, 08:04
I don;t think there is enough information/evidence in the OP to actually find that the player presenting did hold on, as opposed to pushing the ball away as the opponent was trying to get his hands on.

didds

The Fat
08-04-16, 09:04
Agreed again - doesn't need to be downward pressure. But why should the defender's action in this instance take priority over the attacker? From the OP, the attacking player, if the defender had released the ball, was likely to score (the OP rationale for the PT decision). Why should the defending team benefit from an illegal act, and get a 5m scrum rather than a score against them?

But I wouldn't "reward" the defender by awarding an attacking 5m scrum. I would have penalised him for not releasing.

Attacking player over ball.
Defender fails to release.
Advantage attacking team.
Defender makes the ball dead by executing a touch down.
Ball is dead.
No further advantage can accrue.
Back to the PK for not releasing.

It is like when a red player, in general play knocks the ball forward.
Advantage blue.
Red player picks up the ball.
Ball is dead.
No advantage realised.
Scrum blue.

Or

Blue attacking.
Red player offside from ruck.
Advantage blue.
Blue grubber kicks into red in-goal.
Red FB grounds the ball for touch down.
Ball is dead.
No advantaged realised.
Back to Blue PK for Red offside.

Nigib
08-04-16, 10:04
But I wouldn't "reward" the defender by awarding an attacking 5m scrum. I would have penalised him for not releasing.



I fully appreciate the argument, and agree on the principles completely. However, in this instance, both attacker and defender have hands on the ball (your examples don't have opposing players in contact), advantage to attacker - why prioritise the defender acting illegally over the attacker?

L'irlandais
08-04-16, 11:04
As both players had hands on the ball, there must be a doubt over the grounding. None on here can with the benefit of hindsight say which of them grounded the ball.
Which takes us back to post #8, scrum 5, attackers put-in. The advantage is given to the attacking team, but NOT the score. (No way.) The awarding of a PT, we agreed required an act of foul play, not an infringement which even now (weeks later) is not clear and obvious.

The Fat
08-04-16, 12:04
I'll throw this one up for discussion as there seems to be a line of thought that as long as the attacker has hands on the ball when the defender touches the ball down (i.e. pushes the ball onto or over the goal line) then there is doubt about who grounded the ball.
I would ask those who are thinking along these lines, when did the defender lose possession?

If an attacker picks and drives from close range and manages to ground the ball on or over the line, we award a try. We don't award an attacking 5m scrum if at the instant he grounds the ball, a defender happens to get a hand or hands on the ball. Why? because the player who originally had possession never lost it. He is still the ball carrier.

In the OP, if the tackled player had pushed the ball back and lost contact with it and the ball then rolled into the in-goal area, and if both the attacker who was standing over him and the defender on the ground then both managed to put a hand on the ball at the same time, there would be doubt about who grounded the ball and a 5m scrum to the attacking team would be the correct call.

L'irlandais
08-04-16, 19:04
I agree with that. The ball is in the pocession of the defender. I agree too that the OP doesn't provide us enough information to show that the ball carrier infringed. Perhaps he did, just that Stroudboy hasn't described it clearly. What I do dispute is that somehow we can award a try to the attacker simply because he simultaneously got his hands on the ball.

Rushforth
08-04-16, 20:04
I agree with that. The ball is in the pocession of the defender. I agree too that the OP doesn't provide us enough information to show that the ball carrier infringed. Perhaps he did, just that Stroudboy hasn't described it clearly. What I do dispute is that somehow we can award a try to the attacker simply because he simultaneously got his hands on the ball.

I think the description was good enough, even though I missed a nuance - it wasn't clear if the ball carrier was held or not, I thought not.

As it happens a somewhat similar scenario happened early in the match my club 1st XV played last week, and the attacker actively taking the ball to ground was considered fair play by the SH who also had it in his hands (if not control).

My point is that the OP didn't make a bad decision, and neither are the other options bad. Post #40 (I think) clarified the situation, but nothing wrong with the OP #1 as such.

ChrisR
09-04-16, 00:04
As both players had hands on the ball, there must be a doubt over the grounding. None on here can with the benefit of hindsight say which of them grounded the ball.
Which takes us back to post #8, scrum 5, attackers put-in. The advantage is given to the attacking team, but NOT the score. (No way.) The awarding of a PT, we agreed required an act of foul play, not an infringement which even now (weeks later) is not clear and obvious.

