PDA

View Full Version : try scoring



crossref
26-11-09, 15:11
"Give me two ways you can score a try without grounding the ball in the in-goal area", challenged a law-nerd at my club.

"Easy", I said, "Penalty Try, and grounding against the base of the posts"

"No!", he said, "because the base of the post IS in fact part of the in goal area"

I was stumped...

Davet
26-11-09, 16:11
Be in possession and crash into the referee.

stuart3826
26-11-09, 16:11
Go on then, what's the answer, because I'm phuqued if I can find it!

Taff
26-11-09, 16:11
Grounding against the post padding. There is a maximum specified thickness, but don't know what it is off the top of my head. :chin:

In fact I couldn't understand why Australia didn't ground the ball against the pads in the Scotland game last weekend, when they were literally within inches of the goal line but could have reached the padding far easier. Would have made the conversion attempt easier as well. :wink:

chopper15
26-11-09, 16:11
Grounding against the post padding. There is a maximum specified thickness, but don't know what it is off the top of my head. :chin:

In fact I couldn't understand why Australia didn't ground the ball against the pads in the Scotland game last weekend, when they were literally within inches of the goal line but could have reached the padding far easier.

At the base. Hows about grounding the ball on the top of the ref's foot?

ddjamo
26-11-09, 16:11
6.A.11

up to 3 now....PT, ref obstruction in goal w/ball in possession of attacking side and the above.

crossref
26-11-09, 17:11
The Q. was 'how can you score a try other than groundng the ball in the in goal area'

and the base of the post, and the padding, is a technically an incorrect answer to that question - but it's kind of a trick though - it's because:

22.4 (b) Grounded against a goal post. The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in-goal

Answers
PT
collision with the ref
...and there is another way....

chbg
26-11-09, 18:11
Ball in-goal touching a non-player, when the referee judges that a try would otherwise have been scored.

But that's stil only 2 ways - a penalty try is termed as such: "a penalty
try is awarded between the goal posts" and not "a try is scored". (9.A.1). (Pedant being my middle name:wink: )

David J.
27-11-09, 05:11
Penalty try.
Ball touched by the ref.
Ball touched by a non-player.

crossref
27-11-09, 09:11
so, has anyone ever awarded a try following a collision with the ref, or ball touched by a non-player? I've never seen it.
Did it cause any controversy on the touchline?

andyscott
27-11-09, 13:11
Grounding against the post padding
In fact I couldn't understand why Australia didn't ground the ball against the pads in the Scotland game last weekend, when they were literally within inches of the goal line but could have reached the padding far easier. Would have made the conversion attempt easier as well. :wink:

because the defence were diving infront of the padding as soon as the ball was out, clever defence :)

Davet
27-11-09, 13:11
Also the ball needs to be grounded against the padding - ie at junction of pad and ground - not simply held to the padding above ground level.

Deeps
27-11-09, 14:11
Also the ball needs to be grounded against the padding - ie at junction of pad and ground - not simply held to the padding above ground level.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people don't understand that the term grounding means by definition that the ball is brought to ground. Are they perhaps applying some imagined past participle of the verb to 'grind' or is that just a Rupert's term for the soil?

Stoo48
16-12-09, 08:12
I disagree,the law states that "The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored." By definition, any part of posts and padding, to the top extremity of the post can be used to ground the ball and score a try.

stuart3826
16-12-09, 08:12
To ground the ball, it has to touch the ground. If what you assert were true, you could score a try by touching the ball against the posts, which you can't

Stoo48
16-12-09, 08:12
Again I disagree, my interpretation is that you can, it was also the impression of the chap who did my part one and and law exam, it was the one thing I clearly remember from the course. Though I have never seen it done or attempted.

Dickie E
16-12-09, 09:12
it was the one thing I clearly remember from the course.

Pity. If there was one thing to be remembered it probably wasn't this. :rolleyes:

Dixie
16-12-09, 10:12
Sorry, Stoo48 - you're as totally wrong on that as it is possible to be. I guess it's your partial Indiana experience; unlike in Gridiron, when we rugby guys say touchdown, we mean the ball actually has to be touched down. Just waving it around in mid air beyond (or on) the plane of in-goal does not suffice.

