PDA

View Full Version : [Tackle] Going to ground to gather ball Vs. tackled



Huck2Spit
18-09-16, 05:09
Ball is loose boouncing around from a bad pass, Red player goes to ground--gathers ball. Gold player, on his feet, is ...immediately there going for the "jackle". Red holds on and is PK'd for not releasing.
Correct decision?
Red's options were same as if he were tackled (plus he could have got to his feet) and gold could go right for ball since no tackle and he never had him to release him.
Thoughts, Thanks.

damo
18-09-16, 06:09
Spot on.

Blackberry
18-09-16, 11:09
The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.


If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.

Nigib
18-09-16, 13:09
What are people's views when the player on their feet wraps arms around the player on the ground and holds the ball, at the same time trapping the player?

Christy
18-09-16, 14:09
What are people's views when the player on their feet wraps arms around the player on the ground and holds the ball, at the same time trapping the player?

Penalty , for playing the player & not the ball.
The ref needs to do his bit too.
Player A gone to ground to gather loose ball
Player B is entitled access to ball .
Player A is entitled freedom to get up / pass ball / kick ball ,,providing done IMEDIATELY
Player B is not entitled to smother player as you suggest , as it does not meet above criteria .

So for me the player smothering another player already on floor holding ball
Is going to be penalised ,

Not Kurt Weaver
18-09-16, 16:09
The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.


If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.

Only is an absolute, there are other options available to defender


Penalty , for playing the player & not the ball.
The ref needs to do his bit too.
Player A gone to ground to gather loose ball
Player B is entitled access to ball .
Player A is entitled freedom to get up / pass ball / kick ball ,,providing done IMEDIATELY
Player B is not entitled to smother player as you suggest , as it does not meet above criteria .

So for me the player smothering another player already on floor holding ball
Is going to be penalised ,

What law prevents the arriving player from using his hands to hold or push the gathering player from getting to his feet? I do not know. I cannot find a law that gives the gathering player the right to stand up.

ChrisR
18-09-16, 16:09
The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.


If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.

Can you cite Laws for this?

Christy
18-09-16, 16:09
Only is an absolute, there are other options available to defender



What law prevents the arriving player from using his hands to hold or push the gathering player from getting to his feet? I do not know. I cannot find a law that gives the gathering player the right to stand up.

Hi kurt , please read nigib , posted question again .
And then read my original answer in reply to nigib question.
It relates to a player on floor with ball in hand & opposition going to ball carrier from his on his feet , keeping ball carrier on floor & wrapping his arms around him , so ball cant be released .
You cant do this ,,its a clear penalty .
Law 14 .

Pegleg
18-09-16, 17:09
What law prevents the arriving player from using his hands to hold or push the gathering player from getting to his feet? I do not know. I cannot find a law that gives the gathering player the right to stand up.

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.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) A player without the ball must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

14.2 PLAYERS ON THEIR FEET
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall
on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The bit I've underlined tells you they can stand up. However, if before he's done that an arriving player has contested the ball. the man on his feet is king.
The man on his feet is not explicitly told not the play the man. However, the inference of the quoted law 14.2 suggests that he is not to "kill" the ball. Therefore, allowing him to rip the ball but not hold it in to the player on the ground is logical.

Not Kurt Weaver
18-09-16, 17:09
Hi kurt , please read nigib , posted question again .
And then read my original answer in reply to nigib question.
It relates to a player on floor with ball in hand & opposition going to ball carrier from his on his feet , keeping ball carrier on floor & wrapping his arms around him , so ball cant be released .
You cant do this ,,its a clear penalty .
Law 14 .

PK on who?

Not Kurt Weaver
18-09-16, 17:09
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.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) A player without the ball must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

14.2 PLAYERS ON THEIR FEET
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall
on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The bit I've underlined tells you they can stand up. However, if before he's done that an arriving player has contested the ball. the man on his feet is king.
The man on his feet is not explicitly told not the play the man. However, the inference of the quoted law 14.2 suggests that he is not to "kill" the ball. Therefore, allowing him to rip the ball but not hold it in to the player on the ground is logical.

Does arriving player have to let him up? You and I know the answer. So then why does arriving player have to allow releasing or passing.

14.2 is very significant and very specific as is uses Falling and in now way has to do with a player on his feet, inferring or nor.

Logic would tell us that if we do not have to allow a gathering player up, the other options are also nulled. If we want to use logic.

Pegleg
18-09-16, 18:09
He prevents the options by taking the ball not holding it in for a PK.

You let the player up but you take the ball from him first!

Christy
18-09-16, 18:09
PK on who?

In relation to nigib post.
I did say the ref needs to do his bit too ( by this i mean examine whats happening , with view to whos playing with in the laws & who isnt )

Player A has gone to ground to gather loose ball.( he remains on ground )
He must now comply to law as peg leg paste of laws.above.
Law 14.1 A ...otherwise opponents get a penalty.

Player A has gone to ground to gather loose ball. ( he remains on ground )
Opposition comes in straight away & prevents player A from releasing ball .
As nigib question above ( by smothering player by wrapping his arms around player A )
The ref now needs to read that player A is not complying to law 14.2A.
I know the law reads he must no fall on player on floor who has ball , but i beleive it is by same merrit fair to say he can not deliberatley fall on / around / wrap player up on floor who has ball.
Penalty goes to player A ,,as in team A get the penalty .

OB..
18-09-16, 18:09
Pegleg is absolutely right. If a player falls on the ball, an opponet may not play the player, but if he plays the ball, the player on the ground must release it.

In other words you cannot prevent him from getting up, but you can prevent him from keeping the ball when he does so.

If he tries to hold on to the ball when you are (legally) trying to take it, he can be penalised.

Christy
18-09-16, 18:09
Sorry , in scenario 2 ,,it should read team B the opposition , is not complying to law 14.2 A.
Appologies for confusing matters here

Not Kurt Weaver
18-09-16, 19:09
I cannot figure out what in the hel* you guys are thinking. I'll reread and reread. the only thing I can figure is that several posters equate a bearhug to falling down in 14.2

The only thing an arriving player cannot do (aside from law 10) in the gather the ball-no tackle is fall on the ball gathering player or around that player to prevent ball from coming out.

The gatherer made the ball unplayable by going to ground to gather. That is his decision. The defender has done nothing wrong to this point. In fact the defender can still defend by "not letting up" iaw 14.2, not allowing him to release, not allowing him to pass. Nothing in law 14 prevents him from defending except by falling on opponent.

The defender can still play rugby nothing unique has happened.

Not Kurt Weaver
18-09-16, 19:09
P.

In other words you cannot prevent him from getting up, but you can prevent him from keeping the ball when he does so.


The first part of this sentence. Are you saying the bearhug aforementioned falls under 14.2, or are you using a general expression of law. If so what law?

Blackberry
18-09-16, 20:09
Can you cite Laws for this? Are you saying its WRONG????????????

Not Kurt Weaver
18-09-16, 20:09
The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.


If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.


Can you cite Laws for this?


Are you saying its WRONG????????????

Going for ball is good coaching advice, I but ONLY the ball is not correct. We can only apply law

ChrisR
19-09-16, 04:09
Pegleg is absolutely right. If a player falls on the ball, an opponet may not play the player, but if he plays the ball, the player on the ground must release it.

In other words you cannot prevent him from getting up, but you can prevent him from keeping the ball when he does so.

If he tries to hold on to the ball when you are (legally) trying to take it, he can be penalised.

Please cite law or are you supporting the #1 Rugby Myth: "You have to let him up"

ChrisR
19-09-16, 04:09
Consider this:

A ball carrier slips and goes to ground. Before he can regain his feet an opponent grasps him and prevents him from getting up.

How do you manage this? It does not meet the strictest requirements of a tackle (Law 15) but is covered under Law 14. Do you really expect opponents to let the fallen BC back on his feet?

Law 14 does NOT prohibit a player from holding the man down.

Ian_Cook
19-09-16, 05:09
The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.


If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.

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.
Sanction: Penalty kick
... these are options, they are NOT rights. The player on the ground does not have the right to get up, or pass or release. He has these options, but they expire the moment a player on his feet gets his hands on the ball. However, if the player who went to ground to gather the ball has either rolled over to get the ball under him, or has fallen on top of the ball, and the player on his feet wraps his arms around him to get at the ball, I am penalising the player on the ground for making the ball unplayable because...

Law 14 DEFINITIONS: A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.

Unlike in a tackle, the player on his feet does not have to release the player on the ground.

Dickie E
19-09-16, 06:09
Unlike in a tackle, the player on his feet does not have to release the player on the ground.

Well, he can't actually play the player on the ground so the concept of release doesn't apply

Ian_Cook
19-09-16, 07:09
Well, he can't actually play the player on the ground so the concept of release doesn't apply

I agree, but you have taken that statement out of context with what I said earlier in the post.

If the "gatherer" has positioned himself over the ball and the man on his feet has his arms wrapped around him trying to get access to the ball, there is no Law that says he must release that player.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and has hands on the ball, and the gatherer wont release, ping the gatherer for not releasing.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and is trying to get hands on the ball, and the gatherer is trying to prevent him from getting his hands on it, for example by playing squeezeball, ping the gatherer for making the ball unplayable.

Remember there is no option to place or push the ball in Law 14. Get-up, pass or release are the only options!

Pegleg
19-09-16, 07:09
I cannot figure out what in the hel* you guys are thinking. I'll reread and reread. the only thing I can figure is that several posters equate a bearhug to falling down in 14.2

The only thing an arriving player cannot do (aside from law 10) in the gather the ball-no tackle is fall on the ball gathering player or around that player to prevent ball from coming out.

The gatherer made the ball unplayable by going to ground to gather. That is his decision. The defender has done nothing wrong to this point. In fact the defender can still defend by "not letting up" iaw 14.2, not allowing him to release, not allowing him to pass. Nothing in law 14 prevents him from defending except by falling on opponent.

The defender can still play rugby nothing unique has happened.

Your logic allows the man on his feet to "demand" a PK by forcing a player to be illegal. That cannot be right. Preventing a legal option is not the same as forcing a player to be illegal.

Pegleg
19-09-16, 07:09
If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and is trying to get hands on the ball, and the gatherer is trying to prevent him from getting his hands on it, for example by playing squeezeball, ping the gatherer for making the ball unplayable.

Remember there is no option to place or push the ball in Law 14. Get-up, pass or release are the only options!


Totally agree. However, Trying to pull the man who is being illegal (first offence) to be positive an play the ball is very different from being negative in killing the ball for a PK as NKW suggests.

This is why we need to look at the law in the context of their aim / intention. Doing so will help us make sense of the (badly worded) laws.

