PDA

View Full Version : Ball hits physio or downed player



Rawling
23-03-08, 21:03
This came up in the EDF semi yesterday (on Saturday), I think Saracens vs Ospreys.

Saracens have a player down, attended by physios, inside their 22 and probably around the 15m line. Ospreys are in possession and kick forwards - and of course the ball homes in on and hits one of the huddle, and bounces away infield where it is fielded by a Saracen.

As far as I can remember, the referee blew, called time off until the player was sorted, and then awarded a scrum where the player had been, to Saracens (may be wrong on this point).

Law 6.A.8/9 address this issue somewhat, and if play is stopped and a scrum is awarded for danger issues, it should be to the team in possession, or otherwise the attacking team.
Law 20.4(d) applies to miscellaneous irregularities, and awards the scrum to the team moving forwards, or otherwise the attacking team.

Seemingly in either of these cases, the scrum should've been awarded to Ospreys.

Thoughts?

Jacko
23-03-08, 22:03
For me, seeing as Ospreys kicked and it was a Sarries player down then it should have been an Ospreys scrum as per law.

However, if it had hit an Ospreys player or the physios attending him then I'd give it to Sarries as accidental offside. Probably even if it hit the physio attending him. I'd view the physio as an extension of the player.

Cymro
23-03-08, 22:03
Wayne Barnes seemed to suggest that saracens were about to gain possession and so he gave the scrum to them.

PaulDG
23-03-08, 22:03
Wayne Barnes seemed to suggest that saracens were about to gain possession and so he gave the scrum to them.

That's exactly what he said and I think it was the equitable decision.

I'm not sure it's supported in Law though.

The umpire
23-03-08, 22:03
I think he was thinking of "ball in-goal touched by non-player" in which "the referee judges what would have happened next".

Gareth-Lee Smith
23-03-08, 22:03
I doubt he got too much of a bollocking from his assessor. I think he made a perfectly equitable decision.

Deeps
23-03-08, 23:03
I doubt he got too much of a bollocking from his assessor. I think he made a perfectly equitable decision.

I couldn't agree more. It was highly probable that Sarries would have gained possession of the ball and got a couple of passes away at least, exactly what they could expect from a scrum. A proper decision in the circumstances.

I thought WB had a very good game but that a touch more charisma would have been useful perhaps.

chopper15
24-03-08, 00:03
I couldn't agree more. It was highly probable that Sarries would have gained possession of the ball and got a couple of passes away at least, exactly what they could expect from a scrum. A proper decision in the circumstances.

I thought WB had a very good game but that a touch more charisma would have been useful perhaps.

What exactly are the guide lines for the duration of advantage?

I think it was earlier in the Wasps game they didn't even end up over the gain-line.

And also the point Brian Moore mentioned, concerning the number of times the opposition will deliberately instigate a technical infringement just to kill the ball and advantage if things look a bit threatening.

beckett50
24-03-08, 10:03
Chopper the advantage Law is wonderful thing.

The amount of time will vary from referee to referee and whether the infringement is a scrum or PK award. Also the position on the pitch may be taken into account as will the options that the non-offending team elect to take.

It is perhaps the most contentious point of Law with coaches who are rarely happy with the advantage played - either in their favour or against:)

However, as a general rule of thumb one would play a longer advantage for a PK infringement than for a scrum.

Simon Thomas
24-03-08, 11:03
As Beckett says it will vary between PK and Scrum offences as a general rule.

Also every advantage decision of 'how long' has to be taken in the context of what is happening at that time, where on field it is, skill levels of players, what has happened so far in the match, score at the time, what appears to be 'on', etc
If kicked, was the kicker under pressure or making a clear unpressured tactical decision ?
Has territorial or tactical advantage been gained ?

And sometimes we get it wrong, and I always apologise to the players if I do, for usually blowing too early.

Greg Collins
24-03-08, 12:03
I thought WB had a very good game but that a touch more charisma would have been useful perhaps.

Since she met/saw him at our Society dinner Mrs Collins takes a keen interest in Mr Barnes' televisual appearances and will watch matches she otherwsie would ignore. Like you I find him lacking a bit in that certain something (but an excellent ref) whereas Mrs C clearly thinks he has it in spades!

Phil E
24-03-08, 13:03
At least Mrs C is trying to learn something by the sounds of it?

We have a friend who plays in the back line for Scotland A, or at least he did until he got transported to Australia in February. The current Mrs E once looked down at him (he is only about 5 foot nothing) and asked him, "do you ever get involved in those scrum thingys?"

Luckily, due to local dialects, his answer was totally indechipherable.

Davet
24-03-08, 13:03
Equitable? maybe. But in Law clearly wrong. The scrum would go to
1) the side last in possession
or if no side "in possession"
2) The side moving forward
or of no side moving forward
3) The attacking side

All, or indeed any, of which would have meant an Ospreys' scrum.

