PDA

View Full Version : France v Australia: Kuridrani's try



Ian_Cook
20-11-16, 05:11
IMO, the last Aussie try should have been no try, touch-in-goal.

LAW 22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

https://youtu.be/DLjLt2K3yuo?t=726

The ball touches the corner post fractionally before being grounded on the goal-line.

Now, if that does not meet the description of first grounded against a flag post then I would like someone to explain to me what does?

Dickie E
20-11-16, 09:11
yes, all very odd. Like Barrett's "try" in 14th minute:

https://youtu.be/xlRz1E3Fvac?t=364

menace
20-11-16, 11:11
Curiously the France try they checked for knock forward seems hard to fathom why that was allowed? How does a player that knocks it a considerable amount forward and not regather it but ball is collected by a 2nd player behind him (but well in front of the first point is was knocked) not be called is perplexing. It was pretty clear on the side replay they looked at...not that GJ gave the TMO much chance to say anything though!

Ian_Cook
20-11-16, 12:11
yes, all very odd. Like Barrett's "try" in 14th minute:

https://youtu.be/xlRz1E3Fvac?t=364

1. I don't see what relevance this has to the question I asked

2. Looks like a pretty clear grounding to me

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/IREvNZ-Barrett.png

3. Even if you argue that it wasn't grounded (which it was) then it should have been PT anyway for the coathangar tackle by Green 10

Rawling
20-11-16, 12:11
Attacking player goes to ground the ball on the goal line; the ball touches the flag post on the way down and is still touching it as it is grounded:

https://streamable.com/5tky

I thought that should be a 22 drop out myself, but clearly a top referee and TMO disagree. Sadly we don't get the discussion.

Phil E
20-11-16, 13:11
3. Even if you argue that it wasn't grounded (which it was) then it should have been PT anyway for the coathangar tackle by Green 10

Agreed.

dave_clark
20-11-16, 13:11
i can't see a grounding there (although i agree that it *probably* was grounded). using the old lingo i would have thought this fails the "try: yes or no?" question, but passes the "any reason" one.

but PT if no try, so ultimately academic.

ianh5979
20-11-16, 16:11
Good try, flag post is counted as in field

Rawling
20-11-16, 17:11
Usually, yes, but in this scenario?


If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

Decorily
20-11-16, 18:11
See France v Australia thread in 'was it right?' forum.

- threads merged

Ian_Cook
20-11-16, 19:11
Good try, flag post is counted as in field

See post #1 and #9, in particular, read Law 22.12 quoted therein

I ask the question again... if what you saw in this piece of play does not meet the description "first grounded against a flag post." then can you tell me what does?

The Fat
20-11-16, 19:11
IMO, the last Aussie try should have been no try, touch-in-goal.

LAW 22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

https://youtu.be/DLjLt2K3yuo?t=726

The ball touches the corner post fractionally before being grounded on the goal-line.

Now, if that does not meet the description of first grounded against a flag post then I would like someone to explain to me what does?

It's a strange law isn't it?

The ball can bounce off the corner post, stopping it from going into touch/TiG, and then be grounded for a try but if the ball is grounded against the base of the corner post, even if it is not touching the touch/TiG line, it is no try.
Hhhhmmmm.....

Dickie E
20-11-16, 21:11
IMO, the last Aussie try should have been no try, touch-in-goal.

LAW 22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

https://youtu.be/DLjLt2K3yuo?t=726

The ball touches the corner post fractionally before being grounded on the goal-line.

Now, if that does not meet the description of first grounded against a flag post then I would like someone to explain to me what does?

IMO this is an over-literal interpretation of this law and I can see why you have done that as the wording is very clumsy. This law is trying to make the point that the ball is out of play if it makes simultaneous contact with the corner post and touch line / TiG line.

Rawling
20-11-16, 21:11
See France v Australia thread in 'was it right?' forum.

- threads merged

Thanks, my bad.

Blackberry
20-11-16, 23:11
I always took this law to mean that if the ball touched the flag / post in the air its still in play, but if it touched the post on the ground its out of play. Hope I'm right, but luckily I've never had to put it to the test.