Nigib
19-09-16, 09:09
I agree, but you have taken that statement out of context with what I said earlier in the post.

If the "gatherer" has positioned himself over the ball and the man on his feet has his arms wrapped around him trying to get access to the ball, there is no Law that says he must release that player.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and has hands on the ball, and the gatherer wont release, ping the gatherer for not releasing.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and is trying to get hands on the ball, and the gatherer is trying to prevent him from getting his hands on it, for example by playing squeezeball, ping the gatherer for making the ball unplayable.

Remember there is no option to place or push the ball in Law 14. Get-up, pass or release are the only options!

In the scenario I'm thinking of, the gatherer can't release, rather than won't release, because the player on his feet deliberately wraps arms around holding ball even though the gatherer may be on their side, or in the act of getting up. So the gatherer is prevented from releasing. In my view this is an attempt at winning a contrived penalty rather than a genuine attempt to get the ball (they simply wrap and hold), and as such is contrary to the spirit of the Laws.

Thunderhorse1986
19-09-16, 11:09
In the scenario I'm thinking of, the gatherer can't release, rather than won't release, because the player on his feet deliberately wraps arms around holding ball even though the gatherer may be on their side, or in the act of getting up. So the gatherer is prevented from releasing. In my view this is an attempt at winning a contrived penalty rather than a genuine attempt to get the ball (they simply wrap and hold), and as such is contrary to the spirit of the Laws.

I often see this and agree with you. If the person on the floor has released but the jackal has wrapped him and the ball up I don't see how the guy on the floor had offended. As such I don't see a need to penalise him. The jackal has has opportunity to play and win the ball (or get a genuine no-release penalty from the player on the floor) but has failed to take it. So I won't penalise either. I would let the ensuring ruck play out. Afterwards, or in a bit of downtime I might tell the captain or the jackalling player that if they are in that position to go for the ball, not wrap up the man.

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 11:09
Your logic allows the man on his feet to "demand" a PK by forcing a player to be illegal. That cannot be right. Preventing a legal option is not the same as forcing a player to be illegal.

who made the ball unplayable in the first place?

DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

OB..
19-09-16, 12:09
are you supporting the #1 Rugby Myth: "You have to let him up":biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
I am on record not only on here (and other websites) but also on a number of referee reports that it is indeed a myth.


Please cite law
Unfortunately, if you think the wording of the laws is the solution, you are mistaken. They contain gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions.

As Ian says, the man on the ground has legal options (not rights) that he can exercise. However "the game is to be played by players who are on their feet", and there is a gap: the law gives two things he can't do, but they don't spell out what he can legally do. The convention we use over here is that he can play the ball and thereby prevent the opponent from exercising any of his options, but if he plays the man to prevent him exercising them he is acting illegally. A panel referee told me years ago that he allowed a player to drag someone a short distance into touch but not to just hold his arms so as to prevent him playing or releasing the ball. Indeed if the jackler just tries to prevent release, he gets penalised rather than the man on the ground.

When my report criticises a referee for a law error, that report is seen by several senior members of the Society, who would quickly tell me if they disagreed.

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 12:09
Please cite law or are you supporting the #1 Rugby Myth: "You have to let him up"

Tread lightly yank, remember we are dealing with Europeans. These gentlemen do not use the same thought process as you.

These men have experience in their corner. Sometimes they will tell you exactly how many years of playing and coaching. When challenged by a yank, you can become shunned.

Our ignorance works in our favor, as we do not have years upon years of reinforced misguidance to shape our ideas. Ours is a fresh slate and fresh ideas, just like those of Barack Obama. you and I are the millennials in this crowd.

Careful at all times with your wording, I do not think OB realizes how his response could be misinterpreted by the uninformed

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 12:09
Well, he can't actually play the player on the ground so the concept of release doesn't apply

WTF are you talking about?

ChrisR
19-09-16, 13:09
NKW, I appreciate your sentiments. However:

I'm British, having arrived in the USA at the tender age of 18. I know that the Brits are trying very hard not to be confused with Europeans.

I first played The Game in 1955, first coached & refereed in 1974.

I've participated in this forum since whenever, first as Marauder until I recognized that posting under my real name was better than skulking around anonymously.

So, fellow American (as I now consider myself), you must have me confused with someone else.

PS. I agree with your position on this issue.

Pegleg
19-09-16, 13:09
who made the ball unplayable in the first place?

DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

The player who held the ball in to the guy of the floor in the first place. If the player on the ground has had the chance to comply fair enough. That is not what is being described. But change the scenario when you've lost the debate if you wish.

ChrisR
19-09-16, 13:09
From law 14 definitions:

A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by
falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be
penalised.

The part in red is the crux of the issue and applies to the game in general, not just this scenario.

With this in mind I would allow the opponent (on his feet) to:

Prevent the player on the ground with the ball from getting up.
Attempt to wrest the ball the ball away to take possession

I would not allow that player to:

Make the ball unplayable. You know it when you see it.

As Ian stated the player on the ground has obligations, not rights, to:

a. get up, b. pass the ball or c. release the ball. If he can't do a. or b. then he must do c.

The player on his feet may legally prevent a. and can prevent b. and c. by attempting to take possession of the ball.

Nigib
19-09-16, 14:09
The player who held the ball in to the guy of the floor in the first place. If the player on the ground has had the chance to comply fair enough. That is not what is being described. But change the scenario when you've lost the debate if you wish.

The player on their feet makes the ball unplayable by wrapping around the gatherer and holding the ball - the gatherer is prevented from doing anything they are allowed to, including release the ball, and thereby the wrapper is attempting to induce a pk. So, pk against player on their feet.

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 14:09
The player on their feet makes the ball unplayable by wrapping around the gatherer and holding the ball - the gatherer is prevented from doing anything they are allowed to, including release the ball, and thereby the wrapper is attempting to induce a pk. So, pk against player on their feet.

So, what law are you applying. 14.3 inducing a penalty? Read the definitions in law14, who made the ball unplayable? the player who went to ground

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 14:09
NKW, I appreciate your sentiments. However:

I'm British, having arrived in the USA at the tender age of 18. I know that the Brits are trying very hard not to be confused with Europeans.

I first played The Game in 1955, first coached & refereed in 1974.

I've participated in this forum since whenever, first as Marauder until I recognized that posting under my real name was better than skulking around anonymously.

So, fellow American (as I now consider myself), you must have me confused with someone else.

PS. I agree with your position on this issue.

18 yrs old? Were you sitting next to Ringo on the plane?

I can't use my real name as I not PC in regard to rugby. Kurt Weaver is a very capable US ref, I am not he.

Glad you are here, American you are, but not a Yank. I gathered as Marauder that you were in California, so I have to explain that bit about fresh ideas and POTUS was sarcasm.

Nigib
19-09-16, 16:09
So, what law are you applying. 14.3 inducing a penalty? Read the definitions in law14, who made the ball unplayable? the player who went to ground

Good challenge. However, it's the player on their feet who makes it unplayable, not the player on the ground. Chances are that in wrapping, some part of the player's lower legs contact the gatherer, who is still on the deck - so 14.2 (a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. Failing that, I'll rely on 10.4 (m) acts contrary to good sportsmanship.

SimonSmith
19-09-16, 17:09
Tread lightly yank, remember we are dealing with Europeans. These gentlemen do not use the same thought process as you.

These men have experience in their corner. Sometimes they will tell you exactly how many years of playing and coaching. When challenged by a yank, you can become shunned.

Our ignorance works in our favor, as we do not have years upon years of reinforced misguidance to shape our ideas. Ours is a fresh slate and fresh ideas, just like those of Barack Obama. you and I are the millennials in this crowd.

Careful at all times with your wording, I do not think OB realizes how his response could be misinterpreted by the uninformed

In what is a very crowded field, this is in the running for biggest pile of wank I've read on here, Chopper included

SimonSmith
19-09-16, 17:09
Good challenge. However, it's the player on their feet who makes it unplayable, not the player on the ground. Chances are that in wrapping, some part of the player's lower legs contact the gatherer, who is still on the deck - so 14.2 (a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. Failing that, I'll rely on 10.4 (m) acts contrary to good sportsmanship.

Not sure I follow Nigib.

Yes, if the approaching player falls onto the player on the ground, that's the penalty.
If he arrives and pulls the ball into the POTG without actively trying to strip it, that's the decision.

Can he straddle the POTGs legs? Yes.
Can he attempt to strip the ball? Yes.
If it doesn't come back, the referee has to make a decision - is it the fault of the approaching player, or POTG? Same sort of decision we have to make in the heat of the tackle/ruck transition.

I can see calls going both ways. Key point is that the referee has to be on the spot.

ChrisR
19-09-16, 17:09
.... and, as this is not a tackle the opponent of the POTG can arrive and engage from any direction (given that he is onside).

Nigib
19-09-16, 18:09
Not sure I follow Nigib.

Yes, if the approaching player falls onto the player on the ground, that's the penalty.
If he arrives and pulls the ball into the POTG without actively trying to strip it, that's the decision.

Can he straddle the POTGs legs? Yes.
Can he attempt to strip the ball? Yes.
If it doesn't come back, the referee has to make a decision - is it the fault of the approaching player, or POTG? Same sort of decision we have to make in the heat of the tackle/ruck transition.

I can see calls going both ways. Key point is that the referee has to be on the spot.

ok; so what I've seen and penalised this season is the player wrapping around the POTG, hands on the ball from either side trapping it against the POTG, trying to get a PK for the POTG not releasing. I've suggested the applicable law - but happy to be corrected if there's something more appropriate, or if there's a ruling somewhere that this type of player interaction is allowed.

If I see the POTG deliberately not releasing to a player on their feet then that is a penalty.

And agree it's a judgement call; and we have to be there to have credibility in whatever decision we give.

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 19:09
Pegleg is absolutely right. If a player falls on the ball, an opponet may not play the player, but if he plays the ball, the player on the ground must release it.

In other words you cannot prevent him from getting up, but you can prevent him from keeping the ball when he does so.

If he tries to hold on to the ball when you are (legally) trying to take it, he can be penalised.


:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
I am on record not only on here (and other websites) but also on a number of referee reports that it is indeed a myth.


Unfortunately, if you think the wording of the laws is the solution, you are mistaken. They contain gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions.

As Ian says, the man on the ground has legal options (not rights) that he can exercise. However "the game is to be played by players who are on their feet", and there is a gap: the law gives two things he can't do, but they don't spell out what he can legally do. The convention we use over here is that he can play the ball and thereby prevent the opponent from exercising any of his options, but if he plays the man to prevent him exercising them he is acting illegally. A panel referee told me years ago that he allowed a player to drag someone a short distance into touch but not to just hold his arms so as to prevent him playing or releasing the ball. Indeed if the jackler just tries to prevent release, he gets penalised rather than the man on the ground.