If you are of the opinion that a defender pushing the ball on/over his goal line has grounded it then it matters not that it is simultaneous grounding by the attacker. It's still an attacking 5m.

If you think that pushing the ball doesn't ground it then you could consider that the attacking player grounded it.

L'irlandais
09-04-16, 10:04
Often on these forums we finish up divided over some poorly written piece of law.
However in this case it is black and white.
22.1
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is requiredFor **** sake the defender is holding the ball, the ball is touching the ground in goal.
Elsewhere we have seen that intent is NOT something the referee has to gauge. It is immaterial whether the defender intended to ground the ball or not. He is holding it in his hands, and the ball is on the ground in the in-goal area. If members can interpret 22.1 a differently from the conclusion of a scrum 5 attacking put-in, that goes a very long way to explaining the arguments we have over genuinely poorly written laws. :sad: very :sad:

OB..
09-04-16, 12:04
Often on these forums we finish up divided over some poorly written piece of law.
However in this case it is black and white.
22.1
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is requiredFor **** sake the defender is holding the ball, the ball is touching the ground in goal.
Elsewhere we have seen that intent is NOT something the referee has to gauge. It is immaterial whether the defender intended to ground the ball or not. He is holding it in his hands, and the ball is on the ground in the in-goal area. If members can interpret 22.1 a differently from the conclusion of a scrum 5 attacking put-in, that goes a very long way to explaining the arguments we have over genuinely poorly written laws. :sad: very :sad:The dispute is about whether or not pushing the ball is equivalent to holding it.

I see little point in arguing about the "real" meaning of words since (as I believe I have mentioned before) the laws are simply not written to that sort of standard.

In this case both players have a hand on the ball when it is grounded, so you cannot say who grounded it first. Scrum 5m.

The Fat
09-04-16, 12:04
The dispute is about whether or not pushing the ball is equivalent to holding it.

I see little point in arguing about the "real" meaning of words since (as I believe I have mentioned before) the laws are simply not written to that sort of standard.

In this case both players have a hand on the ball when it is grounded, so you cannot say who grounded it first. Scrum 5m.

Not sure why we are still discussing the grounding with a view to restarting with a scrum.

"A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground, at this point an opposition attacking player again legal on his feet competes for and gets hands the ball. The player on the ground presents the ball back over his own try line to his team whilst the attacking player is still in contact with the ball."


Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

Chris_j
09-04-16, 22:04
Not sure why we are still discussing the grounding with a view to restarting with a scrum.

"A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground, at this point an opposition attacking player again legal on his feet competes for and gets hands the ball. The player on the ground presents the ball back over his own try line to his team whilst the attacking player is still in contact with the ball."


Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

Surely if the attacking player who is legal and on his feet had hands on the ball, trying to play it, and does not himself go to ground, then he scores the try. Tackled player can't place it back once attacker has control.

The Fat
09-04-16, 22:04
Surely if the attacking player who is legal and on his feet had hands on the ball, trying to play it, and does not himself go to ground, then he scores the try. Tackled player can't place it back once attacker has control.

I agree with you that the defender should not, in this situation, be allowed to place the ball back. It should have been a PK against defender for not releasing.

The defending player on the ground never releases/loses possession. For a try to be scored, the original ball carrier would need to lose/give up possession. See my post #66

ChrisR
09-04-16, 22:04
Not sure why we are still discussing the grounding with a view to restarting with a scrum.

"A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground, at this point an opposition attacking player again legal on his feet competes for and gets hands the ball. The player on the ground presents the ball back over his own try line to his team whilst the attacking player is still in contact with the ball."


Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

TF, you raise a really good point here that is worth considering beyond the context of the OP.

What, exactly, is a 'release'? Without thinking too much about it I have always told tackled players that they have three options: Pass, place or release and release is just letting go. However, after taking a closer look at the laws below I'm thinking that even if a defender gets their mitts on the ball I can still release it by placing/pushing the ball back toward my teammates so long as I act immediately. What I can't do is just hold onto the ball to deny the opponent a fair play for the ball.

Law 15.5 c,d & e (duties of the tackled player)

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.

(e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.