Ian_Cook
20-11-16, 23:11
IMO this is an over-literal interpretation of this law and I can see why you have done that as the wording is very clumsy. This law is trying to make the point that the ball is out of play if it makes simultaneous contact with the corner post and touch line / TiG line.

No, I don't believe that is what it means.

Firstly, the earlier wording of the Law specifically excludes that interpretation... "without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal"... if the ball is touching the touchline or the touch in goal line, then surely it is otherwise in touch, and the grounding against the flag post would not be relevant

Secondly, when this Law was first introduced after the 2008 ELV came into Law in 2009, I attended a briefing of Wellington Rugby referees, and this subject came up. Previously, the Flag post was going to be on the outside junction of the intersection of the goal lone and touchline. A ball grounded at the very end of the goal line might also touch the touchline, so that ball would be deemed touch in goal due to simultaneous grounding. When the decision was taken to put the flag post on the goal line, the base of the touch/touch in goal flag post became touch in goal in much the same way that the base of the goal post is deemed to be in-goal

Thirdly, I saw a near identical try - Nadolo(?) for Crusaders v ??? disallowed. The TMO gave exactly that explanation, that a ball grounded against the flag post was touch in goal

Dickie E
20-11-16, 23:11
I always took this law to mean that if the ball touched the flag / post in the air its still in play, but if it touched the post on the ground its out of play. Hope I'm right, but luckily I've never had to put it to the test.

I've taken the law to mean:
1. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and touchline - it is in touch
2. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and touch-in-goal line - it is TiG
3. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and FoP - it is in FoP (eg ball rolls and comes to rest at base of corner post)
4. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and in-goal - it is in-goal

Dickie E
20-11-16, 23:11
No, I don't believe that is what it means.



so a ball that rolls and comes to rest against the corner post is what? Automatically TiG?

Guyseep
21-11-16, 02:11
1. I don't see what relevance this has to the question I asked

2. Looks like a pretty clear grounding to me

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/IREvNZ-Barrett.png

3. Even if you argue that it wasn't grounded (which it was) then it should have been PT anyway for the coathangar tackle by Green 10

Ian your bias for NZ is "clear and obvious" here, much like the grounding was NOT clear and obvious. In the pic you give Barrett's arm is obstructing the view and there is ample evidence to suggest it may not have been grounded(ie not clear and obvious).

Dickie E
21-11-16, 03:11
Ian your bias for NZ is "clear and obvious" here, much like the grounding was NOT clear and obvious. In the pic you give Barrett's arm is obstructing the view and there is ample evidence to suggest it may not have been grounded(ie not clear and obvious).

whenever I hear "clearly", "obviously", "the reality is" (usually from politicians) alarm bells start ringing.

Ian_Cook
21-11-16, 03:11
so a ball that rolls and comes to rest against the corner post is what? Automatically TiG?

No more than a ball that comes to rest against the base of a goalpost is a try: reason? its not grounded

A ball can only be grounded by a player!

But of course, you already knew that!

Ian_Cook
21-11-16, 03:11
Ian your bias for NZ is "clear and obvious" here, much like the grounding was NOT clear and obvious. In the pic you give Barrett's arm is obstructing the view and there is ample evidence to suggest it may not have been grounded(ie not clear and obvious).

Well, the TMO thought it was clear and obvious, and he was firm about that in his communication with the referee!

I guess he must have been biased then?

If that ball isn't grounded, then half the ball is missing! Where did it go?

talbazar
21-11-16, 06:11
I've taken the law to mean:
1. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and touchline - it is in touch
2. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and touch-in-goal line - it is TiG
3. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and FoP - it is in FoP (eg ball rolls and comes to rest at base of corner post)
4. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and in-goal - it is in-goal

That's my interpretation too.

For a bit of fun and maybe shed some light, the wording of the law in French (shared a lot on social media as you can imagine) is slightly different.
the words "out of play" have been replaced by "dead".

Out of play: This happens when the ball or the ball carrier has gone into touch or touch-in-goal, or touched or crossed the dead ball line.
Dead: The ball is out of play. This happens when the ball has gone outside the playing area and remained there, or when the referee has blown the whistle to indicate a stoppage in play, or when a conversion kick has been taken.
Law 21.11.(c) When a player scores a try or makes a touch down, the ball becomes dead.