When my report criticises a referee for a law error, that report is seen by several senior members of the Society, who would quickly tell me if they disagreed.

Both statements in bold indicate "you have to let him up".

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 19:09
ok; so what I've seen and penalised this season is the player wrapping around the POTG, hands on the ball from either side trapping it against the POTG, trying to get a PK for the POTG not releasing. I've suggested the applicable law - but happy to be corrected if there's something more appropriate, or if there's a ruling somewhere that this type of player interaction is allowed.

If I see the POTG deliberately not releasing to a player on their feet then that is a penalty.

And agree it's a judgement call; and we have to be there to have credibility in whatever decision we give.

Let me try a go at more appropriate, Making the ball unplayable by going to the ground to gather the ball is against the spirit of the game. The POTG has no rights he can act immediately or get penalized. The arriving player has every right but falling down on the POTG.

PK against POTG, blocking the ball

Nigib
19-09-16, 20:09
Let me try a go at more appropriate, Making the ball unplayable by going to the ground to gather the ball is against the spirit of the game.
Agreed


The POTG has no rights he can act immediately or get penalized.
Agreed


The arriving player has every right but falling down on the POTG.

Agreed
(I'm assuming your 'but' is 'except if he's' or similar in old english)


PK against POTG, blocking the ball
Only if that's what the POTG is doing.

My scenario is when the arriving player traps the ball against the POTG, thereby making the ball unplayable. PK against arriving player

OB..
19-09-16, 20:09
Both statements in bold indicate "you have to let him up".Rubbish.
You deliberately missed out the key bit:In other words you cannot prevent him from getting up, but you can prevent him from keeping the ball when he does so.


The claim from some people is that you cannot do anything until he gets up (with the ball if he wants). Why distort things?

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 23:09
Rubbish.
You deliberately missed out the key bit:In other words you cannot prevent him from getting up, but you can prevent him from keeping the ball when he does so.




Sorry OB I do not find much clarity in this statement. This along with your phrase, The convention we use over here is that he can play the ball and thereby prevent the opponent from exercising any of his options, but if he plays the man to prevent him exercising them he is acting illegally., makes me believe the arriving player is not permitted to hold POTG on the ground and force him to release.

I find no law that agrees with that convention.


Rubbish.


[/COLOR]The claim from some people is that you cannot do anything until he gets up (with the ball if he wants). Why distort things?

That is my understanding of the myth, however, I thought it, and still do, think it is "must let him up with the ball in hand".

Not Kurt Weaver
19-09-16, 23:09
My scenario is when the arriving player traps the ball against the POTG, thereby making the ball unplayable. PK against arriving player

The POTG made a decision to go to ground. That decision should include time to get to feet, or a method to release, or a method to pass or knock ball backward, Failure in these areas is making ball unplayable. If it is a true stalemate, scrum attacking (not covered by law) I really think it is POTG fault as he went to ground knowing alternatives. It is one helluva bearhug if a player is on his feet, and he is able to control POTG without applying bodyweight akin to falling on a player 14.2

Nigib
19-09-16, 23:09
The POTG made a decision to go to ground. That decision should include time to get to feet, or a method to release, or a method to pass or knock ball backward, Failure in these areas is making ball unplayable. If it is a true stalemate, scrum attacking (not covered by law) I really think it is POTG fault as he went to ground knowing alternatives. It is one helluva bearhug if a player is on his feet, and he is able to control POTG without applying bodyweight akin to falling on a player 14.2

you haven't seen this in a game? the player wrapping arms round makes no attempt to take the ball, just gets hands on, then pulls. POTG can do nothing. It's happened in each of my last two games. Pinged the 'wrapper' each time, no complaints.

SimonSmith
20-09-16, 00:09
Yes - it's being coached to High School kids now

Dickie E
20-09-16, 00:09
WTF are you talking about?

10.4(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

Not Kurt Weaver
20-09-16, 01:09
10.4(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.


Did you just validate a myth? The POTG is not carrying the ball. We have to let him up with the ball in hand. Brilliant. Thanks Dickie E

There it is Nigib, That is correct call. POWB

- - - Updated - - -


Yes - it's being coached to High School kids now

Poor coaching as per Dickie E post

Not Kurt Weaver
20-09-16, 01:09
you haven't seen this in a game? the player wrapping arms round makes no attempt to take the ball, just gets hands on, then pulls. POTG can do nothing. It's happened in each of my last two games. Pinged the 'wrapper' each time, no complaints.

what was your secondary signal? Doesn't matter. Dickie has solved it.

Ian_Cook
20-09-16, 02:09
ok; so what I've seen and penalised this season is the player wrapping around the POTG, hands on the ball from either side trapping it against the POTG, trying to get a PK for the POTG not releasing. I've suggested the applicable law - but happy to be corrected if there's something more appropriate, or if there's a ruling somewhere that this type of player interaction is allowed.

My concern with this view is that POTG is very likely to have intentionally positioned himself over the ball. Examples of the way I see this done are..

Player goes to ground on his side next to the ball, grabs it and rolls over belly down on top of it
Player goes to ground on his belly next to or behind the ball, grabs it and pulls it under himself

For mine, the POTG is trying to buy time for his support to arrive by preventing any opponent from quickly stripping the ball. If the POTG does this, he is making the ball unplayable; his infringement is prior to any infringement the POHF might commit by wrapping his arms - the POTG should be PK.

Dickie E
20-09-16, 05:09
Did you just validate a myth? The POTG is not carrying the ball. We have to let him up with the ball in hand. Brilliant. Thanks Dickie E



That isn't quite how I'd see it. IMO while the POHF can't interfere with the POTG (for instance, can't drag him into touch) he can play the ball and thereby probably legally prevent the POTG from getting up with the ball. Once POHF gets a grasp on the ball, POTG must let it go.

Nigib
20-09-16, 06:09
My concern with this view is that POTG is very likely to have intentionally positioned himself over the ball. Examples of the way I see this done are..

Player goes to ground on his side next to the ball, grabs it and rolls over belly down on top of it
Player goes to ground on his belly next to or behind the ball, grabs it and pulls it under himself

For mine, the POTG is trying to buy time for his support to arrive by preventing any opponent from quickly stripping the ball. If the POTG does this, he is making the ball unplayable; his infringement is prior to any infringement the POHF might commit by wrapping his arms - the POTG should be PK.

Fair point. And if I thought this is what happened, I would ping the POTG.

DocY
20-09-16, 08:09
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned 14.2.

I know the POHF isn't falling, but surely the intention of this law is to prevent the POHF unfairly stopping the POTG exercising his options - the equivalent of the tackler having to roll away.

I agree it's a bit of a grey area, mind (and I suspect everyone on here would give the same decision in any clip of such an incident were shown), but I think we can all see the difference between what Ian's describing and what Nigb is.

Nigib
20-09-16, 08:09
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned 14.2.

I know the POHF isn't falling, but surely the intention of this law is to prevent the POHF unfairly stopping the POTG exercising his options - the equivalent of the tackler having to roll away.

I agree it's a bit of a grey area, mind (and I suspect everyone on here would give the same decision in any clip of such an incident were shown), but I think we can all see the difference between what Ian's describing and what Nigb is.

14.2 (a) can certainly apply, particularly where the POHF has knees/below in contact with POTG, so is then deemed going to ground.

tim White
20-09-16, 09:09
As a ref; Blow sooner rather than later before someone does something very naughty. I suspect i might call 'unplayable' the first time this happened, I might well take a different view later- but tell the players what you expect ; reward the positive, penalise the negative.

Pegleg
20-09-16, 11:09
My concern with this view is that POTG is very likely to have intentionally positioned himself over the ball. Examples of the way I see this done are..

Player goes to ground on his side next to the ball, grabs it and rolls over belly down on top of it
Player goes to ground on his belly next to or behind the ball, grabs it and pulls it under himself

For mine, the POTG is trying to buy time for his support to arrive by preventing any opponent from quickly stripping the ball. If the POTG does this, he is making the ball unplayable; his infringement is prior to any infringement the POHF might commit by wrapping his arms - the POTG should be PK.

That will usually be the case from my experience.

Phil E
20-09-16, 12:09
That will usually be the case from my experience.

....and mine. Peep, holding on.

ChrisR
20-09-16, 19:09
Blackberry et al,what law prohibits the POHF from grasping, and holding down the POTG?By doing so he prevents the POTG from exercising one of his options. Now the POTG must pass or release or violate the requirement to act immediately.Resist the urge to offer 'best coaching practice' and just point me to the law, please.

Blackberry
20-09-16, 20:09
Ohhh Kayyy. Forget the question of holding the POTG down; its irrelevant to what the ref will look for. The ref will want to see that the POHF gets unrestricted access to the ball; if the POTG impedes him, the POTG will be penalised.

Not Kurt Weaver
20-09-16, 20:09
QUOTE=ChrisR;320422]Blackberry et al,what law prohibits the POHF from grasping, and holding down the POTG?By doing so he prevents the POTG from exercising one of his options. Now the POTG must pass or release or violate the requirement to act immediately.Resist the urge to offer 'best [ coaching practice' and just point me to the law, please.[/QUOTE]

As best as I can figure, POHF cannot impede POTG who by definition is not carrying the ball.

So the law that prohibits this is 10.4f

(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

The POHF may go for the ball and thus will not violate 10.4f

I can only conclude this from the two statements from OB. The second statement he referred to as "the convention"

The myth "you have to let him up" is even more goofy because POHF does have to let POTG up, just not with the ball. POHF cannot play man on ground with the ball as this man is not carrying it.

Blackberry
20-09-16, 21:09
Sorry NKW, dunno where you are quoting me about not letting the player up... you've got to let go of that. Its nothing to do with my post; the player on the ground must not impede the player on his feet's attempts to get the ball. That's all.

Pegleg
20-09-16, 21:09
Blackberry et al,what law prohibits the POHF from grasping, and holding down the POTG?By doing so he prevents the POTG from exercising one of his options. Now the POTG must pass or release or violate the requirement to act immediately.Resist the urge to offer 'best coaching practice' and just point me to the law, please.

Ok let's have it your way:


The POHF does not have to play the ball. He is not stopped from holdign the player on the ground to prevent release.

The POTG cannot, in equity, be penalised for not releasing as he is unable so to do.

SO we let both player cuddle until half time of no side. Or we blow for an unplayable.

Common sense says the player "at fault" is the one who prevented the ball being played and thus prevented the game from contiuing.

As a ref we judge WHO was at fault. We ping accordingly.

Not Kurt Weaver
20-09-16, 22:09
Sorry NKW, dunno where you are quoting me about not letting the player up... you've got to let go of that. Its nothing to do with my post; the player on the ground must not impede the player on his feet's attempts to get the ball. That's all.

