PDA

View Full Version : Reaching Over For Try



callumref
03-08-07, 11:08
In a game i recently refereed I made a decision that didnt really affect the game (the better team ran away with it) and it was only juniors but I've read the law book (22.4e) and I'm still not completly sure. Heres what happened. Blue team came charging at the goal line and got tackled about half a metre before. He then waited about 3 seconds before he decided to reach out and put the ball down. In that time I had called "Play it". When he reached over and scored I thought it must be a try but then I thought maybe he should've released the ball so his team (blue) and the opposing team (green) could have a fair contest at gaining the ball. I ended up giving a Penalty to Green. With no comment (abuse) from the other team they just accepted the penalty. Was the decision correct, or should it have been a try? Thanks in advance

Gareth-Lee Smith
03-08-07, 12:08
3 seconds is a very long time and does not constitute an immediate release or an immediate grounding of the ball. Penalty green, absolutely correct.

Simon Griffiths
03-08-07, 12:08
As above. Not really immediate, so a PK probably the best option. You could have a little bit if lea-way with timings if there is no-one contesting the ball, but three seconds does sound too long either way.

SimonSmith
03-08-07, 12:08
The only thought I have that would have made me think was: was there a Green player in the immediate vicinity who wanted the ball?

I agree that 3 seconds is a long time, but if there is no-one in the area to play the ball, is it material?

callumref
03-08-07, 13:08
The only thought I have that would have made me think was: was there a Green player in the immediate vicinity who wanted the ball?

I agree that 3 seconds is a long time, but if there is no-one in the area to play the ball, is it material?


He was tackled around the legs and the defenders (green) were along the goal line I'd say about under half a metre away from where the tackle was made. He reached over because the was a hole right where he had been tackled. Defenders were either side of where he place it.

(They were all shouting at me (green) because when i gave the penalty they thought i had indicated a try LOL)

Gareth-Lee Smith
03-08-07, 14:08
Haha, over-eager teens - bless em!

Robert Burns
03-08-07, 14:08
The other point I thought is that if you have said play it and he did that when you told him then he has played it and should be awarded the try. However, as said before 3 seconds is a long time and he should have been cute enough to go for the line or release. and again as mentioned above, was it material, was anyone there to play it had he released or would he have just got up and scored anyway?

callumref
03-08-07, 23:08
The other point I thought is that if you have said play it and he did that when you told him then he has played it and should be awarded the try. However, as said before 3 seconds is a long time and he should have been cute enough to go for the line or release. and again as mentioned above, was it material, was anyone there to play it had he released or would he have just got up and scored anyway?

No he was definately tackled around the legs by a Green defender but his team didnt come with him he had made a break and the was no-one coming over the top on both sides there was just the tackler tackled player in the immediate vicinity. The team that scored (blue) they didnt arrive untill he had put the ball down in the in-goal and green was either side of the where he was tackled.

(I think all Australians watch to much Rugby League for those who know what that is. Im pretty sure I herd one of them say but that was double movement lol)

Davet
05-08-07, 17:08
I agree 3 secomds is too long. He must play the ball immediately.

If he chooses not to, but to wait for an opportunity, or simply because he didn't think of doing so - then learn the lesson - immediate is within 1 secom - probably half a second.

In terms of game management then I would suggest you call release within the second - and blow if there is not Instant reaction to your call.

beckett50
06-08-07, 00:08
The LotG does state the word 'immediately'.

One wonders why, if he was tackled and held why he didn't release the ball then get up pick up the ball and then score the try!

Good call:clap:

Dickie E
06-08-07, 00:08
I agree 3 secomds is too long. He must play the ball immediately.

If he chooses not to, but to wait for an opportunity, or simply because he didn't think of doing so - then learn the lesson - immediate is within 1 secom - probably half a second.

In terms of game management then I would suggest you call release within the second - and blow if there is not Instant reaction to your call.

I probably wouldn't have a problem with anything up to 3 seconds provided the opponents weren't trying to gain possession.

Simon Griffiths
06-08-07, 01:08
One wonders why, if he was tackled and held why he didn't release the ball then get up pick up the ball and then score the try!
This is why I, and I suspect why others too, think that three seconds is probably longer than acceptable to make the play to score. Rugby is (supposedly) a 'dynamic' game (don't you just love 'buzz words'), so someone showing such a lack of dynamism/speed of thought/action should not be rewarded for such slow witted play.

Davet
06-08-07, 11:08
If half a second is too long when an opponent on his feet is trying to grab the ball - then maybe 1 second might be OK if there is no contest. But 3 seconds is a long time.