This makes sense to me and applies to all tackles. So, back to the OP, if the player places/pushes the ball back immediately then he is within the law even tho the op has his hands on it.

OB..
10-04-16, 12:04
TF, you raise a really good point here that is worth considering beyond the context of the OP.

What, exactly, is a 'release'? Without thinking too much about it I have always told tackled players that they have three options: Pass, place or release and release is just letting go. However, after taking a closer look at the laws below I'm thinking that even if a defender gets their mitts on the ball I can still release it by placing/pushing the ball back toward my teammates so long as I act immediately. What I can't do is just hold onto the ball to deny the opponent a fair play for the ball.

Law 15.5 c,d & e (duties of the tackled player)

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.

(e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.

This makes sense to me and applies to all tackles. So, back to the OP, if the player places/pushes the ball back immediately then he is within the law even tho the op has his hands on it.But there's more
15.6
(b)After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession.
(h)After a tackle, any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.
15.7 (b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
"Release" has become ambiguous. In one case it seems to mean simply "let go" and in another it allows a further action.

As usual there is little to be gained from studying the wording too closely. What makes rugby sense?
Suppose the defender had simply fallen on the ball and the opponent tried to take it from him. If the defender merely held on tight, we would penalise him. If he was stretching out to ground the ball as the attacker grabbed at it, surely a 5m scrum - both payers are legal.

ChrisR
10-04-16, 13:04
This is what I think "makes rugby sense":

Immediately after a tackle both attacker (read ball carrier) and defender have legal options, one to play the ball and the other to take possession, and that creates the contest.

If the defender can get a grasp of the ball and either take it or prevent the attacker from playing it he wins the contest.

If the attacker can force the ball back and make it available to his teammates then he wins the contest.

What is not legal? The defender holding the attacker (not releasing the player) to prevent him playing the ball.
Also, the attacker smothering the ball so it's not available or hanging on to it after he's not been able to play it back.

The attacker has a time limit. He must succeed immediately or cede the ball to the defender otherwise he is liable for penalty. The defender has no time limit but must be on his feet in a legal position and have hands on the ball before a ruck forms.

Nigib
10-04-16, 13:04
So my interpretation of the OP:
Defender on ground, holding onto ball while attacker attempts to take ball from him - advantage attacking side
Defender rolls over and pushes ball towards goal line, attacker still has hands on - advantage continues
Ball is grounded - defender pushes, but also push by attacker who has both hands on ball so weight is forwards and down - try

In this instance, attacker becomes the 'player in possession' as the ball goes backwards from the defender and the attacker keeps hands on the ball and moves it the same way.

And does it look right? If it does, it probably is - this was the mantra of my ref course tutor. Imagining all this happening in real-time, I can only see the try award as looking 'right'. Anything else surely doesn't meet the 'equity' bit of our motto.

Other posters seem to be interpreting things differently, and I can see and agree with what is being argued for both scrum and penalty award scenarios. I contend that this particular instance is different from both of those.

didds
10-04-16, 13:04
Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

well, there are those here - inclusing me - who don;t beleive there is sufficient in the OP to judge whether that is the case or not.

didds

didds
10-04-16, 13:04
So my interpretation of the OP:
Defender on ground, holding onto ball while attacker attempts to take ball from him - advantage attacking side
Defender rolls over and pushes ball towards goal line, attacker still has hands on - advantage continues.

The OP doesn't mention anything about rolling over? where did you get that from?



A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground, at this point an opposition attacking player again legal on his feet competes for and gets hands the ball. The player on the ground presents the ball back over his own try line to his team whilst the attacking player is still in contact with the ball.



???

didds

RobLev
10-04-16, 17:04
So my interpretation of the OP:
Defender on ground, holding onto ball while attacker attempts to take ball from him - advantage attacking side
Defender rolls over and pushes ball towards goal line, attacker still has hands on - advantage continues
Ball is grounded - defender pushes, but also push by attacker who has both hands on ball so weight is forwards and down - try...

It can't be a try - if he grounded at all, the attacker didn't ground alone, therefore couldn't ground first.

Nigib
10-04-16, 22:04
It can't be a try - if he grounded at all, the attacker didn't ground alone, therefore couldn't ground first.