My post was for Chris R. I consider myself as et.al.

SimonSmith
20-09-16, 23:09
Equine well and truly whipped

ChrisR
21-09-16, 01:09
Ok let's have it your way:


The POHF does not have to play the ball. He is not stopped from holdign the player on the ground to prevent release.

The POTG cannot, in equity, be penalised for not releasing as he is unable so to do.

SO we let both player cuddle until half time of no side. Or we blow for an unplayable.

Common sense says the player "at fault" is the one who prevented the ball being played and thus prevented the game from contiuing.

As a ref we judge WHO was at fault. We ping accordingly.

Read my post again, Pegleg. I said nothing about the POHF preventing the POTG from releasing the ball. I'm simply questioning Blackberry's assertion that the POHF can't "play" the POTG and can only make a play for the ball.

That assertion is wrong. If the POHF simply grasps the POTG to prevent him getting up, not interfering with his other options to pass or release, would you PK the POHF? If so cite the Law. What is so hard about that?

Dickie E
21-09-16, 02:09
If the POHF simply grasps the POTG to prevent him getting up, not interfering with his other options to pass or release, would you PK the POHF? If so cite the Law. What is so hard about that?

If it has a material impact in some way, then yes. And by preventing an opponent from rejoining the game, then likely to be material.

Law 10.4(f)

Blackberry
21-09-16, 05:09
Read my post again, Pegleg. I said nothing about the POHF preventing the POTG from releasing the ball. I'm simply questioning Blackberry's assertion that the POHF can't "play" the POTG and can only make a play for the ball.

That assertion is wrong. If the POHF simply grasps the POTG to prevent him getting up, not interfering with his other options to pass or release, would you PK the POHF? If so cite the Law. What is so hard about that?

Yeah, right. I definitely made that assertion. Not in this universe obviously.

Nigib
21-09-16, 10:09
If it has a material impact in some way, then yes. And by preventing an opponent from rejoining the game, then likely to be material.

Law 10.4(f)

10.4f can't apply if POTG still has the ball?

ChrisR
21-09-16, 10:09
Yeah, right. I definitely made that assertion. Not in this universe obviously.

Blackberry, here is your post #3:

The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.

If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.

DocY
21-09-16, 10:09
10.4f can't apply if POTG still has the ball?

If he's still got the ball he's not fulfilled his obligations

DocY
21-09-16, 10:09
Blackberry, here are extracts from your post #3:

The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.

If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.


That's just common sense, surely?

We're discussing whether you can be penalised for playing the man on the ground - and some of us think that, at least in some circumstances, you can - so playing the POTG might result in you being penalised (for whatever reason the ref thinks, but not for not letting him up), but leaving him alone gives the ref no option of penalising you

ChrisR
21-09-16, 11:09
That's just common sense, surely?

We're discussing whether you can be penalised for playing the man on the ground - and some of us think that, at least in some circumstances, you can - so playing the POTG might result in you being penalised (for whatever reason the ref thinks, but not for not letting him up), but leaving him alone gives the ref no option of penalising you

And some of you will be making it up. Please stop making it up.

Law 10,4(f) does not apply as the POTG has the ball

ChrisR
21-09-16, 11:09
If he's still got the ball he's not fulfilled his obligations

Obligations are not rights. The onus is on the POTG. The requirement for the POHF is to not make the ball unplayable. Holding down the POTG does not make the ball unplayable.

DocY
21-09-16, 11:09
And some of you will be making it up. Please stop making it up.

Law 10,4(f) does not apply as the POTG has the ball

14.2 (a). If you've wrapped your arms around the POTG you're going to have a hard job convincing me you're supporting your weight on your feet.

Kind of missing the point though - even if you think it's a law error, why put yourself in the situation where the ref could make it? There's nothing more to be gained than going for the ball.

OB..
21-09-16, 12:09
If so cite the Law. You keep saying this as though it will solve the problem. It often won't, not only because the law has flaws, but also because we sometimes ignore it anyway. I'm sure that you, like every other referee, allow a scrum half to reach into a ruck to pick the ball up.

What we have here is an unspecified situation that arises quite often, so a convention has arisen that has been in place for many years, at least in my experience. My recollection of playing in Maryland for 6 years is that they had the same convention.

ChrisR
21-09-16, 12:09
14.2(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall
on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.


Yes, that would be a violation and a PK. But that isn't the question, is it?

DocY
21-09-16, 12:09
14.2(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall
on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.


Yes, that would be a violation and a PK. But that isn't the question, is it?

The question being "can you penalise a POHF for grabbing a POTG who's in possession of the ball to stop him exercising his responsibilities?"?

I think it does - if the POHF has wrapped his arms around the POTG he won't be supporting his weight on his feet so I'd treat that as falling on the POTG.

ChrisR
21-09-16, 12:09
So, if the POHF grasps the PTOG with one hand on the shoulder and one hand on the shorts to prevent him from getting up but leaving him free to release or pass the ball you would consider that falling over the POTG?

We are simply discussing Law, not best practice for the players.

DocY
21-09-16, 13:09
So, if the POHF grasps the PTOG with one hand on the shoulder and one hand on the shorts to prevent him from getting up but leaving him free to release or pass the ball you would consider that falling over the POTG?

We are simply discussing Law, not best practice for the players.

Good question. If he's putting sufficient weight on the POTG to stop him getting up, he's probably not supporting all his weight on his feet.
Stopping the POTG getting up isn't necessarily an offence - it's how you do it that could be.

If the POHF was standing astride the POTG, for example - stopping him getting up, but clearly on his feet - he definitely wouldn't be penalised.

I'm not sure how I'd feel about the POHF picking up the POTG's ankles, though. Clearly on his feet, but it certainly wouldn't look right.

OB..
21-09-16, 14:09
If the referee feels he has to say something when the problem might arise, what should he shout? If he shouts "Let him up", he is wrong, and I have heard a few novices do this. Better is "Don't fall on him" or "Play the ball".

DocY
21-09-16, 14:09
If the referee feels he has to say something when the problem might arise, what should he shout? If he shouts "Let him up", he is wrong, and I have heard a few novices do this. Better is "Don't fall on him" or "Play the ball".

"On your feet!" is my preference - I shout it enough throughout the rest of the game that (I think) they know what I mean. I've not found it being much of a problems, though - so ingrained is the myth that you have to let the player up that players hardly ever even go for the ball.

I used to use "Stop it [colour/number]!" (for most of my management, actually) but this tended to result in a confused player looking at me and getting smacked. I sometimes still use it now when a particular player is irritating me.

Blackberry
21-09-16, 15:09
Blackberry, here is your post #3:

The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king.


ChrisR, try reading it again. You see?

If they guy on his feet plays just the ball....he is king.

That's the fact.

Everything else you have added on and I can't comment on it.

ChrisR
21-09-16, 15:09
Good question. If he's putting sufficient weight on the POTG to stop him getting up, he's probably not supporting all his weight on his feet.
Stopping the POTG getting up isn't necessarily an offence - it's how you do it that could be.

..... and the Law is?

Let's try a similar scenario:

Red BC slips and goes to ground with ball in hand. As he attempts to get up, but still with a knee on the ground, Blue player grabs him at the shoulders and pushes him down and holds him down. This is not a tackle as Red never got up. Your call?

DocY
21-09-16, 15:09
Good question. If he's putting sufficient weight on the POTG to stop him getting up, he's probably not supporting all his weight on his feet.
Stopping the POTG getting up isn't necessarily an offence - it's how you do it that could be.

..... and the Law is?

Well the usual definition of being 'off your feet' is that not all your weight is supported by your feet. And I don't think there's a huge difference between 'deliberately falling' (14.2 a)and 'going off your feet'.



Let's try a similar scenario:

Red BC slips and goes to ground with ball in hand. As he attempts to get up, but still with a knee on the ground, Blue player grabs him at the shoulders and pushes him down and holds him down. This is not a tackle as Red never got up. Your call?

I'd treat it as a tackle. I realise it's not *technically* a tackle, but it's in the spirit of the game and, as others have mentioned, we don't apply the laws rigidly if it'd go against the spirit of the game.

And in practice, it sounds like the player holding the POTG down is off his feet again, so the outcome (PK against blue) would be the same anyway.

Added to that, if you did allow the blue player to hold on to the red player, you'd have a very hard time selling it - any explanation you give involving the word *technically* is going to do you no favours.

SimonSmith
21-09-16, 17:09
Good question. If he's putting sufficient weight on the POTG to stop him getting up, he's probably not supporting all his weight on his feet.
Stopping the POTG getting up isn't necessarily an offence - it's how you do it that could be.


I'd dispute that idea. By that logic, most ruck set ups would get penalized off the park as the approaching player braces on the POTG

tim White
21-09-16, 18:09
If the referee feels he has to say something when the problem might arise, what should he shout? If he shouts "Let him up", he is wrong, and I have heard a few novices do this. Better is "Don't fall on him" or "Play the ball".

I came to the view that either of the above calls coaches the player on his feet rather be a 'preventative call'. I prefer the player to take responsibility.

OB..
21-09-16, 18:09
I came to the view that either of the above calls coaches the player on his feet rather be a 'preventative call'. I prefer the player to take responsibility.Hence my initial caveat, but some referees seem to feel the need for it. At low levels there is an element of coaching as players have a rather shaky knowledge of the laws.

ChrisR
21-09-16, 20:09
Blackberry & DocY,

I've posed you a simple scenario and all I've asked for is for you to support your position with a Law citing. You have both talked around the question and spouted generalities. You are both wrong.

Long live the myth: "You gotta let 'im up!"

Blackberry
21-09-16, 20:09
Blackberry & DocY,

I've posed you a simple scenario and all I've asked for is for you to support your position with a Law citing. You have both talked around the question and spouted generalities. You are both wrong.

Long live the myth: "You gotta let 'im up!"

Did we ever make an emoticon for logic leaps?

DocY
21-09-16, 22:09
Blackberry & DocY,

I've posed you a simple scenario and all I've asked for is for you to support your position with a Law citing. You have both talked around the question and spouted generalities. You are both wrong.

Long live the myth: "You gotta let 'im up!"

You seem to have ignored my previous posts in which I gave law references and explanations. I'm happy for someone to think I'm wrong - I frequently am - but simply saying "you're wrong" without any sort of explanation as to why really doesn't further the debate.

DocY
21-09-16, 22:09
I'd dispute that idea. By that logic, most ruck set ups would get penalized off the park as the approaching player braces on the POTG

They're quite different, I think. In the ruck setup you're grabbing onto the POTG so you're harder to drive off. You're not actually putting that much weight on him - certainly not enough to stop him getting up. If you are, then you're going off your feet and could be penalised.
The rule of thumb I've always been told to use is: if the player one the ground suddenly vanished, would the player leaning on him hit the ground? If he would, he's gone off his feet. If you're pushing down on a POTG hard enough to stop him getting up, this would happen.

SimonSmith
22-09-16, 00:09
Same in most ruck setups

ChrisR
22-09-16, 00:09
You seem to have ignored my previous posts in which I gave law references and explanations. I'm happy for someone to think I'm wrong - I frequently am - but simply saying "you're wrong" without any sort of explanation as to why really doesn't further the debate.

You have quoted 14.2(a) three times. That prohibits the POHF from falling over the POTG and making the ball unplayable. I have already agreed that that would call for a PK.

But that isn't the scenario I proposed, is it?

If a player goes to ground with the ball the opponent can grasp him to stop him from getting up and force him to make a play with the ball. If the POTG doesn't pass or release immediately then he is liable for penalty. The POHF doesn't have to let him up unti the POTG has made his play. Then he does.

If, in that scenario, the POHF attempts to take the ball from the POTG he is most likely to fall over him and be subject to 14.2(a).

Huck2Spit
22-09-16, 02:09
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

So if those are the only options, what if:
A player goes to ground gathers the ball half a meter from the try zone (momentum doesn't carry him in over the line) and then reaches out grounds the ball in goal? Try or not (or touch down or not)? And is the ball dead or play on?

DocY
22-09-16, 09:09
You have quoted 14.2(a) three times. That prohibits the POHF from falling over the POTG and making the ball unplayable. I have already agreed that that would call for a PK.

But that isn't the scenario I proposed, is it?

If a player goes to ground with the ball the opponent can grasp him to stop him from getting up and force him to make a play with the ball. If the POTG doesn't pass or release immediately then he is liable for penalty. The POHF doesn't have to let him up unti the POTG has made his play. Then he does.

If, in that scenario, the POHF attempts to take the ball from the POTG he is most likely to fall over him and be subject to 14.2(a).

I thought I'd explained how it applies (or not) to the situations you've given. If I've not explained well, I apologise, or if you reject any of my postulates it would make sense to discuss that.

In summary:
It is illegal to deliberately fall on or over a POTG (I don't think there's any doubt about this)

In the absence of a definition of 'fall' I treat it as synonymous with 'going off your feet' (this seems sensible to me, but it is only my interpretation)

Using the same criteria I'd use to judge whether a player is off his feet at any other time, in order to put sufficient weight onto a POTG to stop him getting up, he is likely to be considered to have gone off his feet (though there are ways he could stop the player getting up without going off his feet).

Do you disagree with any of these statements?

As they apply to your scenarios: wrapping arms around a POTG - I struggle to see how you're supporting your body weight on your feet, so consider that falling; grasping a POTG as per preparing to form a ruck - putting enough weight on him to stop him getting up, I consider falling (whether I can tell the difference in this case is another matter); standing astride a POTG and holding him down - probably okay the POHF wouldn't fall over if the POTG wasn't there.

Please note that I am not considering the act of grasping to be an offence in itself, just that the way it's done might be considered falling on the POTG.

Is any of this unclear, or have a misunderstood your scenarios?

ChrisR
22-09-16, 18:09
DocY, the scenario we're discussing is covered entirely by Law 14. The Law defines who & how a players gets to ground with the ball and what their responsibilities are.

It also covers players on their feet and their restrictions (14.2). Essentially the restriction is "Don't make the ball unplayable". There are no other restrictions. there is no requirement to let him up.

So an approaching player can make a choice to go for the ball or hold him down and make him release it but not to go to ground on or near him and obstruct the availability of the ball.

Going off your feet is pertinent only if you fall on the POTG and interfere with the availability of the ball.

I only got into this discussion because Blackberry in his first post stated that the POHF can only make a play for the ball and that is not correct in Law.

Christy
22-09-16, 19:09
DocY, the scenario we're discussing is covered entirely by Law 14. The Law defines who & how a players gets to ground with the ball and what their responsibilities are.

It also covers players on their feet and their restrictions (14.2). Essentially the restriction is "Don't make the ball unplayable". There are no other restrictions. there is no requirement to let him up.

So an approaching player can make a choice to go for the ball or hold him down and make him release it but not to go to ground on or near him and obstruct the availability of the ball.

Going off your feet is pertinent only if you fall on the POTG and interfere with the availability of the ball.

I only got into this discussion because Blackberry in his first post stated that the POHF can only make a play for the ball and that is not correct in Law.

Hi chris.
My 1st #5 i thought covered this scenario.
By stating the ref needs to play his part also .
Only he/ she will will get a proper feel for whos done what ..

Chris r ,,i my self disagree with how you view that an aproaching player has a choice of going for ball ,,or holding an already player on the floor who has the ball , down to the floor ( we are not discussing tackle here obviousrly ).
My wording would be , player on his feet , can go for ball , & stop a player on floor from trying to get up with ball , from a reactive perspective & not pro active .
What im trying to say is he doesnt have to let him up ,,but he cant deliberately go straight for player on floor ,, he needs to be going for ball only ,,( unless reactive )
The ref needs to monitor what player on floor does & probably nearly always ping player on floor , for playing whilst on floor .

The Fat
22-09-16, 20:09
There seems to be an argument from some people on here that the player on his feet is allowed to hold the player on the ground down to prevent him from getting up because there is no specific law that says he can't hold the player down.
Could those same people please provide a law reference that specifically says that the player on his feet CAN hold the other player down?

The old myth of "You have to let him up" is being twisted here to support the argument that you can "pin him down".
The inference of the old myth of "You have to let him up" is that the arriving player on his feet must stand back and let the player on the ground get back to his feet. We all (should) know this is not true. The arriving player who is on his feet may "play the ball".

ChrisR
22-09-16, 20:09
What im trying to say is he doesnt have to let him up ,,but he cant deliberately go straight for player on floor ,, he needs to be going for ball only ,,( unless reactive )The ref needs to monitor what player on floor does & probably nearly always ping player on floor , for playing whilst on floor .OK, two thoughts: Why can a player be reactive but not proactive? If he is proactive and immediately holds him down are you going to PK him and under what law?

- - - Updated - - -


What im trying to say is he doesnt have to let him up ,,but he cant deliberately go straight for player on floor ,, he needs to be going for ball only ,,( unless reactive )The ref needs to monitor what player on floor does & probably nearly always ping player on floor , for playing whilst on floor .OK, two thoughts: Why can a player be reactive but not proactive? If he is proactive and immediately holds him down are you going to PK him and under what law?

Not Kurt Weaver
22-09-16, 21:09
Could those same people please provide a law reference that specifically says that the player on his feet CAN hold the other player down?
.

Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball. 7.1

The Fat
22-09-16, 21:09
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball. 7.1

All of which relate to both player and ball carrier starting on their feet. Where is your law reference that says the non-ball carrier may continue to hold onto a player who has the ball and is on the ground?
I believe there are only two instances;
1. When the ball is in-goal
2. When a "defender" already has the ball carrier wrapped up and the ball carrier goes to ground in a maul

ChrisR
22-09-16, 21:09
There seems to be an argument from some people on here that the player on his feet is allowed to hold the player on the ground down to prevent him from getting up because there is no specific law that says he can't hold the player down.
Could those same people please provide a law reference that specifically says that the player on his feet CAN hold the other player down?

The old myth of "You have to let him up" is being twisted here to support the argument that you can "pin him down".
The inference of the old myth of "You have to let him up" is that the arriving player on his feet must stand back and let the player on the ground get back to his feet. We all (should) know this is not true. The arriving player who is on his feet may "play the ball".

If you are going to PK a player you should have a law in mind. What's your law reference? So far nobody has offered one except 14.2 and that doesn't apply.

Christy
22-09-16, 21:09
OK, two thoughts: Why can a player be reactive but not proactive? If he is proactive and immediately holds him down are you going to PK him and under what law?

- - - Updated - - -

OK, two thoughts: Why can a player be reactive but not proactive? If he is proactive and immediately holds him down are you going to PK him and under what law?

Law 10.1 d obstruction,,,
Can i ask you the same thought process as your question & tell me why or if you feel this does not cover your question .

(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents
an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Intentially is pro active .
It doesnt suggest that this is only applicable to 2 people on their feet.
So is it wrong to imply that it doesnt.
So by same means , can you show me the law , that says i cant penalise under same ..

I do understand your question ,,& why you ask .
So the same thought process ,,can you understand my answer

Not Kurt Weaver
22-09-16, 21:09
All of which relate to both player and ball carrier starting on their feet. Really? hows come? Where is your law reference that says the non-ball carrier may continue to hold onto a player who has the ball and is on the ground? 7.1 is best I can do, and you shot that done, surprised you didn't tell I was MSU
I believe there are only two instances;
1. When the ball is in-goal
2. When a "defender" already has the ball carrier wrapped up and the ball carrier goes to ground in a maul

12345

The Fat
22-09-16, 21:09
If you are going to PK a player you should have a law in mind. What's your law reference? So far nobody has offered one except 14.2 and that doesn't apply.

Well we all know there is no specific law reference within Law 14 that deals with th intricacies of this scenario.
However, you seem to be arguing that the player on his feet may hold, and continue to hold the player on the ground with no intervention/management from the referee.
Do you have a law reference that allows the player on his feet to pin the player on the ground?

Treadmore
22-09-16, 23:09
Well we all know there is no specific law reference within Law 14 that deals with th intricacies of this scenario.
However, you seem to be arguing that the player on his feet may hold, and continue to hold the player on the ground with no intervention/management from the referee.
Do you have a law reference that allows the player on his feet to pin the player on the ground?
Law 7.1

ChrisR
22-09-16, 23:09
Law 10.1 d obstruction,,,
Can i ask you the same thought process as your question & tell me why or if you feel this does not cover your question .

(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents
an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Not applicable. How can a player block an opponent from playing the ball when the opponent already has the ball? This law prohibits a player from obstructing an opponent who is trying to get to the ball.

Try again.

ChrisR
23-09-16, 00:09
Well we all know there is no specific law reference within Law 14 that deals with th intricacies of this scenario.
However, you seem to be arguing that the player on his feet may hold, and continue to hold the player on the ground with no intervention/management from the referee.
Do you have a law reference that allows the player on his feet to pin the player on the ground?

How is this intricate? The POHF must not fall on/over/near POTG. The POHF must not transgress any other laws such as offside or foul play. Other than that he gets to play rugby and take away one of the POTG's options, ie. getting up. Once the POTG has released/passed the ball the POHF must release him.