Taff
16-12-09, 10:12
... my interpretation is that you can .... it was the one thing I clearly remember from the course. Though I have never seen it done or attempted.As my old History teacher used to say "there's probably a very good reason why" you've never seen it done. :D

Simon Thomas
16-12-09, 13:12
Again I disagree, my interpretation is that you can, it was also the impression of the chap who did my part one and and law exam, it was the one thing I clearly remember from the course. Though I have never seen it done or attempted.

Stoo48 - your interpretation is wrong, and it isn't an interpretation, it is fact - ground = at the base of padding and earth/grass.

Whoever did your Part One and Law Exam is wrong too and might beneft from asking his RFU boss (AB or PF if Midlands Region) for advice - or be sent on a refresher course of "Train the Trainer ELRA".

I have seen it attempted and disallowed.
I have seen it done at base of post and on ground and correctly awarded.
I have answered the question at Society Meetings and discussed it at Development Groups too.
At some time no doubt I may even have sent an email to, or discused it, with DB / AM / SH / DR (initials of various RFU Refs Dept Referee Development Managers. I have no doubts grounding means just that - on the ground.

SimonSmith
16-12-09, 13:12
If it was to be touched on the padding the law would say "touch".

It doesn't. It says "grounded". That means the ground is part of the action.

Davet
16-12-09, 13:12
As I said above - grounded means touching the ground as well as the posts / padding.

If a player were to run virtually unnopposed between the posts, and triumphantly press the ball against one of them before throwing it into the airtowards the dead ball line in celebration - he should not be surprised if he was blown up for a knock-on instead of being awarded a try.

I think a PK for deliberate knock-on may be harsh - but... if his celebration was sufficiently irritating I may be tempted.

Jacko
16-12-09, 16:12
KML would probably give the try to reward the team playing positive rugby... ;)

truck'n'trailor
16-12-09, 17:12
Stoo, I think you may got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line....

tim White
16-12-09, 20:12
There is a clue in the word ' - GROUND':chin: -as stated in the law-:clap: and with a nice picture as well.:clap:

Account Deleted
04-01-10, 01:01
To play devil's wotsit:

The try line is part of in goal placing the ball ON the try line = grounding the ball.

The posts and padding are part of try line. Therefore they are part of In goal.If you place the ball on the post or the padding you have placed the ball on the try line.

How is it possible to ground the ball against the posts and the floor since the padding is in the way? The only way to touch the posts is 4 feet or so above the ground.

Just to play DA :chin: :Nerv:

OB..
04-01-10, 01:01
Just to play DA :chin: :Nerv:

Why?

Law 22.4 (b)
The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored.

This is a dead issue.

ddjamo
04-01-10, 01:01
22.4(b) says "or padding"

SimonSmith
04-01-10, 02:01
It says ground.

This horse is dead. Please put whips away.

Dickie E
04-01-10, 02:01
Maybe ATTR has a point.

You can ground an electical device without it actually touching the earth - all you need is a conductor (like a goal post). Maybe it is important, therefore, what the goal post is made out of :chin: :eek:

Account Deleted
04-01-10, 07:01
Why?

Law 22.4 (b)
The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored.

This is a dead issue.

How do you do that at "ground level" with the padding there? A simple question.

Cymro
04-01-10, 09:01
simple answer:
No Padding on posts - ground against pitch and post,
Padding on posts - ground against pitch and padding.

I assume that is why the clarification (and picture) are included in 22.4(b)

stuart3826
04-01-10, 10:01
OFFS!!

Dixie
04-01-10, 10:01
follow me on Twitter Why? (non-Twitterer seeking information, not trying to be offensive)

Account Deleted
05-01-10, 17:01
simple answer:
No Padding on posts - ground against pitch and post,
Padding on posts - ground against pitch and padding.

I assume that is why the clarification (and picture) are included in 22.4(b)


When did you last see a game played without post protection?