And then, all a sudden, if the law was worded:
22.12 Ball or player touching a flag or flag (corner) post
If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not dead unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

All becomes clearer

Isn't it?
Wouldn't that be the spirit of the law?

My 2 cents,
Pierre
:france:

The Fat
21-11-16, 07:11
Here's a different slant on that part of the law.
Suppose that when the old law-makers sat down to write the bit about the ball being grounded against the corner post, they all assumed that the ball would be touching the ground very, very close to the base of the corner post, (as close as a curved object can be to let's say the junction of a wall and floor), and that, for all intents and purposes, there is an extremely high chance that some part of the ball would be touching either the Touch Line or the Touch-in-goal Line. Fair assumption???

Now let's look at the try in question. Kurindrani grounds the ball which is about 45 degrees off vertical i.e. the top of the ball is toching the corner post and the base of the ball is touching the goal line but not the Touch or TiG Lines.

Perhaps this is why the TMO tells GJ that he may award the try. It is the opinion of the TMO that the ball first contacts the ground on the goal line.

Just throwing it out there.

FlipFlop
21-11-16, 10:11
I'm with The Fat here. I think the point of ball hits the tryline first, and then goes on to be grounded against the post.

Ian_Cook
21-11-16, 11:11
Well, whatever the intent of this bit of Law 22.12 is, is very badly written.


Colour me surprised!

FlipFlop
21-11-16, 11:11
Personally - think the "Doubts about grounding" law should be re-written to include not just doubts about WHO grounded it, but also WHERE it was grounded.

This was so close. And given there is no real clear cut answer, the equitable answer might well be - scrum 5m attack.

didds
21-11-16, 11:11
or equitably... not C&O that isn't a try, reward attacking play, try given.

didds

Guyseep
21-11-16, 15:11
Well, the TMO thought it was clear and obvious, and he was firm about that in his communication with the referee!

I guess he must have been biased then?

If that ball isn't grounded, then half the ball is missing! Where did it go?


Other angles suggest that the Irish player may have gotten an arm under the ball. And no the TMO wasn't biased. In this case it just seems like he got it wrong.

didds
21-11-16, 16:11
Ive stop framed the video just now. I'd call that grounded against the base of the pole. TiG.

Then again I am not a TMO....

didds

Guyseep
21-11-16, 17:11
Ive stop framed the video just now. I'd call that grounded against the base of the pole. TiG.

Then again I am not a TMO....

didds

I suggest everyone install "Frame by Frame for Youtube". It lets you advance video forward and back in finer slices than youtube's default 5 seconds or so.

After looking at it frame by frame, it definitely looks like the pole was touched by the top of the ball a few frames before the bottom of the ball touches the line. You can see the pole being compressed before the ball is grounded.
3480

FlipFlop
21-11-16, 17:11
I suggest everyone install "Frame by Frame for Youtube". It lets you advance video forward and back in finer slices than youtube's default 5 seconds or so.

After looking at it frame by frame, it definitely looks like the pole was touched by the top of the ball a few frames before the bottom of the ball touches the line. You can see the pole being compressed before the ball is grounded.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3480&stc=1

But touching the post is irrelevant. Did it touch the tryline before it touched the Touch-in-goal line? I.E. Where was it grounded?

- - - Updated - - -


I suggest everyone install "Frame by Frame for Youtube". It lets you advance video forward and back in finer slices than youtube's default 5 seconds or so.

After looking at it frame by frame, it definitely looks like the pole was touched by the top of the ball a few frames before the bottom of the ball touches the line. You can see the pole being compressed before the ball is grounded.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3480&stc=1

But touching the post is irrelevant. Did it touch the tryline before it touched the Touch-in-goal line? I.E. Where was it grounded?

Cryath
21-11-16, 17:11
Which does bring us back to the line from the law book.

This first part of law suggests that actually this is fine - If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not dead

until you read the last part - unless it is first grounded against a flag post.


