How long to touch down...?

[Taff]

That's a tough call.

I take your point and perhaps I didn't explain well enough what I was thinking, but I reckon you will know if the defender was delaying it.

If you find yourself thinking "What the hell's he doing? Get on with it man" I would think he's probably "delaying"

[Robert Burns]

I'm with didds, the without delay is from when he is in a position to touch the ball down, not how long he took to get to that position.

[OB..]

I'm with didds, the without delay is from when he is in a position to touch the ball down, not how long he took to get to that position.

Agreed.

The kicking team chose to put the ball in that position. If they want to capitalise on it, then they need to chase. If they can't be bothered, why should the defenders have to hurry?

[Taff]

I'm with didds, the without delay is from when he is in a position to touch the ball down, not how long he took to get to that position.

But would you be happy if he delayed getting "in a position to touch the ball down"?

Agreed. The kicking team chose to put the ball in that position. If they want to capitalise on it, then they need to chase. If they can't be bothered, why should the defenders have to hurry?

I was referring to a defender taking his time to get in-goal and to the ball, not the attackers. I can't see the difference between

• a player hovering over a ball in-goal while the opposition are made to run for half a pitch and
• a player slowly walking to a ball in-goal and making the opposition run for half a pitch.

Look at it the other way; if the defenders can't be bothered to trot back (nobody's asking them to sprint) and make the ball dead, why should referees give them the benefit of the option? 13.9 just mentions "without delay". If they want the kick again / scrum option - then please get on with it.

13.9 BALL GOES INTO THE IN-GOAL
(a) 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.

(c) If they opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay. Any other action with the ball by a defending player means the player has elected to play on.

[Robert Burns]

But would you be happy if he delayed getting "in a position to touch the ball down"?


I was referring to a defender taking his time to get in-goal and to the ball, not the attackers. I can't see the difference between

• a player hovering over a ball in-goal while the opposition are made to run for half a pitch and
• a player slowly walking to a ball in-goal and making the opposition run for half a pitch.

Look at it the other way; if the defenders can't be bothered to trot back (nobody's asking them to sprint) and make the ball dead, why should referees give them the benefit of the option? 13.9 just mentions "without delay". If they want the kick again / scrum option - then please get on with it.

13.9 BALL GOES INTO THE IN-GOAL
(a) 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.

(c) If they opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay. Any other action with the ball by a defending player means the player has elected to play on.

Yes, I would be happy, I believe the DO part is referring to the action of making the ball dead. Why should the defender have to run fast to make the ball dead if no one is chasing it? Seems illogical to me. They'll move faster if the attackers attack.

Consider this, 2 defenders back, one attacker chasing, both start to run for the ball, both stop thinking the other has got it, one then restarts running for the ball and grounds it as soon as they are within grounding distance, are you going to deny the scrum back option because of that? I wouldn't.

[Marauder]

And another similar scenario ...

Two defenders chasing back with one chaser from the kicking team coming on but still some distance away. One defender gets to the ball and the other defender splits wide. If the defending team has reason to run it out then the defender at the ball is going to wait to read the action of the chaser before playing the ball. If the chaser positions himself well so that he can cover both defenders then the first defender will ground the ball and take the scrum.

Are you going to penalize the first defender for not "acting without delay"?

[OB..]

And another similar scenario ...

Two defenders chasing back with one chaser from the kicking team coming on but still some distance away. One defender gets to the ball and the other defender splits wide. If the defending team has reason to run it out then the defender at the ball is going to wait to read the action of the chaser before playing the ball. If the chaser positions himself well so that he can cover both defenders then the first defender will ground the ball and take the scrum.

Are you going to penalize the first defender for not "acting without delay"?

Yes..

[Taff]

.... Why should the defender have to run fast to make the ball dead if no one is chasing it?

I'm not suggesting he "runs fast" but I would like to see him making some effort to get there and either play on or make it dead. A gentle jog wo Why? Because 29 other players, 1 Ref and 2 TJs are standing in the cold and rain hoping to see some rugby. If he thinks he can run the clock down or play smart arse while everyone else is hanging about with impunity, he'd better think again.

... Consider this, 2 defenders back, one attacker chasing, both start to run for the ball, both stop thinking the other has got it, one then restarts running for the ball and grounds it as soon as they are within grounding distance, are you going to deny the scrum back option because of that? I wouldn't.

In that case, I wouldn't either as it was a genuine misunderstanding.

I think you will know which one you're dealing with, when you see it.