Cymro
05-01-10, 19:01
long time ago but 1.4 (d) says "when padding is attached" . In the 70s even internationals were played without post padding and I'm sure the original law 22.4 (b) will stem from that time.

barker14610
05-01-10, 20:01
Sorry, Stoo48 - you're as totally wrong on that as it is possible to be. I guess it's your partial Indiana experience; unlike in Gridiron, when we rugby guys say touchdown, we mean the ball actually has to be touched down. Just waving it around in mid air beyond (or on) the plane of in-goal does not suffice.

I am catching up on some reading and just saw this. Perhaps it is all the beer the losing(home) team fed him after the match. Or maybe the fatigue he felt figthing off a harem of young women who could not contain themselves with a man in an England jersey around.

OB..
05-01-10, 21:01
long time ago but 1.4 (d) says "when padding is attached" . In the 70s even internationals were played without post padding and I'm sure the original law 22.4 (b) will stem from that time.
There is no reference to post padding in the 1999 laws. AFAIK it first appears in the 2000 re-write. My recollection is that everybody simply regarded the padding as being part of the post and treated it accordingly.

I think there is a lot to be said for the gridiron tuning forks - one post on (or behind) the dead ball line which curves forward and sprouts a cross bar carrying the top half of the posts directly above the goal line. After all, it is only the top half that matters.

Dickie E
05-01-10, 23:01
we use this kind of set up quite often here to allow rugby & soccer to be played on the same ground (not at the same time, of course)

David J.
05-01-10, 23:01
I think there is a lot to be said for the gridiron tuning forks - one post on (or behind) the dead ball line which curves forward and sprouts a cross bar carrying the top half of the posts directly above the goal line. After all, it is only the top half that matters.

Actually American football posts are usually located a few yards behind the "dead ball line" and only curve forward those few yards until the top half of the post are above the DBL.

Trying to do something similar with rugby posts wouldn't really work. Either the curve would be too great (covering 10m instead of 3m), or you'd have the business end of the posts over the DBL greatly changing the dynamics of the kick.

No reason not to have a single Y shaped post though, except for tradition and cost (I'd expect H to be cheaper).


we use this kind of set up quite often here to allow rugby & soccer to be played on the same ground (not at the same time, of course)
Oooh. That would be fun.

OB..
06-01-10, 00:01
The point is that the tuning fork would get the posts off the goal line, which to me seems a major bonus.

Dickie E
06-01-10, 01:01
I think goal posts should be done away with altogether as the aim is (should be?) to score tries.

SimonSmith
06-01-10, 01:01
A pedant writes....

They're called "tries" because they were the mechanism that allowed the attempt at goal that scored. You know, they allowed the team to "try" to kick the goal. From Wiki:In early forms of rugby football the point of the game was to score goals. A try was awarded for a touch down behind the posts; It had zero value itself, but allowed the team that touched down to try to kick at goal without interference from the other team. This kick, if successful, would convert a try into a goal.
Modern rugby and all derived forms now favour the try or touch down in place of goals and thus the try has a definite value, which has increased over time and now eclipses the value of a goal. In rugby league and rugby union, a conversion attempt is still given, but is simply seen as adding extra 'bonus' points. These points however can mean the difference between winning or losing a match, so thought is given to fielding players with good goal-kicking skill."

Jenko
06-01-10, 08:01
I think goal posts should be done away with altogether as the aim is (should be?) to score tries.

That is ironic as the 'try' derives from the fact that you get to Try for a goal!

Jenko
06-01-10, 08:01
Oops! Should read to the end before replying!:o

Dickie E
06-01-10, 09:01
That is ironic as the 'try' derives from the fact that you get to Try for a goal!

Indeed. Like rain on your wedding day. :wink:

Cymro
06-01-10, 09:01
or indeed; a free ride when you've already paid :)

Davet
06-01-10, 10:01
I think goal posts should be done away with altogether as the aim is (should be?) to score tries.


No.

The aim is to score points - which is acheived by a variety of means.

Don't reduce the game to a Lowest Common Factor - it's complex, and that's why it's a great game.