Which to me suggests the law book is suggesting that this is 'in touch'/TiG.

didds
21-11-16, 18:11
and doesn;t that also depend on what we mean by "grounded against a flag post".... now that to me suggests where the p[ost connects to the ground ie the base.

but I appreciate others disagree.

This raises its ugly head in discussions about scoring against a goal post of course.

didds

talbazar
21-11-16, 18:11
Which does bring us back to the line from the law book.

This first part of law suggests that actually this is fine - If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not dead

The problem to me is that the law doesn't use the word dead...
Because, if it were, it would be easy: the ball is not in play anymore when it has been grounded against the corner post, it's dead.
It can be dead because it's out of play (= in touch or in touch-in-goal) or it can be dead because it's be grounded on the try line or in in-goal (try or touch down).
The law uses "not out of play" which by definition doesn't cover the try/touch down.

Look at the law to explain that a kick where the ball hits the post and the ball lands in the playing area, the ball is still in play.
With that (hopefully meaningful) assumption, the fact the grounding against the post is added in the law starts to make sense...

And the interpretation seen above: if grounded against the post, where is it grounded? make sense too.

I mean seriously?, let's look at that sentence in a logical way (what comes first: ground or post)
unless it is [B]first grounded against a flag post.
1. Ball grounded on the try line (first)
THEN
2. Player with momentum pushes the ball against the corner post

That would mean "out of play".

By the way, thanks a lot Mr. Law-Maker for "out of play"... is it in touch or in touch-in-goal? :knuppel2:
Because it wouldn't be the same restart :dead horse:

Logical, concise, easy to remember and probably a tad too simple for a normal Rugby Football Union Law (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20021-France-v-Australia-Kuridrani-s-try&p=323073&viewfull=1#post323073)

OB..
21-11-16, 19:11
"[...] unless it is first grounded against a flag post" is ambiguous. IMHO the sensible interpretation of the wording is "unless when first grounded it is touching a flag post". However the most sensible in rugby terms is to ignore the flag post (the aim of the change in the law) and simply say that what matters is where the ball was first grounded.

Ian_Cook
21-11-16, 19:11
Look at the law to explain that a kick where the ball hits the post and the ball lands in the playing area, the ball is still in play.
With that (hopefully meaningful) assumption, the fact the grounding against the post is added in the law starts to make sense...

And the interpretation seen above: if grounded against the post, where is it grounded? make sense too.

Look at this in relation to the goalpost

If a loose ball touches a goal post on the field of play side of the post, the ball is not in goal
If a loose ball touches a flag post on the playing area side of the post, the ball is not in touch

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up the field of play side of a goal post, the ball is not in-goal
If a ball being held by a player touches part way up the playing area side of a flag post, the ball is not in touch

However

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a goal post and then is slid down, and grounded on the field of play side of the base of the goal post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in-goal.

so it stands to reason that,

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a flag post and then is slid down, and grounded on the playing area side of the base of the flag post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in touch.

This last sentence is what actually happened, and fits exactly what the law says for the ball to be in touch when grounded against the base of the post.


NOTE: I still maintain that if the Law makers had followed through with their original plan to place the flag posts on the outside junction of the goal-line and touch-in-goal line (i.e. so that the flag post is completely outside the field of play with the inside of the padding in contact with the outside of the touch line) like it was during the 2008 ELV trials....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/cornerflag.jpg

...then we would not be having this problem. A ball grounded against the flag post would have to be also touching the touchline and the decision would be easy.


Here is another interesting one.....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/VR3.png

The padding is narrower than the width of the touchline, and a little of the line is "exposed". Would Kuridrani's try have still bee awarded if the flag posts were like this.

Guyseep
21-11-16, 20:11
so it stands to reason that,

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a flag post and then is slid down, and grounded on the playing area side of the base of the flag post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in touch.

This last sentence is what actually happened, and fits exactly what the law says for the ball to be in touch when grounded against the base of the post.

.

This is the way I see the law intended to be interpreted. If the ball is contact with the post but not the ground it is not in touch, but if it is touching the post(any part of the post) then grounded while still touching the post it is in touch.

