PDA

View Full Version : Saturday situation



Arturas
21-09-09, 10:09
Hello,
I was reffering the match and have some situations:
1. a boy was standing near the goal line with the ball lying on the groung between his leg. Opponent came and pushed him, took a ball and make a try. I gave a try. But wasn't I wrong? Latter I checked the Law book where I found 10 (f):

Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, or push, or charge into, or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

2. After a kick of the player touched the ball and it went to goal line where it was grounded. I gave a scrum in the centre. But I think I had to give 5 metres scrum to opponent?

If the ball is kicked into the in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player, the
opposing team has three choices:
To ground the ball, or
To make it dead, or
To play on.

So I wasn't right in both situations?

Donal1988
21-09-09, 10:09
Arturas there isnt enough information here.

Situation 1 - Was he at base of a ruck or standing stationary? You say he had the ball between his legs? I dont understand was he just standing there or was he hindmost player of a ruck/maul?

Situation 2 - You say a player touched the ball? First of all which teams player? Secondly if a player touched the ball Law 13.9 cannot apply.

Situation 2 for me reads like either a 22m dropout to defending team or an attacking scrum 5m depending on who touched it. Situation 1 needs more info.

Arturas
21-09-09, 10:09
1 situation. Where was no ruch, no maul. Just the boy and the ball between his leg. Had the arrived opponent to take the ball or he could push him away from the ball?
2 situation. The opponent of the kicking team touched it on the 22 during his flight, that ended in the goal line.

Donal1988
21-09-09, 10:09
Situation 2 is a 5m scrum to attacking team. A defending player brought the ball into their ingoal and touched it down. Law 13.9 is only used if the ball touches no players.

Situation 1 is trickier it reads like a materiality question. Are you sure no ruck formed? Definition of a ruck is a phase of play where one (or more) player from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

Was the ball on the ground?
Were the players on their feet?
Were an attacking and a defending player in contact over the ball?

It sounds like something that can really only be judged be seeing it. If you feel there was no ruck and that it was a push in open play then give a penalty. If you thought a ruck had formed and this was normal rugby contact then it is ok to play on.

Dickie E
21-09-09, 11:09
1 situation. Where was no ruch, no maul. Just the boy and the ball between his leg. Had the arrived opponent to take the ball or he could push him away from the ball?

I'd be OK with push. Player with ball between legs is, IMHO, in possession of ball.



2 situation. The opponent of the kicking team touched it on the 22 during his flight, that ended in the goal line.

Intentional touch, 5 metre scrum to kicking team.

Unintentional touch, 22 metre drop out - no option.

Donal1988
21-09-09, 11:09
Player with ball between legs is, IMHO, in possession of ball.

Intentional touch, 5 metre scrum to kicking team.

Unintentional touch, 22 metre drop out - no option.

Interesting approach. But surely just the ball being between your feet doesnt make you in possession. i.e. is he standing over the ball with it between his legs or is he holding it between his legs bunny hop style. Would you let a scrumhalf be tackled and the ball "out" of a ruck becuase ball is between legs of hindmost player.

And I dont see why intentional/unintentional should matter.

Dixie
21-09-09, 11:09
Arturas, situation 2 was indeed an attacking 5m scrum. Well done for spotting your own error - you'll know better next time. We've all don it.

Situation 2, it depends how the attacker "pushed" the defender. If two hands, the sort of push you might see in football, then I'd say that was playing the man without the ball, as you suggest. But if the attacker drove into the defender with a shoulder, I'd say that he's set up a ruck at that moment by creating a situation in which two players are in physical contact over the ball, which is on the ground. This is always a difficult judgement - setting up a ruck can look very much like playing the man without the ball. But it is YOUR judgement that counts - no-one else's

Staybound
21-09-09, 11:09
Situation 2 - I hope the player's coach had a couple of helpful coaching points to give as feedback to the defender. Last man standing there with ball at or between feet with oncoming attackers - probably not the best tactic even if it does spark a debate on a reffing website!:)

Donal1988
21-09-09, 11:09
You say boys? What age was the game. Im sure any youths game in Lithuania is very much beginner. yes?

Dickie E
21-09-09, 12:09
Interesting approach. But surely just the ball being between your feet doesnt make you in possession. i.e. is he standing over the ball with it between his legs or is he holding it between his legs bunny hop style. Would you let a scrumhalf be tackled and the ball "out" of a ruck becuase ball is between legs of hindmost player.

having the ball between your feet is different to "ball is between legs of hindmost player"



And I dont see why intentional/unintentional should matter.

Ball going into in-goal is different to ball going into touch. For ball into in-goal there must be some intent to touch ball by defender in order for them to have put it there. Refer law 22.7(d)

Arturas
21-09-09, 12:09
It was 96-97 birth boys. In Lithuania they play 8x8. Noncostested scrum.
Level of course very pure, who has bigger boys always win. We have 7 clubs in Lithuania. A men championship has 14 teams, with one from Russia (Kaliningrad) and one from Latvia. This year maybe you heard about it our national team increased it ratings from 73 to 41. We will play with Ukraine next year in 4 round of World Cup challenge. But we have a lot of another problems and the first is economy of course.