ChrisR
23-09-16, 00:09
This entire debate would disappear if grasping a player on the ground constituted a tackle.

Ian_Cook
23-09-16, 00:09
I'll give you this. I think we all agree that we are talking about a Law 14 situation, therefore


LAW 14: DEFINTIONS
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet

It is already well established in all areas of the game that if you lean any of your body weight on the ground, or on a player on the ground, then you are "off your feet", so it follows that, if you hold the player with the ball down, you are, perforce, off your feet and liable to penalty!

The Fat
23-09-16, 00:09
This entire debate would disappear if grasping a player on the ground constituted a tackle.

I agree.

It is as simple as saying that, in a Law 14 situation where a player has gone to ground to gather the ball or goes to ground with the ball (other than because of a tackle), then the simple action of an opponent, who is on his feet, placing a hand on the player on the ground constitutes a completed tackle and Law 15 now applies. i.e. As soon as the man on his feet presses/grasps the player on the ground, that player's option of getting up with the ball is no longer available to him.

ChrisR
23-09-16, 00:09
Then I guess "let 'im up" isn't a myth.

The Fat
23-09-16, 01:09
Then I guess "let 'im up" isn't a myth.

As I said before, the mythical call of "You have to let him up", implies that the POHF can't do ANYTHING when we all know that he is entitled to make a play at the ball and make a contest of the situation.

Ian_Cook
23-09-16, 01:09
Then I guess "let 'im up" isn't a myth.


No, it IS a myth.

There is no specific law that says the POHF has to let him up. The myth comes from a misunderstanding the meaning of part of the Law.

14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball

Those who perpetuate of the myth interpret this to mean that the POTG has a right to get to his feet with the ball, and therefore, other players must let him get to his feet. This is wrong; the three things listed in 14.1 (a) are options, not rights.

If, in the course of LEGAL attempts by the POHF to get the ball, the POTG is unable to get to his feet, for example, if the POHF is straddling him, and has his hands on the ball, that is a problem for the POTG. If he doesn't release, he should be penalised... because the rights of the POHF trump the options of the POTG.

If the POTG has rolled over or drawn the ball under him and cannot get to his feet because the POHF is wrapped with hands on the ball and can't pull the ball out, the POTG should be penalised for making the ball unplayable...because the rights of the POHF trump the options of the POTG.

Christy
23-09-16, 09:09
Law 10.1 d obstruction,,,
Can i ask you the same thought process as your question & tell me why or if you feel this does not cover your question .

(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents
an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Not applicable. How can a player block an opponent from playing the ball when the opponent already has the ball? This law prohibits a player from obstructing an opponent who is trying to get to the ball.

Try again.

just as i thought ,, sorry chris r ,,but your not really interested in implying your same thought process to this scenario.
ill ask same question again .
it is blocking a player from playing the ball ,,its just that the player is in this instance is holding the ball.

interesting debate ,from all who attributed ,, i guess this situation is divided ,,
were not going to convince people with complete opposite views ,,to change their perspective .
thats ok ,, { i think }

ChrisR
23-09-16, 10:09
just as i thought ,, sorry chris r ,,but your not really interested in implying your same thought process to this scenario.
ill ask same question again .
it is blocking a player from playing the ball ,,its just that the player is in this instance is holding the ball.

Grasping the POTG to prevent him from getting does not prevent him from playing the ball. It prevents him from getting up, he can still release or pass the ball so 10.1 does not apply.

didds
23-09-16, 10:09
not really sure where I stajd on this, but I will ask...

the POHF holding the POTG down is hardly acting in a positive fashion? why isn;t he trying to grab the ball?

didds

Christy
23-09-16, 10:09
Grasping the POTG to prevent him from getting does not prevent him from playing the ball. It prevents him from getting up, he can still release or pass the ball so 10.1 does not apply.

well if the player on his feet only has 2 arms & hands .
and he is using them to grasp player on floor .
how can he grasp ball { unless he has 2 more arms & hands }
there fore if you use your tools at your disposal { usually 2 arms & hands }
and choose to grasp player & not ball ,,surely by intent you have chosen not to play the ball ..

the question is as we all know by now .
is about as you feel , player on feet , has to let player on ground get up ..
i cant see in law anywhere where it states same ..
be nice & do it my way { youl have a better game }

ChrisR
23-09-16, 10:09
not really sure where I stajd on this, but I will ask...

the POHF holding the POTG down is hardly acting in a positive fashion? why isn;t he trying to grab the ball?

didds

How is it not positive? It's just rugby, preventing the opponent from exercising one of his options.

The first thing that the POTG is wanting to do is get up so the first thing the POHF needs to do is take away that option.

Let's say the POTG is half way up (one knee still on the ground) what do we expect the POHF to do? Let him up so he can be tackled or grasp him and put him back on the ground? The POTG is not going to be presenting the ball to the POHF.

DocY
23-09-16, 10:09
{ usually 2 arms & hands }


You've clearly never been to a game in the Forest of Dean!

ChrisR
23-09-16, 11:09
No, it IS a myth.

There is no specific law that says the POHF has to let him up. The myth comes from a misunderstanding the meaning of part of the Law.

14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball

Those who perpetuate of the myth interpret this to mean that the POTG has a right to get to his feet with the ball, and therefore, other players must let him get to his feet. This is wrong; the three things listed in 14.1 (a) are options, not rights.

If, in the course of LEGAL attempts by the POHF to get the ball, the POTG is unable to get to his feet, for example, if the POHF is straddling him, and has his hands on the ball, that is a problem for the POTG. If he doesn't release, he should be penalised... because the rights of the POHF trump the options of the POTG.

If the POTG has rolled over or drawn the ball under him and cannot get to his feet because the POHF is wrapped with hands on the ball and can't pull the ball out, the POTG should be penalised for making the ball unplayable...because the rights of the POHF trump the options of the POTG.

We are in complete agreement that the POTG has options, not rights.

We simply disagree on the legality of holding down the POTG if he attempts to get up.

DocY
23-09-16, 11:09
We simply disagree on the legality of holding down the POTG if he attempts to get up.

Not wishing to sound like a broken record, but for me:
POHF is on his feet - fine
P(who was)OHF has gone off his feet (using the same definitions as everywhere else) - not fine.

didds
23-09-16, 11:09
I'm still struggling with why the POHF would spend his effort holding the POTG down, rather than try and win the ball, with a potential PK if POTG doesn't release it.

didds

DocY
23-09-16, 11:09
I'm still struggling with why the POHF would spend his effort holding the POTG down, rather than try and win the ball, with a potential PK if POTG doesn't release it.

didds

I don't think I've ever seen it, but there's no debate about the legality of that :)

ChrisR
23-09-16, 12:09
To say that a player has 'gone off his feet' because he applies downward pressure to the POTG is playing Dr Frankenstein with the laws.

"The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." is a frequently heard mantra and has merit when placed in its original source to prohibit players from falling over the POTG and making the ball unplayable:

Law 14 definitions:

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make
the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not
immediately available to either team so that play may continue.

If that phrase was universally applied to the game then tacklers would be penalized.

"Off his feet" has been taken from tackle Law 15.6:

15.6(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on
their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.

After a tackle the POTG is not allowed to get to his feet without first releasing the ball so there is no need to prevent him from getting up with the ball.

Since the POTG in possession not after a tackle has the option of getting up then I see it fair play for the POHF to prevent that.

Christy
23-09-16, 12:09
Law 14 definitions:

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make
the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not
immediately available to either team so that play may continue.

If that phrase was universally applied to the game then tacklers would be penalized.

"Off his feet" has been taken from tackle Law 15.6:

15.6(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on
their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.

After a tackle the POTG is not allowed to get to his feet without first releasing the ball so there is no need to prevent him from getting up with the ball.

Since the POTG in possession not after a tackle has the option of getting up then I see it fair play for the POHF to prevent that.[/QUOTE]

sorry chris r ,,but you cant state if those laws were universally enforced { as in all aspects of game ---tackle , ruck ,maul ,line out , tackle , forward pass , drop kick }
because they all have their own independent set of laws , for that very reason .
now you wouldnt except my definition of blocking earlier ,,maybe right so { as i was trying to make you make sense of your own thought process of how laws are interpenetrated }
so surely by same measures you cant quote above .
sorry chris r ,, your not convincing me.
you have also been asked to put your case forward by laws ,,i mot seen that you done that either .

ChrisR
23-09-16, 12:09
I'm still struggling with why the POHF would spend his effort holding the POTG down, rather than try and win the ball, with a potential PK if POTG doesn't release it.diddsdidds, this not an issue of player tactics but one of law. However, tactically speaking, if a POTG is getting up (his first choice) I'd want the POHF to put him back on the deck then go for the ball. This is different from a tackle as the tackled player does not have the option of getting up (until he releases the ball).

DocY
23-09-16, 12:09
Since the POTG in possession not after a tackle has the option of getting up then I see it fair play for the POHF to prevent that.

Indeed, but his powers to stop the POTG getting up are not unlimited.

Under what circumstances (if any) would you consider the POHF should be penalised for stopping the POTG getting up?

ChrisR
23-09-16, 12:09
you have also been asked to put your case forward by laws ,,i mot seen that you done that either .How about: 7.1 Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.That, and the lack of specific law that would prohibit it. Playing Dr Frankenstein and concocting law from other non-relevant laws so you can prohibit the natural action of the player doesn't improve the game.

ChrisR
23-09-16, 12:09
Indeed, but his powers to stop the POTG getting up are not unlimited. Under what circumstances (if any) would you consider the POHF should be penalised for stopping the POTG getting up?If violated other applicable law:Coming from an offside position. Committing foul play such as standing on his head.And 14.2 Falling over the player on the ground.

didds
23-09-16, 12:09
didds, this not an issue of player tactics but one of law..

Oh I get that :-)

I just don;t see the point of why anyone would do it :-) the only thing that comes vaguely close to why is to drag the POTG into touch - which also has differing opinions here anyway


didds

DocY
23-09-16, 12:09
Falling over the player on the ground.

Then how would you define 'falling' if differently from the usual going off your feet?

Rich_NL
23-09-16, 12:09
Perhaps it would clarify to consider: Red 14 goes to ground to gather a ball on the ground near the touchline. Blue 7 races in, drags him two metres by his shoulders and rolls him into touch.

Is it illegal to manhandle the POTG in this way?

DocY
23-09-16, 12:09
Perhaps it would clarify to consider: Red 14 goes to ground to gather a ball on the ground near the touchline. Blue 7 races in, drags him two metres by his shoulders and rolls him into touch.

Is it illegal to manhandle the POTG in this way?