Say out loud at normal speaking speed "Missippi One; Mississippi Two; Mississippi Three"

callumref
06-08-07, 12:08
Thanks for everyones input as it will definately help me and probably a couple of other people.:clap:

callumref
06-08-07, 12:08
This is why I, and I suspect why others too, think that three seconds is probably longer than acceptable to make the play to score. Rugby is (supposedly) a 'dynamic' game (don't you just love 'buzz words'), so someone showing such a lack of dynamism/speed of thought/action should not be rewarded for such slow witted play.

Don't you just love the IRB vocbulary LOL :chin:

didds
21-08-07, 12:08
If half a second is too long when an opponent on his feet is trying to grab the ball - then maybe 1 second might be OK if there is no contest. But 3 seconds is a long time.

Say out loud at normal speaking speed "Missippi One; Mississippi Two; Mississippi Three"

Even more interestingly...

Start someone running and see how far he runs in 3 seconds. A 3 second "wait" provides potentially a LOT of support.

didds

Davet
21-08-07, 13:08
Olymic sprint speeds then 3 secs equals 30 yards.

Old Bogcastrians 4ths it should still mean around 10, except for props.

Robert Burns
21-08-07, 13:08
He then waited about 3 seconds before he decided to reach out and put the ball down.

No doubts about what the law says, I just feel that as you have told him to play it and he has, maybe you should have awarded the try for the use of the wrong words?

Had you shouted release and he had done so you would not penalise, but you shouted play it, and he did...

As I say, inlaw you are spot on with the penalty, but think you could have confused the player into reaching out rather than releasing? Which may have accounted for a 3 second delay.

didds
22-08-07, 21:08
Olymic sprint speeds then 3 secs equals 30 yards.

Old Bogcastrians 4ths it should still mean around 10, except for props.

yes dave :-)

but its all relative innit? 10m in 3 secs at OBogs 4ths still equates to LOTS of support in 3 seconds time compared to half a second...

didds

beckett50
23-08-07, 11:08
Robbie, as Simon says (there's a game there somewhere:) )


someone showing such a lack of dynamism/speed of thought/action should not be rewarded for such slow witted play.

Also as didds says


but its all relative innit?


And whilst I agree that time does sometime stretch at the lower levels I do not believe that the premise of penalising negative play should.

The tackler was there to centest the ball, although there is nothing in the original post to say whether he got to his feet to contest.

Robert Burns
23-08-07, 12:08
Oh I totally Agree.

But if you had a ball carrier in a maul who put his knee on the ground for three seconds and you shouted at him to get up instead of release (by mistake, we all make them) would you then penalise the ball carrier for not releasing even though he had done as requested?

The rationale of yes is perfectly backed up by law, the player did wrong and it's a penalisable offence. Even though you had told them to do otherwise. You expect them to know enough about law to know they were wrong.

However,

If the shoe was on the other foot (as it can be sometimes) and that player did a correct thing, I.e reach out for the try line within 1 second of being tackled, but you blow up very quickly for not releasing, you would expect the player to adhere to the decision you had made, even if it was wrong. Even though that player did right and did at this point know the laws as is expected.

In this respect, a referees words and actions must be thought about, did we encourage or help the player to make that offence? If we did then surely we cannot penalise a player for our mistake?

Does this bring us back to the old world of we officiate and expect the players to know the laws, no help or advice given. Just a whistle and signal.

Davet
23-08-07, 14:08
I agree in principle - if the ref calls for an action which is instantly forthcoming then its a tad difficult to then blame the player for obeying your illegal request.

In that case fair enough - and learn the lesson yourself. We all make mistakes, and get hoist with ouwn petard.

Question for Naval Types - what the chuff IS a petard?

Dixie
23-08-07, 16:08
My Dad was a naval type. Told me back in the 70's that it was an early explosive charge, designed to burst open doors. The person hoist by said item was blown up by his own (unreliable) device.

Davet
23-08-07, 17:08
Ah. Sounds painful.

beckett50
23-08-07, 21:08
According to Google, Dixie is on the right track:



A petard is or rather was, as they have long since fallen out of use, a small engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls. They were originally metallic and bell-shaped but later cubical wooden boxes. Whatever the shape, the significant feature was that they were full of gunpowder - basically what we would now call a bomb.
The device was used by the military forces of all the major European fighting nations by the 16th century. In French and English - petar or petard, and in Spanish and Italian - petardo.


Sounds like an early form of shaped charge.

Robert Burns
24-08-07, 10:08
Lol, Now that's a Tangent!