I forgot to say about 1 situation: the boy with the ball on the ground was standing with his face to goal line. So opponent came and push him in the back. So I understand my mistake now.
But there is I see and another option:
I'd be OK with push. Player with ball between legs is, IMHO, in possession of ball.

And why:
Intentional touch, 5 metre scrum to kicking team.

Unintentional touch, 22 metre drop out - no option?

Arturas
21-09-09, 12:09
And why:
Intentional touch, 5 metre scrum to kicking team.

Unintentional touch, 22 metre drop out - no option?
Thank You, I understand.

Not Kurt Weaver
21-09-09, 12:09
And I dont see why intentional/unintentional should matter.


Situation 2 - In the original description, not clear to me to which team touched it down on the goalline. I assume from other respones, it was the defenders.

Donal intentional or unitentional is necess. Law 22.11 (a) must be applied.

... If the ball was played into the in-goal by the attacking team, a drop out is awarded to the defending team. If the ball was played into the in-goal by the defending team, a 5m scrum shall be awarded and theattacking team throws in the ball.

"was played" leaves subjectivity to us (refs). A tipped ball on a charge down (intentional) is different than a kick that glances off a defenders backside(unintentional).

Not to show my age, but I do remember that whether a touch was intentional or not was used in determining whose throw at a lineout (not anymore). And not applicable here, but "was played" does give us similar ability to judge intention.

Arturas
21-09-09, 12:09
And one more situation for the:

Intentional touch, 5 metre scrum to kicking team.

Unintentional touch, 22 metre drop out - no option?

If the touch was intentional but it doesn't make any changes in the flight of the ball?

Not Kurt Weaver
21-09-09, 12:09
Oh crap 22.11a doesn't apply. Disregard my last post or at least that part.

looks like I've got to read the Lawbook somemore

Arturas
21-09-09, 12:09
Dear Not Kurt,
I think you could edit your post.

Not Kurt Weaver
21-09-09, 13:09
Dear Not Kurt,
I think you could edit your post.

My therapist says that I must admit to my mistakes more often.



Situation 2 second attempt

22.7a When an attacking player sends or carriesthe ball into the opponents' in goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded

22.7 d If a defending player threw or tookthe ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5m scrum. The position of the scrum is in line where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball.

Here is the judgement we have to make ( I tried to convey in my previous poor post) Was the ball sent or carried by the attacker, or was the ball thrown or took (taken) by the defender?

If the touch,in the original Situation 2, was intentional (i.e. an attempted chargedown) it is scrum 5m, attacking. IMHO the ball was taken in by defenders.

If the touch was unitentional (i.e. a kick glancing off the defenders body) it is 22 drop. And I also think in this case, no scrum option. IMHO the ball was sent in by the attackers.

Dickie E
21-09-09, 13:09
My therapist says that I must admit to my mistakes more often.

Agree



Situation 2 second attempt

22.7a When an attacking player sends or carriesthe ball into the opponents' in goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded

22.7 d If a defending player threw or tookthe ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5m scrum. The position of the scrum is in line where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball.

Here is the judgement we have to make ( I tried to convey in my previous poor post) Was the ball sent or carried by the attacker, or was the ball thrown or took (taken) by the defender?

If the touch,in the original Situation 2, was intentional (i.e. an attempted chargedown) it is scrum 5m, attacking. IMHO the ball was taken in by defenders.

If the touch was unitentional (i.e. a kick glancing off the defenders body) it is 22 drop. And I also think in this case, no scrum option. IMHO the ball was sent in by the attackers.

Agree

OB..
21-09-09, 14:09
In situation 1, the player standing over the ball may well have been obstructing the attacker.

I would allow a non-dangerous push, just as I allow a ball carrier to use a hand-off.

Davet
21-09-09, 15:09
I think a player simply stood with the ball on the floor between his feet is fair game to be cleared out, or else it becomes a perfect stonewall tactic for the final minute....

PaulDG
21-09-09, 17:09
In situation 1, the player standing over the ball may well have been obstructing the attacker.

I would allow a non-dangerous push, just as I allow a ball carrier to use a hand-off.

Perhaps there are local youth variations that forbid fending off at this age group?

Lex Hipkins
22-09-09, 15:09
My therapist says that I must admit to my mistakes more often.



Situation 2 second attempt

22.7a When an attacking player sends or carriesthe ball into the opponents' in goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded

22.7 d If a defending player threw or tookthe ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5m scrum. The position of the scrum is in line where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball.

Here is the judgement we have to make ( I tried to convey in my previous poor post) Was the ball sent or carried by the attacker, or was the ball thrown or took (taken) by the defender?

If the touch,in the original Situation 2, was intentional (i.e. an attempted chargedown) it is scrum 5m, attacking. IMHO the ball was taken in by defenders.

If the touch was unitentional (i.e. a kick glancing off the defenders body) it is 22 drop. And I also think in this case, no scrum option. IMHO the ball was sent in by the attackers.

So what if ..bare with me on this ...Blues kick off and the ball ricochets off a red players head (ie unintentional) into the in-goal and is touched down by red?

Now we're dealing with 22.7 (c) which uses the phrase:

"If at a kick off the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player and a defending player grounds it there or makes it dead without delay, the defending team have two choices ....."

No mention is made of intention, of if it was 'thrown or taken' by the defending team ....just whether it has been 'touched' by the defending team ..does that therefore mean a scrum 5 attacking ball?

Not Kurt Weaver
22-09-09, 16:09
So what if ..bare with me on this ...Blues kick off and the ball ricochets off a red players head (ie unintentional) into the in-goal and is touched down by red?

Now we're dealing with 22.7 (c) which uses the phrase:

"If at a kick off the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player and a defending player grounds it there or makes it dead without delay, the defending team have two choices ....."

No mention is made of intention, of if it was 'thrown or taken' by the defending team ....just whether it has been 'touched' by the defending team ..does that therefore mean a scrum 5 attacking ball?


22.7 c only applies if the ball goes untouched. The ricochet of the head counts as a touch. It was unitentional, so 22.7a (which also can now apply to a kickoff where touched ball was sent in goal) would give 22m drop. No scrum option. Methinks right now anyways.

ddjamo
22-09-09, 17:09
22.7(d) duck

OB..
22-09-09, 17:09
There is a gap in the law.
22.7 (a) When an attacking player sends or carries ...
22.7 (d) If a defending player threw or took ...

It would be nice if it just depended on who last touched it (includes unintentional) or played it (intentional effort only).

Pending authoritative guidance, I go for "touched".

Lee Lifeson-Peart
22-09-09, 17:09
There is a gap in the law.
22.7 (a) When an attacking player sends or carries ...
22.7 (d) If a defending player threw or took ...

It would be nice if it just depended on who last touched it (includes unintentional) or played it (intentional effort only).

Pending authoritative guidance, I go for "touched".

RL have definitive criteria in terms of "played at" and the resultant decision, even down to in touch. eg Red kick hits blue in face goes into touch = scrum blue.

Red kick - blue stcks out hand to attempt catch/charge down goes into touch = scrum red.

I would go for "touched" in RU

Phil E
23-09-09, 12:09
So it was last touched by a red defender (off his head) and then grounded by red; are we saying red took it in?

Are we saying scrum 5, blue?

Not Kurt Weaver
23-09-09, 13:09
So it was last touched by a red defender (off his head) and then grounded by red; are we saying red took it in?

Are we saying scrum 5, blue?


I'm not, unless this was intentional header.

Phil E. In your example was the ball (excuse the verb tenses) sends, carries, threw or took? If it was send/sent, it is 22.7a and blue 22 drop. Touched is not a choice.


I didn't want to take the bait, but I think OB is just making us think a little more deeply. After futher review, I think the gap in law (described below) is appropriate for unintentional touches (i.e. kicks that ricochet off players, or a grubber that crosses over a player lying on the ground).
This gap and others allow us as refs to make on the spot judgments.

Posted by OB...

There is a gap in the law.
22.7 (a) When an attacking player sends or carries ...
22.7 (d) If a defending player threw or took ...

It would be nice if it just depended on who last touched it (includes unintentional) or played it (intentional effort only).

Pending authoritative guidance, I go for "touched".



Consider these

On an touched attempted charge down, the ball goes into goal.
Was the ball Sends, Carried, Threw, or Took?
I say Took, so 22.7 (d), 5m scrum attacking

or

On a kick that glances of a retreating defenders rear end, the ball goes into goal?
Was the ball Sends, Carried, Threw or Took?
I say Sends, so 22.7 (a), 22m drop

OB..
23-09-09, 15:09
Ball kicked by Red on halfway line bounces off the back of a retreating Blue player and into touch. Whose throw?
19.4 - does "touched" include "was touched by"?

Ball kicked by Red scrumhalf from lineout. Blue 7 gets a hand to it. Referee calls "All onside".
Ball kicked by Red scrumhalf from lineout, hits Blue 4 in back. "All onside"?
11.3 (c) requires intentional touching.

I don't see much point in trying to derive a solution by examining the words, because it is all too unclear. What we need is some sort of consensus.

Davet
23-09-09, 19:09
Why not use "played", for which we have a definition, "intentionally touch"

Not Kurt Weaver
23-09-09, 22:09
Ball kicked by Red on halfway line bounces off the back of a retreating Blue player and into touch. Whose throw? Red
19.4 - does "touched" include "was touched by"? I say yep, "touched is all encompassing
Ball kicked by Red scrumhalf from lineout. Blue 7 gets a hand to it. Referee calls "All onside". All red are onside, any blue in front of 7 are offBall kicked by Red scrumhalf from lineout, hits Blue 4 in back. "All onside"? No, all blue onside, any red scrumhalf and behind are onside
11.3 (c) requires intentional touching. Yep
I don't see much point in trying to derive a solution by examining the words, because it is all too unclear. What we need is some sort of consensus.

my answers in red

I have learned (from rugbyrefs) that "All onside" or "everyones onside" are a poor choice of words, and except for the kick off rarely can be accurate.