Rawling
24-03-08, 15:03
Not quite; see the laws quoted in the first post. Either team in possession, then attacking team (if stopped for safety reason) or team moving forwards, then attacking team (if stoped for "irregularity").

Unless there's a law which lists all three, in which case please correct me!

(of course, this still means it should've been Ospreys' put-in...)

FlipFlop
24-03-08, 15:03
The ball hit a non-participant (the physio).

I'm happy that the Ref (WB) took the view of what WOULD have happened, and restarted on that basis.

Same as if you or I would down the park, and a dog or spectator got involved. (Monty Python and the teachers anyone? If so please put your bag on the lower peg, before...)

Now if he stopped for safety, I would agree - Ospreys ball. But I think he stopped it for being played by a non-participant.

Rawling
24-03-08, 18:03
The thing is (iirc) the Law only allows the referee to judge what would have happened next when the ball hits a non-participant in the in-goal.

For a similar situation in the field-of-play, no such allowance is made. Instead, the scrum law says that the restart after an irregularity is a scrum to the team moving forwards, or otherwise the attacking team.

AlanT
24-03-08, 21:03
I think I would have given the scrum at the point of contact rather than where the Ospreys kick landed (which is what WB did from memory) - and put in O's.

Greg Collins
24-03-08, 23:03
At least Mrs C is trying to learn something by the sounds of it?

She knows more about Rugby than me, half-Welsh you see, it's in her blood isn't it? Whereas I come from a long line of Soccer and League players....

BigDai
25-03-08, 11:03
Watching it at the time, Ospreys would probably have found touch 10m further down, in the Saries 22. As it hit the physio it rebounded back towards the Ospreys whence it was pounced on by Sarries, at which point WB awarded the scrum to Sarries. Either way Sarries would have earned possesion, as Barnes said, but there is a clear disadvantage in territory to Ospreys

tim White
26-03-08, 11:03
IRB ruling 2/2005 covers this, can't copy and paste, sorry

OB..
26-03-08, 12:03
Well picked up, tim. Here is the Ruling:

RULING 2: 2005
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Laws Committee
April 2005
The FFR has requested a ruling with regard Law 6-Match Officials
Law 6 A.12 stipulates for "a ball in the in-goal touched by a non player". In such situation, the referee considers what would have had occurred after this incident and will blow for a try or a touch in goal where the ball would have been grounded.
However, nothing is stipulated in the event of a person who is not a player touching the ball, intentionally or not, in the field of play or hinders the ball carrier or any other player who is in the position to intervene in the play. Would you please rule on the following scenarios.
1. A person from the technical staff (coach, physio, doctor, water carrier) unintentionally touches the ball or unintentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
2. A person from the technical staff (coach, physio, doctor, water carrier) intentionally touches the ball or intentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
3. An exterior element (spectator) unintentionally or intentionally touches the ball or unintentionally or intentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
4. An exterior element (animal) touches the ball or hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the questions raised:
Rulings
1. The referee shall judge what would have happened next. If either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.
2. The above scenario in 1. is applied whether it was intentional or unintentional.
3. The referee shall judge what would have happened next. If either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.
4. The above scenario in 3. is applied.

Dixie
26-03-08, 12:03
So hats off to the referee for being aware that he should judge what would happen next. However, if I read the ruling correctly, that judgement should only be used to determine whether either side would get an advantage. If so, then play is brought back for a scrum to the team in possession.

This raises two questions:

- as the ball has come into contact with a non-player, it is presumably not being held by anyone. Who can be said to be in possession of this ball? The one who kicked it, or the one one most likely to pick it up (presumably in the absence of the contact with the non-player)?
- it's all very well saying that play is brought back for a scrum to happen, but brought back to where? The point where contact was made with the non-player? The point where the ball was last in the physical possession of a player? Or somewhere else?

Like many law rulings, this one is less useful than it might be.

Rawling
26-03-08, 15:03
Aha. Good job spotting that there's a ruling on this. Also good job spotting that it isn't a great deal of help :D

didds
26-03-08, 21:03
Equitable? maybe. But in Law clearly wrong. The scrum would go to
1) the side last in possession
or if no side "in possession"
2) The side moving forward
or of no side moving forward
3) The attacking side

All, or indeed any, of which would have meant an Ospreys' scrum.


That's accepted but then presumably this would mean a wiley and accurante kicker could start picking out physios on the pitch to ensure a gain in ground with possession...


didds

Account Deleted
29-03-08, 23:03
Good tactic?

Davet
30-03-08, 12:03
That's accepted but then presumably this would mean a wiley and accurante kicker could start picking out physios on the pitch to ensure a gain in ground with possession...


didds

Though as a coach I might prefer them to kick into space and have my chasers challenging strongly rather than get a scrum with a reorganised defence.