Seriously? Attacker in possession of the ball falls over the goal line, defender tries to prevent try so has hands on, ball goes to ground in contact with both A+D and you don't award a try?

Nigib
10-04-16, 22:04
The OP doesn't mention anything about rolling over? where did you get that from?



???

didds

I did say 'my interpretation' - wouldn't have to be, I'm trying to imagine the movement needed for the defender to get it back while the attacker is competing for it, and has his hands on. If it doesn't work for you, fine.

RobLev
10-04-16, 22:04
Seriously? Attacker in possession of the ball falls over the goal line, defender tries to prevent try so has hands on, ball goes to ground in contact with both A+D and you don't award a try?

*If* the attacker was in possession and the defender got hands on - of course. But that isn't this case, is it? Defender has possession of the ball.

Nigib
11-04-16, 08:04
*If* the attacker was in possession and the defender got hands on - of course. But that isn't this case, is it? Defender has possession of the ball.

I don't think the defender at the point the ball is grounded is in possession - that's the point. We don't know from the OP if the push back by the defender is with both hands on the ball or one; I've inferred that the attacker is trying to take the ball that is being held on the ground illegally, and therefore does have two hands on, and is trying to play positively and score. In those circumstances, I can't see a justification for saying the defender is in possession.

As far as I can see, a grounding in-goal with both sides in contact with the ball is not covered specifically in law; I am then led to what is equitable, and what would look 'fair' to players (and everyone else) - for me, that's a try, Other views are obviously available :-)

One of which would be to award a PT under 10.2(a) "A player must not... play unfairly" - which would justify the OP decision.

L'irlandais
11-04-16, 09:04
This discussion is getting silly now.
Let's not read things into the OP that are not there. It is not even sure that a tackle took place, have another read. But even if it was a tackle the defender still has possession of the ball. That is beyond dispute.
Law 15: Tackle: Ball Carrier Brought to Ground
15.6 Other players
After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession.The ball carrier goes to ground close to his own try line the OP tells us. It doesn't say he had to twist and turn to place the ball back over his own try line. If elements are missing ask the OP don't make it up.
The LoTG tell us any player on their feet may attempt to take possession from him. In this case the attacker has NOT taken the ball from him. The fact he is off his feet has not nullified his possession ; it will make that possession illegal after a few short seconds, but he is still in possession of the ball.
What is being argued is that he has not released and so is infringing. How many seconds before you penalise the tackled player?
How many seconds elapsed in the opening scenario? We do NOT know! So nobody can conclusively say if he infringed or not.

In the context of a newbie referee who asked a genuine question I suggest a simple answer was called for, not all this imagining what might have happened.
Question 1. yes
Question 2. No
ymmv!

RobLev
11-04-16, 17:04
I don't think the defender at the point the ball is grounded is in possession - that's the point. We don't know from the OP if the push back by the defender is with both hands on the ball or one; I've inferred that the attacker is trying to take the ball that is being held on the ground illegally, and therefore does have two hands on, and is trying to play positively and score. In those circumstances, I can't see a justification for saying the defender is in possession.

As far as I can see, a grounding in-goal with both sides in contact with the ball is not covered specifically in law; I am then led to what is equitable, and what would look 'fair' to players (and everyone else) - for me, that's a try, Other views are obviously available :-)

One of which would be to award a PT under 10.2(a) "A player must not... play unfairly" - which would justify the OP decision.

Your logic - ignoring possession if it's illegal - has no grounding in Law, surely?

A grounding in goal with opposing players in contact and neither having established possession (not this case) - ie doubt about who grounded first - is covered in Law. Attacking 5m scrum under Law 22.15.

Nigib
11-04-16, 19:04
Your logic - ignoring possession if it's illegal - has no grounding in Law, surely?

A grounding in goal with opposing players in contact and neither having established possession (not this case) - ie doubt about who grounded first - is covered in Law. Attacking 5m scrum under Law 22.15.

We'll need to agree to disagree - 22.15 would just as well apply to my previous example with an attacker crashing over but with defenders in contact where you agreed it would be a try; there is nothing in Law 22 about who has 'established possession'.

Ian_Cook
11-04-16, 19:04
Your logic - ignoring possession if it's illegal - has no grounding in Law, surely?