Probably not in my mind. Might have to be careful not to be obstructing if he gets rid of the ball before the touchline though.

didds
23-09-16, 13:09
I suppose an analogy here would be to drag a POTG into in goal to effect a touch down and 5m scrum... except why wouldn't you try to grab the ball and score of course! LOL

didds

Not Kurt Weaver
23-09-16, 13:09
Equine well and truly whipped

70 posts since this statement. Should we shut it down?

OB..
23-09-16, 13:09
70 posts since this statement. Should we shut it down?I think this debate nicely illustrates the problem of believing that all queries can be resolved by scrying the wording of the laws.

The reality is that we necessarily use an amalgam of the law, WR's obfuscations, and refereeing conventions. Sometimes referees develop conflicting conventions. When a kick is caught by a player with one foot in touch, whose throw is it? We now all agree the kicker is responsible for putting the ball into touch, but at one time Australia and New Zealand held opposing views, so the IRB had to step in.

It is agreed that although it is legal for the POTG to get up with the ball, the POHF does not have to wait for him to do so. He may definitely go for the ball, and the POTG must then release it. What is contested is whether or not the POHF may prevent the POTG from getting up by holding him down. I do not usually see that - players at any decent level go for the ball.

I very occasionally hear a novice call "Let him up", but more often I hear a player complaining to the referee "He's got to let him up, Sir", and being corrected by the referee.

As a practical problem, is it really worth 14+ pages of inconclusive argument?

didds
23-09-16, 13:09
i suppose the alternative OB would be to start a thread on leggings...

;-)

didds

ChrisR
23-09-16, 13:09
Oh I get that :-)

I just don;t see the point of why anyone would do it :-) the only thing that comes vaguely close to why is to drag the POTG into touch - which also has differing opinions here anyway


didds

Blue grubbers through and the ball goes behind the last Red. Red chases back and goes to ground, gathers the ball and is getting to his feet. Blue has a choice of putting red back on the deck where he has to release or try for the ball and risk Red getting up and fending him off until the cavalry arrives.

If red succeeds in getting up before Blue gets there do you want Blue going for the ball or making the tackle. For me, putting the player on the ground first wins because he has to release. Grappling for the ball is secondary.

didds
23-09-16, 13:09
but that is PUTTING the player on the ground.

not holding him on the ground.

if he is already on the ground, then going for the ball means POTG has to release.

didds

ChrisR
23-09-16, 13:09
As a practical problem, is it really worth 14+ pages of inconclusive argument?

Yes, it is. Participation is always by choice.

The third post in this thread made a statement that I see as incorrect in law. Should I ignore it or challenge it? When subsequent posters try to qualify that position by "scrying" the laws should I just sit down and shut up?

That would be convenient, wouldn't it and referees could happily carry on making stuff up.

ChrisR
23-09-16, 14:09
but that is PUTTING the player on the ground.

not holding him on the ground.

if he is already on the ground, then going for the ball means POTG has to release.

didds

I agree but only if the POTG goes along with the plan and doesn't make a move to get up. But in reality getting up is going to be his first instinct. If he's held down he now has to release and the ball is yours. Go for the ball and you risk falling on him and hit with 14.2.

OB..
23-09-16, 15:09
As a practical problem, is it really worth 14+ pages of inconclusive argument?

Yes, it is. Participation is always by choice.

The third post in this thread made a statement that I see as incorrect in law. Should I ignore it or challenge it? When subsequent posters try to qualify that position by "scrying" the laws should I just sit down and shut up?

That would be convenient, wouldn't it and referees could happily carry on making stuff up.
My point is that trying to get a definitive answer by using law references and inferences is not a godd enough approach, because the laws are simply not written that way. As I said earlier, the laws contain gaps, contradictions, and ambiguities, so referees have no option but to agree ways to deal with such problems, even to the extent, in some case, of actively supporting some breaches of the letter of the law.

One aim of sites such as this, referee meetings etc is to get all referees working to the same understanding of how the laws are best applied. It is not for individual referees to plough their own furrow. I know that our panel referees as a group spend a lot of time on this to ensure consistency as far as possible.

Blackberry
23-09-16, 19:09
As a practical problem, is it really worth 14+ pages of inconclusive argument?

Yes, it is. Participation is always by choice.

The third post in this thread made a statement that I see as incorrect in law. Should I ignore it or challenge it? When subsequent posters try to qualify that position by "scrying" the laws should I just sit down and shut up?

That would be convenient, wouldn't it and referees could happily carry on making stuff up.

Sigh. My post is advice to coaches to make sure their player is king; it is advice what to do to avoid being penalised. Sheez, all this hissy because you have not read my post correctly. You couldn't make it up. Or according to you we do.

winchesterref
23-09-16, 22:09
Read my post again, Pegleg. I said nothing about the POHF preventing the POTG from releasing the ball. I'm simply questioning Blackberry's assertion that the POHF can't "play" the POTG and can only make a play for the ball.

That assertion is wrong. If the POHF simply grasps the POTG to prevent him getting up, not interfering with his other options to pass or release, would you PK the POHF? If so cite the Law. What is so hard about that?

Late to the party.

7.1 Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

... supports your view.

The Fat
23-09-16, 22:09
I agree but only if the POTG goes along with the plan and doesn't make a move to get up. But in reality getting up is going to be his first instinct. If he's held down he now has to release and the ball is yours. Go for the ball and you risk falling on him and hit with 14.2.

OK, so now I'm interested in the bit I have made bold text. Regarding that phrase, my assumption is that, although the POHF has not "Brought" the BC to ground whereby effecting a tackle as per its definition, you are now treating the POTG as a tackled player i.e. he is held and no longer has the option of getting to his feet with the ball. I don't completely disagree with your line of thinking.

Look, I can see where you are coming from. I believe I have understood your argument from the outset but let's look at the ramifications of that bold text, "If he's held down he now has to release....."
We now have a pseudo tackle and I don't mind that line of thinking. However, if we have a pseudo tackle, the POHF must now release the POTG before going for the ball. He cannot continue to hold him down and I believe this is where you are getting all of the opposing comments from.

If you go back to one of my previous posts, I suggested that the POHF need only to place a hand or grasp the POTG so that he is "held" to remove the POTG's option of getting to his feet with the ball. To me, this needs only be for a second and I would not penalise a POHF for that momentary hand on the BC.
The alternative, and the conventional method that I believe is the correct/intended action, is simply that the POHF goes for the ball. As soon as he is over the POTG and is contesting for the ball, the POTG MUST release it i.e. his option to get to his feet with the ball is no longer available to him.

We all know that the POHF is not allowed to fall on the POTG. In some of your posts you have suggested that if the POTG is in the process of getting to his feet, even if he still has a knee on the ground, you would allow the arriving player to tackle him. Such an action, in most cases, would be akin to falling on the POTG.

In practicle terms, I agree with OB's assessment of how we are to make sense of the Laws.

To summarise, whilst I would allow a POHF to place a hand on the POTG to initially remove the POTG's option of getting up with the ball, I would want him to then release/show daylight and then go for the ball. I would not allow the POHF to continue to hold him down. We wouldn't allow a player to continue to hold a player down in any other situation except for the 2 instances I mentioned in an earlier post eg: maul, in-goal

The Fat
23-09-16, 22:09
Late to the party.

7.1 Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

... supports your view.

You may not continue to "hold" a BC who is on the ground

Not Kurt Weaver
23-09-16, 22:09
" a BC who is on the ground

There is no such animal

The Fat
23-09-16, 22:09
There is no such animal

Ok then, "a player who has gone to ground to gather a ball in a Law 14 situation and has gained possession".

winchesterref
23-09-16, 22:09
All of which relate to both player and ball carrier starting on their feet.

Where does it say that?

Not Kurt Weaver
23-09-16, 22:09
Where does it say that?

I can't wait for this answer, keep going with that train of thought Winchester. We will go full circle in under 10 posts I predict.

I with you BTW

winchesterref
23-09-16, 22:09
Indeed, but his powers to stop the POTG getting up are not unlimited.

Under what circumstances (if any) would you consider the POHF should be penalised for stopping the POTG getting up?

Falling on/over which is specifically prohibited and referred to several times within the law and the definitions

winchesterref
23-09-16, 22:09
Then how would you define 'falling' if differently from the usual going off your feet?

"Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground" does not automatically mean the player who has two hands on another holding them down is then unable to support their own body weight.

Falling is going off their feet. If a player can support themselves in standing/bending/leaning over/whatever then they are not "off feet" and may play the ball or hold/push the POTG who is holding the ball.

winchesterref
23-09-16, 23:09
You may not continue to "hold" a BC who is on the ground

Course you can, if it isn't a tackle (which it isn't) - it's just a player on the ground holding the ball

DocY
23-09-16, 23:09
"Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground" does not automatically mean the player who has two hands on another holding them down is then unable to support their own body weight.

Falling is going off their feet. If a player can support themselves in standing/bending/leaning over/whatever then they are not "off feet" and may play the ball or hold/push the POTG who is holding the ball.

There have been a few posts along these lines (from me and others). The question was really aimed at ChrisR.

My standpoint is that no, you are not necessarily off your feet if you grab the POTG, but putting sufficient weight onto him such that you're preventing him from getting up (or if you're low enough to wrap your arms around him) you wouldn't be supporting your weight on your feet.

winchesterref
23-09-16, 23:09
There have been a few posts along these lines (from me and others). The question was really aimed at ChrisR.

My standpoint is that no, you are not necessarily off your feet if you grab the POTG, but putting sufficient weight onto him such that you're preventing him from getting up (or if you're low enough to wrap your arms around him) you wouldn't be supporting your weight on your feet.

This isn't necessarily the case. If a player is lying flat on their stomach having taken a slide to gather the ball, it takes comparatively little force to be held down from a player standing above them than trying to get up.

Anyway, the chances of me seeing something like this happen are slim to none. However, if it does, I can't penalise it just because it looks wrong and is unconventional.

DocY
23-09-16, 23:09
This isn't necessarily the case. If a player is lying flat on their stomach having taken a slide to gather the ball, it takes comparatively little force to be held down than when you're standing above them.

Anyway, the chances of me seeing something like this happen are slim to none. However, if it does, I can't penalise it just because it looks wrong and is unconventional.

Completely agree (there should have been a 'probably' in my last post) - there are other examples earlier in the thread of where you can stop a player getting up without going off your feet.

The point is that the POHF doesn't have to let the POTG up, but he doesn't have carte blanche to hold the him down. If he goes off his feet in order to hold him down, it's an offence.

As you say - I don't know that I've ever seen it happen. Either the POHF goes straight for the ball or waves his arms around before the POTG is up then makes a tackle.

OB..
24-09-16, 00:09
I think I'll go and re-read the leggings thread.