It can be looked at two ways:

1 - "grounded against a flag post" means simultaneously grounded and touching the post
or
2 - touching the post and then grounded while still touching the post.

There are two planes being referenced here - the ground and the flag post. For it to be "grounded and against the flag post" it must be touching both planes in a specific order. First it must touch the post and then be grounded, or simultaneously touching both.

KML1
21-11-16, 21:11
Suspect this is being discussed as by WR Law Clarification Committee as we speak!

Ian_Cook
21-11-16, 22:11
Suspect this is being discussed as by WR Law Clarification Committee as we speak!

What? WR are discussing a clarification within just a couple of days of a dubious decision?

Who lit the fire under their arses?

ChrisR
22-11-16, 13:11
NOTE: I still maintain that if the Law makers had followed through with their original plan to place the flag posts on the outside junction of the goal-line and touch-in-goal line (i.e. so that the flag post is completely outside the field of play with the inside of the padding in contact with the outside of the touch line) like it was during the 2008 ELV trials.......then we would not be having this problem. A ball grounded against the flag post would have to be also touching the touchline and the decision would be easy.

^^^^^^^^ This!

ChrisR
22-11-16, 13:11
Why not move the flags off the TIG completely? If they are not in play then move them 1 or 2m out.

OB..
22-11-16, 14:11
Why not move the flags off the TIG completely? If they are not in play then move them 1 or 2m out.
IIRC that was originally proposed, but was dropped because players find them very useful in marking the actual corner.

talbazar
22-11-16, 14:11
Look at this in relation to the goalpost

If a loose ball touches a goal post on the field of play side of the post, the ball is not in goal
If a loose ball touches a flag post on the playing area side of the post, the ball is not in touch

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up the field of play side of a goal post, the ball is not in-goal
If a ball being held by a player touches part way up the playing area side of a flag post, the ball is not in touch

However

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a goal post and then is slid down, and grounded on the field of play side of the base of the goal post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in-goal.

so it stands to reason that,

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a flag post and then is slid down, and grounded on the playing area side of the base of the flag post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in touch.

Fair point!
Even if we "include the goal post & padding into a place we try to reach" and we "exclude the corner post/flag/padding from an area we try to stay in"

To be absolutely honest, I'm not loosing sleep over this one.
It's just that the law is extremely badly worded:
Usage of "not out of play", "first", etc... just add to the confusion
AND
It tells you when to play on but not what to do when you can't play on anymore (no restart)

:dead horse:

Pierre.

Dixie
28-11-16, 20:11
and doesn;t that also depend on what we mean by "grounded against a flag post".... now that to me suggests where the p[ost connects to the ground ie the base.

but I appreciate others disagree.

This raises its ugly head in discussions about scoring against a goal post of course.

didds


"[...] unless it is first grounded against a flag post" is ambiguous. IMHO the sensible interpretation of the wording is "unless when first grounded it is touching a flag post". However the most sensible in rugby terms is to ignore the flag post (the aim of the change in the law) and simply say that what matters is where the ball was first grounded.

Sorry to come to this discussion rather late! Let's recall what the law was before it was changed.

The problem to be resolved was that a player in the air who touched the corner flag automatically became in touch - so he could ground the ball well in-goal without any part of his body touching the ground, but the "try" would be disallowed because of the contact with the flag. This was true even if the flag was leaning well in-field at the time. The law was changed to allow the try to stand. In doing so, there was a clear (and often-stated) intent to respect the basic rules relating to the lines. The one that is analogous to this situation is that the goal posts and their pads are part of the goal line - so if you ground against the post, the try stands even though the ball may be well short of the line. But if you simply touch the post without touching the ground, there is no try.

Where you put a flag on the intersection of three lines, there is an obvious issue. By stating that a mere touch of the flag is to be ignored in terms of deciding the status of the ball, that issue disappears - but it remains very relevant in one circumstance and one only - when the ball is grounded against the post. Applying the basic provision relating to goal posts, the ball is then deemed to touch all three lines of the intersection - the goal line, the touch line and the TIG line.

The only rational outcome is no try as the ball was out of play. The determination of whether the restart is a throw-in or a drop-out is much less obvious.