A grounding in goal with opposing players in contact and neither having established possession (not this case) - ie doubt about who grounded first - is covered in Law. Attacking 5m scrum under Law 22.15.

In a nutshell. The key factor in this is that the ball is over the goal-line. This means it doesn't matter how the player got to ground, there is NO tackle, therefore no gate therefore players can play the ball from any direction.

However, the player with the ball still has the ball, therefore he is still in possession of the ball and has not released it. If the attacker presses down on the ball in these circumstances and the ball is grounded, its the same situation as two players chasing a loose ball in-goal and grounding the ball at the same time..

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.

RobLev
11-04-16, 22:04
We'll need to agree to disagree - 22.15 would just as well apply to my previous example with an attacker crashing over but with defenders in contact where you agreed it would be a try;

Because attacker was in possession at the outset, defenders just got hands on the ball.


there is nothing in Law 22 about who has 'established possession'.

Ian_Cook
15-04-16, 13:04
Something similar to this happened tonight at the end of the Rebels v Hurricanes match. Rebels defending their goal-line and in trying to make an exit play, the ball is passed to a player in goal who is caught but manages to roll himself into the FoP. The result is a ruck like thing right on the goal line with the ball just in the FoP.

The Rebels player then presents the ball back over his own goal-line, and lets go of it. The ball is still within bodies (and would still be in the ruck if it was in the FoP), however, Ardie Savea knows the law, pounces on the ball and grounds it.

The Hoff awards the try.

crossref
15-04-16, 13:04
The Rebels player then presents the ball back over his own goal-line, and lets go of it. .

isn't that a touchdown, 5m scrum (even though he didn't mean to)

didds
15-04-16, 14:04
sounds like it to me.

didds

OB..
15-04-16, 14:04
isn't that a touchdown, 5m scrum (even though he didn't mean to)Not if he presents the ball in the air.

Phil E
15-04-16, 15:04
Not if he presents the ball in the air.

The description said he "lets go of it" (the ball).

crossref
15-04-16, 15:04
OK so
- he could reach back and drop the ball over the line -- play on
- he could reach back and place the ball over the line -- that's a touch down even though he didn't intend it to be (?)

I'm still not really sure about this, doesn't a touchdown require some intention?

Pursing the theme further, if a player carrying the ball in the in goal slips and falls over (regaining hold on the ball) and the ball touches the ground, is that really a touchdown?

didds
15-04-16, 16:04
OK so
- he could reach back and drop the ball over the line -- play on
- he could reach back and place the ball over the line -- that's a touch down even though he didn't intend it to be (?)

I'm still not really sure about this, doesn't a touchdown require some intention?



red attacking winger run into blue in goal, 5m in field from touch, T-G etc - but is tackled as he enters.

In going down the winger twists his body and offloads to supporting red 7 who runs under the posts and dots down securely etc

But in the act of twisting and landing and offloading you notice that the end of the ball grazes the grass in-goal where the winger lands 5m from touch and T-G etc [i.e. its not where near touch, deadball line, reed never touch it etc etc etc etc and all obvious caveats ;-) ]


Where do you award the try?

didds

crossref
15-04-16, 17:04
red attacking winger run into blue in goal, 5m in field from touch, T-G etc - but is tackled as he enters.

In going down the winger twists his body and offloads to supporting red 7 who runs under the posts and dots down securely etc

But in the act of twisting and landing and offloading you notice that the end of the ball grazes the grass in-goal where the winger lands 5m from touch and T-G etc [i.e. its not where near touch, deadball line, reed never touch it etc etc etc etc and all obvious caveats ;-) ]


Where do you award the try?


More straightforwardly, red is last-ditch tackled as he crosses the tryline but it's not a good tackle, the tackler loses his grip as they hit the ground (in goal) and the ball carrier is able to escape the grasp and bounce back to his feet and scurry under the posts to score (we have all seen this). it's quite likely - sometimes pretty much certain - that the ball actually hit the ground in the initial tackle, but we always ignore that and award the try under the posts. Which is what I would do.

I tend to think intention is required.

OB..
15-04-16, 18:04
More straightforwardly, red is last-ditch tackled as he crosses the tryline but it's not a good tackle, the tackler loses his grip as they hit the ground (in goal) and the ball carrier is able to escape the grasp and bounce back to his feet and scurry under the posts to score (we have all seen this). it's quite likely - sometimes pretty much certain - that the ball actually hit the ground in the initial tackle, but we always ignore that and award the try under the posts. Which is what I would do.