If the great mass of people find it too difficult then they can sod off and watch some tediously simple affair instead.

Greg Collins
06-01-10, 10:01
Cymro - nice Anglesey action pic via Twitter:clap:

Lee Lifeson-Peart
06-01-10, 11:01
Indeed. Like rain on your wedding day. :wink:

That's not irony - that's just shitty Alannis Morrisette lyrics.

OB..
06-01-10, 14:01
A pedant writes....From Wiki:In early forms of rugby football the point of the game was to score goals. A try was awarded for a touch down behind the posts; It had zero value itself, but allowed the team that touched down to try to kick at goal without interference from the other team. This kick, if successful, would convert a try into a goal.
Slightly misleading. According to Matthew Bloxham (Rugby School 1813-1820) most of the goals scored in his day were from free kicks following a Mark.

In fact the Mark lies behind the ability to turn a try into a goal. I won't go into the complexities, but what mattered was that you could kick the ball to a team-mate who could claim a Mark in a better position for a kick at goal. Since you could not run with the ball, you could only kick it into in-goal, where hordes of small boys, too young to "follow up", would usually ground it first. Tries were rare.

Agustin
06-01-10, 18:01
Actually American football posts are usually located a few yards behind the "dead ball line" and only curve forward those few yards until the top half of the post are above the DBL.

Trying to do something similar with rugby posts wouldn't really work. Either the curve would be too great (covering 10m instead of 3m), or you'd have the business end of the posts over the DBL greatly changing the dynamics of the kick.

No reason not to have a single Y shaped post though, except for tradition and cost (I'd expect H to be cheaper).


Oooh. That would be fun.

Or you could put the tuning fork just behind the goal line, as it is in Canadian football...

chopper15
06-01-10, 19:01
The news today that Dusty Hare is leaving the Tigers for the Sharks reminds me of the confusion back in the 80s when he passed Sam Doble's career aggragate record.

Back then the points for a conversion, drop-kick and penalty were totalled up which, unfortunately, didn't actually reflect their prowess as goal kickers and indeed if Dusty really was the better marksman. The 4 pt down to 3 pt DG also distorted the comparison.

Then, the points for the successful kick was the try points + conversion points . . . points for the try were then void. What that did to try scorers' records goodness knows.

Also, if they took three pots at goal each - Sam kicking all three as conversions and Dusty missing one but also recording 6 points as penalties, who's to know who was the more prolific kicker at the end of their careers?

The lesson to be learned for future records, I suppose, is to ignore points and categorise the scoring in terms of successful kicks and tries scored. That would even cover the anomoly of the PT credit.

Over to you, OB. :clap:

OB..
06-01-10, 21:01
The news today that Dusty Hare is leaving the Tigers for the Sharks reminds me of the confusion back in the 80s when he passed Sam Doble's career aggragate record.

Back then the points for a conversion, drop-kick and penalty were totalled up which, unfortunately, didn't actually reflect their prowess as goal kickers and indeed if Dusty really was the better marksman. The 4 pt down to 3 pt DG also distorted the comparison.
Sam Doble was born in 1944 so he was 4 years old when the drop goal was reduced to 3 points.


Then, the points for the successful kick was the try points + conversion points . . . points for the try were then void. What that did to try scorers' records goodness knows.
It is true that the law book said "a goal from a try is worth 5 points (the try not also to count)", but the statisticians were wise to that. In his record year 1971/2 Doble scored 581 point out of 1128 - hardly feasible if he was also credited with all 5 points for any tries he converted.


The lesson to be learned for future records, I suppose, is to ignore points and categorise the scoring in terms of successful kicks and tries scored.

Detailed results always do. For England, Doble is credited with 6 penalty goals and 1 conversion = 20 points. Hare got 67 penalties, 1 drop goal, 2 tries, and 14 conversions = 240 points


That would even cover the anomoly of the PT credit.
What anomaly?

chopper15
07-01-10, 12:01
I somehow knew you would sort that one out, OB. Thanks. :clap:

As for the PT 'anomoly', I assume from your query only the kick is registered.