The Fat
24-09-16, 01:09
Course you can, if it isn't a tackle (which it isn't) - it's just a player on the ground holding the ball

So you are saying that the POHF can pin the player with the ball, who happens to be on the ground, for as long as he wants to and neither player needs to do anything positive i.e. POHF compete for possession & POTG release the ball, we just have 1 bloke on his feet pinning 1 bloke with the ball to the ground indefinitely? Right.

You guys believe Law 7 backs your interpretation, others believe it doesn't. Neither side can produce a Law reference specifically aimed at this scenario so what are we left with? Convention.

I'll leave it at that.

Cheers

Ian_Cook
24-09-16, 02:09
I think I'll go and re-read the leggings thread.

I think I'll join you!

The Fat
24-09-16, 03:09
Just as a matter of interest, anyone care to comment on video 2 of Law 14.2(a) ?
Looks a lot like a blue player has gone to ground to gather the ball and as momentum continues, he starts to swing round onto his knees and appears to be getting to his feet as the red player prevents him from getting up. The red player still has feet on the ground as he wraps his arms around the blue player's torso. The referee penalises red for tackling/holding (blue player was still technically on the ground) the blue player before he gets to his feet.

Comments please.

ChrisR
24-09-16, 10:09
So you are saying that the POHF can pin the player with the ball, who happens to be on the ground, for as long as he wants to and neither player needs to do anything positive i.e. POHF compete for possession & POTG release the ball, we just have 1 bloke on his feet pinning 1 bloke with the ball to the ground indefinitely? Right.

You guys believe Law 7 backs your interpretation, others believe it doesn't. Neither side can produce a Law reference specifically aimed at this scenario so what are we left with? Convention.

I'll leave it at that.

Cheers

No, not the case. The POTG has to act immediately. Holding him down simply prevents him from getting up so that the POTG has to pass or release immediately and if he doesn't he should get PKd.

Once the POTG releases the ball the POHF must let him go to allow him to get up.

Do you have a link for the video?

Not Kurt Weaver
24-09-16, 10:09
Just as a matter of interest, anyone care to comment on video 2 of Law 14.2(a) ?
Looks a lot like a blue player has gone to ground to gather the ball and as momentum continues, he starts to swing round onto his knees and appears to be getting to his feet as the red player prevents him from getting up. The red player still has feet on the ground as he wraps his arms around the blue player's torso. The referee penalises red for tackling/holding (blue player was still technically on the ground) the blue player before he gets to his feet.

Comments please.


One of those 2 videos has the ref exclaim, "you gotta let him up". Ain't this great

The Fat
24-09-16, 11:09
One of those 2 videos has the ref exclaim, "you gotta let him up". Ain't this great

The referee says "He must get up first", not "You gotta let him up".
The audio is not definitive. The referee could easily be telling the red player that if he wants to tackle the blue player he will have to wait till the blue player gets to his feet. In other words, you can't tackle a player who is on the ground. The red player tried to maintain his feet. The referee may have ruled that the red player was not supporting his own weight and had therefore "fell" on a player on the ground.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=14

Not Kurt Weaver
24-09-16, 12:09
The referee says "He must get up first", not "You gotta let him up".
The audio is not definitive. The referee could easily be telling the red player that if he wants to tackle the blue player he will have to wait till the blue player gets to his feet. In other words, you can't tackle a player who is on the ground. The red player tried to maintain his feet. The referee may have ruled that the red player was not supporting his own weight and had therefore "fell" on a player on the ground.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=14

Ouch, that was my selective hearing. simply evidence that I have been indoctrinated to a view different than yours. I am weak when it comes to listening to the other view,

ChrisR
24-09-16, 13:09
The referee says "He must get up first", not "You gotta let him up".

can anyone please explain how they are different in meaning in the context of the video?

OB..
24-09-16, 17:09
The referee says "He must get up first", not "You gotta let him up".

can anyone please explain how they are different in meaning in the context of the video?"If you want to tackle the player, you must wait until he gets up" is different from "you have to wait until he gets up before you do anything".

Christy
24-09-16, 18:09
The referee says "He must get up first", not "You gotta let him up"..


can anyone please explain how they are different in meaning in the context of the video?

# nr 5 ,,,,,& # 102.
Finally chris r
The proof is there in black & white ( and colour ). In the vidio
Once again ill refer you back to my 1st post #5.
Explains the vidio to a T.

Also # 102 , where i replied to your view about my reactive & proactive description.
Also explains vidio to another T.

He was pinged by allan rowland , because his actions were PROACTIVE.
Player on ground before he tried to even think about getting up ,or release / pass ball .
Got grabbed by player on his feet ..
( had player on ground tried to get up ,,player on his feet can be REACTIVE ,,and could of grabbed him & put him back on floor if so wishes ).
For that split second ( and all these calls in these scenarios wil be split second calls ) , had player on his feet gone for the ball , he would of either ripped ball or be awarded penalty , for player on floor not releasing.

The ref got that call correct under those circamstances.
Hallelolyah ( possibly spelt wrong ) .
We can all move on with knowledge that we were all correct after all
And you were wrong .

Not Kurt Weaver
24-09-16, 22:09
The referee says "He must get up first", not "You gotta let him up".

can anyone please explain how they are different in meaning in the context of the video?

Chris R,

"The Emperor's new clothes are beautiful",

Your fellow Mercin,

Not Kurt Weaver

ChrisR
24-09-16, 22:09
Christy, I hope you didn't wet your knickers in glee coz it would have been a waste of good piss.

The videos are attache to, and examples of, a POHF falling on top of a POTG. Law 14.2(a). Great examples, too.

That was never in dispute and I have made reference to that in several of my posts.

What I have repeatedly described is a player staying on his feet and preventing the POTG from getting up by pushing him back down and/or hold him there.

Although that is not prohibited in law some would deem it unlawful as the downward pressure would constitute "leaving his feet".

Disagreement on points of law is standard fare for this site but it helps if the parties properly understand the points under debate.

The Fat
25-09-16, 01:09
Blue grubbers through and the ball goes behind the last Red. Red chases back and goes to ground, gathers the ball and is getting to his feet. Blue has a choice of putting red back on the deck where he has to release or try for the ball and risk Red getting up and fending him off until the cavalry arrives.

If red succeeds in getting up before Blue gets there do you want Blue going for the ball or making the tackle. For me, putting the player on the ground first wins because he has to release. Grappling for the ball is secondary.

Hi ChrisR,
Re your last post, I agree that the thread evolved to a point where you were talking about simply holding the POTG down and I believe I have responded to your position on that scenario however, the quote above is from your post #144 which is exactly the same as the video link I posted except that the players' colours are switched. I would say that the video example gives a fair indication of how your post #144 is to be refereed. I'll leave it to others to continue the argument, if they wish, re just pinning the POTG to the floor.
To others, let's keep the discussion about the Laws/interpretations rather than personal "I told you so" jibes please guys. They add nothing to the debate.
Cheers

Phil E
25-09-16, 08:09
argumentum ad ignorantiam

Im halfway through the leggings thread, it's getting really exciting.

Ian_Cook
25-09-16, 09:09
argumentum ad ignorantiam

Im halfway through the leggings thread, it's getting really exciting.

...but not as a exciting as any of the "Forward Pass" threads!!!

ChrisR
25-09-16, 12:09
argumentum ad ignorantiam

Quite appropriate, but probably not in the way you intended.

My approach to rugby law is "If it doesn't say you can't then you can". Your quote would challenge this.

ChrisR
25-09-16, 12:09
TF, I agree that I left out an essential element in the scenario from 144. That is the POHF (in the video Red) staying on his feet. In the video he is clearly violating 14.2(a).

In the video Red has no chance of competing for the ball but had he simply pushed Blue back down or held him down without wrapping and collapsing on him would he be offending?

Phil E
25-09-16, 13:09
Quite appropriate, but probably not in the way you intended.

My approach to rugby law is "If it doesn't say you can't then you can". Your quote would challenge this.

Exactly as I intended.

It doesn't say you can't drive a car onto the pitch, or use an offensive weapon, does that mean you can?.....sometimes you have to stop swimming against the tide!

OB..
25-09-16, 13:09
My approach to rugby law is "If it doesn't say you can't then you can". Your quote would challenge this.
I don't believe that to be true. It is unrealistic to claim that the laws ought to cover every eventuality. There will be gaps. One other such is the lack of clarity over when the ball is in touch if played by a player in the air.

My approach is that we should try to do what is best for the game of rugby and aim for consistency in refereeing on such conventions.

Sometimes these conventions are made law. The classic case is the hand-off. Before 2011 it was technically an offence because by definition you were playing an opponent who did not have the ball.

ChrisR
25-09-16, 15:09
Exactly as I intended.

It doesn't say you can't drive a car onto the pitch, or use an offensive weapon, does that mean you can?.....sometimes you have to stop swimming against the tide!

I think 10.5(m) has those covered. The tide flows both ways.

ChrisR
25-09-16, 15:09
I don't believe that to be true. It is unrealistic to claim that the laws ought to cover every eventuality. True, but it is a start. There will be gaps. One other such is the lack of clarity over when the ball is in touch if played by a player in the air.

My approach is that we should try to do what is best for the game of rugby and aim for consistency in refereeing on such conventions.

Sometimes these conventions are made law. The classic case is the hand-off. Before 2011 it was technically an offence because by definition you were playing an opponent who did not have the ball.

I totally agree with the statement in Red.

Anyway, I thought you, Ian and Phil were over in the Leggings department looking for a fourth for bridge.

OB..
25-09-16, 16:09
True, but it is a start.So you agree that the laws do not cover everything.
I totally agree with the statement in Red. (My approach is that we should try to do what is best for the game of rugby and aim for consistency in refereeing on such conventions.). You also agree conventions are needed.

As I mentioned earlier, we sometimes have different conventions arising in different countries. When it gets to international level, WR needs to step in. In this case I suspect they won't need to because top players will know it makes more sense to go for the ball.

Not Kurt Weaver
26-09-16, 14:09
I totally agree with the statement in Red.

Anyway, I thought you, Ian and Phil were over in the Leggings department looking for a fourth for bridge.

Canasta, I think a better close for the joke is Canasta. Just IMO

Camquin
26-09-16, 15:09
Given how long theat thread has been going you could paint the Forth bridge

didds
26-09-16, 15:09
Given how long theat thread has been going you could paint the Forth bridge

and the Fifth

didds

OB..
26-09-16, 18:09
and the Fifth

diddsAre you claiming Victory?

Ian_Cook
26-09-16, 20:09
I think 10.5(m) has those covered. The tide flows both ways.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/headscratch.gif In my book, 10.5 only goes as far as (b)

ChrisR
26-09-16, 20:09
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/headscratch.gif In my book, 10.5 only goes as far as (b)

My mistake, 10.4(m)