I would ask you if you thought the ball had been grounded when he first hit the ground. If you said you had awarded the try where you did because you thought the initial grounding was unintentional, I would mark your decision as a law error. I see no justification for that view and it adds an unnecessary element of judgement.

crossref
15-04-16, 18:04
I would say I wasn't certain that the ball had touched the ground and gave the ball carrier benefit of doubt.

RobLev
15-04-16, 19:04
I would say I wasn't certain that the ball had touched the ground and gave the ball carrier benefit of doubt.

In which case your eyesight, not intention, is the issue. If however you were certain of the original grounding, but uncertain of the player's intention, would you give the try out wide or under the posts? I discount the possibility that you would nevertheless profess uncertainty as to the grounding.

The Fat
15-04-16, 20:04
Something similar to this happened tonight at the end of the Rebels v Hurricanes match. Rebels defending their goal-line and in trying to make an exit play, the ball is passed to a player in goal who is caught but manages to roll himself into the FoP. The result is a ruck like thing right on the goal line with the ball just in the FoP.

The Rebels player then presents the ball back over his own goal-line, and lets go of it. The ball is still within bodies (and would still be in the ruck if it was in the FoP), however, Ardie Savea knows the law, pounces on the ball and grounds it.

The Hoff awards the try.

A couple of points here based on the replays I have seen which are not clear (hopefully someone has all angles video???)
1. Ardie Savea, go to the top of the class for knowing the law
2. It is not clear if
(a) the defender has hands on the ball when it touches the ground in-goal
(b) the defender lets go of the ball before it touches the ground to avoid a 5m attacking scrum
(c) Savea pounces when the ball is over the goal line but still off the ground
3. Was Savea onside at the ruck before the ball crosses the goal line? Looks like he wasn't.
4. Regardless of Savea probably being offside, rebels prop #3 cleans out gold #4 illegally by entering from the side (right alongside The Hoff)

Ian_Cook
15-04-16, 22:04
A couple of points here based on the replays I have seen which are not clear (hopefully someone has all angles video???)
1. Ardie Savea, go to the top of the class for knowing the law

Agree. A real heads up play from him


2. It is not clear if
(a) the defender has hands on the ball when it touches the ground in-goal
(b) the defender lets go of the ball before it touches the ground to avoid a 5m attacking scrum
(c) Savea pounces when the ball is over the goal line but still off the ground

3. Was Savea onside at the ruck before the ball crosses the goal line? Looks like he wasn't.

Some questions, and ones like this pop up frequently in relation to stuff that happens close to the goal-line

If the tackle was in goal (where there can't be a tackle) and the ball is "muscled" forward over the goal line so that it only just in the FoP....

1. Does it become a tackle?

2. If (a) player(s) on their feet in the FoP is/are not matched by an opponent on their feet in the in-goal, is it a ruck?

This is why I referred to is as a "ruck like thing". I'm not convinced it was a ruck in the Law sense of the term.


4. Regardless of Savea probably being offside, rebels prop #3 cleans out gold #4 illegally by entering from the side (right alongside The Hoff)

Agree, so if what you say above about Savea being offside is correct, then PK anyway.

Here's the action for anyone who hasn't seen it (if the link doesn't take you directly to it, it starts at 1:40 in the YT time)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=j83xph-a248#t=100

OB..
16-04-16, 10:04
I would say I wasn't certain that the ball had touched the ground and gave the ball carrier benefit of doubt.You would duck the point about intention? So presumably you agree it cannot be justified?

didds
16-04-16, 17:04
I would say I wasn't certain that the ball had touched the ground and gave the ball carrier benefit of doubt.

... so in your example instead of scampering around under the posts, as he was getting to his feet a defender bundled him into T-i-G, you would award the 22 drop out?

didds

crossref
17-04-16, 00:04
... so in your example instead of scampering around under the posts, as he was getting to his feet a defender bundled him into T-i-G, you would award the 22 drop out?

didds

when he first hits the ground you make a decision : if a try was scored you blow the whistle, if it wasn't you don't.
if you don't blow the whistle then it's play on ... what happens happens.