injured player recovers at crucial moment

[crossref]

- Red 12 made an interception about 30m from his own line, and hared off down the pitch

- Blue full back had come into the line to attack, so red had a clear run to the line

- but is, of course, hotly pursued by blue 14 and 10, who are on his left and right shoulders

- way ahead inside the blue 22m is an injured blue player, prostrate on the ground, being attended to by a physio while paly continued

- red 12 is fast, and with the head start from the interception it looks like he will get all the way the line, but constrained by his pursuers is heading quite close to the injured player and physio

- but when the injured blue player sees what is happening he leaps, just in time, to his feet and makes a half-tackle, not enough to stop the ball carrier, but slowing him sufficently to let his pursuers catch him.

- The injured blue player subsides to the ground again, still injured.


My friend who saw this, asked me if there is anything wrong with that ?
I don't think there is, is there? The only thing I'd worry about is whether the physio was getting in the way, but I didn't see it, just described to me.

[FlipFlop]

Nothing wrong with it from a law perspective. The physio and medics might not like it from a medical perspective though.

I would play on fro mteh incident as described. Of course many other things may require the game is stopped (i.e. medic in way)

[Davet]

Although if you stop play because it is getting near the injury then you have done his work for him... he doesn't even need to bother getting to his feet.

And the attackers may not be best pleased.

Nor the spectators.

I think it is a very contextual judgement, and one would need to be there to decide wheteher there was a safety issue that required you to stop the game.

But lacking such an issue - the recovering player is onside, not sure what other problems there could be.

[beckett50]

I had something similar a few years ago in a L6 exchange to Torquay. At the time I let play continue, asked assessor after the game if I was correct and he concurred
It was also discussed on this fine forum.
I remember at the time my brain was screaming that I should penalise the injured player, but logic was asking upon what basis? Logic won out on the day, and will continue so to do.

[Dixie]

I agree that there is nothing in the LoTG to penalise except (perhaps) ungentlemanly conduct. The attacker is studiously ignoring the injured player, treating him as out of the game. For him to come back into the game just in the nick of time - and while still injured at that - seems unsporting. But it would be a very contentious call either way - referee is in a no-win situation.

[Constantine]

You could penalise the injured player on law 10.4m - A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship. If the player got up in the nick of time and continued to play in the game I probably wouldn't penalise him, but to basically get up, disrupt play and go back to being treated by the physios seems very off.

[Ian_Cook]

You could penalise the injured player on law 10.4m - A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship. If the player got up in the nick of time and continued to play in the game I probably wouldn't penalise him, but to basically get up, disrupt play and go back to being treated by the physios seems very off.

Hang on!

The prone player in onside and has not breached any LotG. Surely the onus is on the running player to realise that the prone player is still an opponent and could get up at any time. If he is sucked into thinking the prone player is out of the game, more the fool he.

IMO, this is one of those rare occasions when something looks wrong, but it isn't.

[Taff]

... The attacker is studiously ignoring the injured player, treating him as out of the game.

Perhaps that's his first mistake - maybe he shouldn't have been ignoring him.

You could penalise the injured player on law 10.4m.

But I'm not clear what you would penalise him for? He's still on the field of play, he's onside and is entitled to take part in the game if he can.

Hang on! The prone player in onside and has not breached any LotG. Surely the onus is on the running player to realise that the prone player is still an opponent and could get up at any time. ... IMO, this is one of those rare occasions when something looks wrong, but it isn't.

Sounds sensible to me. If the injured player was sitting on the floor and rubbing his calf without a physio, would we penalise him if he got up and carried out a textbook tackle? I wouldn't. Does the presence of the physio take him out of the game? I would say no, but I'll go with the flow.

[crossref]

Does the presence of the physio take him out of the game?

perhaps that is actually the nub of it
... a player on the ground on his own clearly could get up at any moment, and is therefore part of the game (once he does)
... Does the presence of physio/first aid change anything?

I guess not - I mean if the player in the scenario had been on his feet with a physio strapping a finger, then no one would be the least bit surprised if he abandoned the strapping to defend his tryline.

[Constantine]

You could say he had done something contrary to good sportsmanship, which he had. (and is thus against the LoTG.) I think the presence of the physio, and whether the player continues afterwards is important. If he does, fair play - he got up at the right time. If he immediately continues getting treatment from the physio afterwards, it puts the physio as a) an extra person on the field, and b) in danger of being hurt because essentially they're in play.