Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: NZL v IRE Penalty try and the "attempt to wrap"

      
  1. #41

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,306
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1495

    Default Re: "attempt to wrap"

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    Not really as one is in the in goal, and the other is in the FoP

    Not if the player gets between the goal-line, and the ball carrier trying to ground it, which we see often.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  2. #42

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,693
    Thanks (Received)
    137
    Likes (Received)
    1743

    Default Re: "attempt to wrap"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    Not if the player gets between the goal-line, and the ball carrier trying to ground it, which we see often.
    The goal line is part of the in goal

    This is such a strange argument.. normally you are firmly in the camp of off your feet , out of the game

  3. #43

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,306
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1495

    Default Re: NZL v IRE Penalty try and the "attempt to wrap"

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    1 far from ignoring it .. he gave a PT for it !
    Rubbish. He did no such thing!

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    2 yes the explanation given was offside, which is a much easier and quicker explanation to give on field ( but he wasn't offside)
    Sorry, I don't believe any referee at this level will give bogus explanations because they are "a much easier and quicker explanation". He has to account for that decision during his review. Will be be lying then or was he lying on the field?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    3 it was the first time, so far as I know , that it's ever happened , so it takes a while to process. So I wouldnt really say blatant.
    Its not the first time I've seen it, except the last time I saw it, the player faced the ball carrier, he didn't have his back to him.... and there was no PK.

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    Do you think it's legal or illegal .
    I don't see how it can be squared with Law 13 . He is a player on the ground preventing an opponent on his feet from playing the ball.
    I think its legal, provided that the player comes from an onside position (and that will depend on the circumstances of the previous play). There is nothing in law prevents an opponent from getting in the way of a ball carrier without tackling him, provided he does not shoulder charge. You can stand in the way or cross in front or make him go around you.

    And I can easily square it with Law 13. The only parts of the Law 13 that could potentially apply are 13.3 and 13.4, but as I will explain, they do not.

    Law 13.3. A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
    a. Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.


    The ball carrier already had possession of the ball. The term "played" is specifically defined on page 20 of the Law book

    Played: The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player


    Only a player not already in possession of the ball can "play the ball". Since the ball carrier is already touching the ball (by definition) it cannot be argued that the player on the ground is preventing him from touching it. i.e. holding the ball and doing something with it is not "playing the ball" under the Laws

    Law 13.4 Players on their feet and without the ball must not fall on or over players on the ground who have the ball or who are near it.


    In this case, Black 20 did not fall on over a player on the ground. He fell in front to block him from placing the ball against the base of the post. The Law is silent on this action, and Law 13 certainly does NOT make it illegal to do so.

    The Black has not prevented a player on his feet from playing the ball. That player was still free to pass or offload the ball, or place it back for his SH.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •