PDA

View Full Version : Time to touch down



Jarrod Burton
18-07-15, 10:07
Hi Guys,

I had a very lopsided game today, 111-10, legs are shattered.

One question - when a player misses a penalty kick at goal and the defender catches the ball, how long to they have to ground it to get the dropout option. I've always thought it was pretty much immediately but now I'm not so sure.

Rushforth
18-07-15, 11:07
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=22.5

"First".

Ian_Cook
18-07-15, 11:07
Hi Guys,

I had a very lopsided game today, 111-10, legs are shattered.

One question - when a player misses a penalty kick at goal and the defender catches the ball, how long to they have to ground it to get the dropout option. I've always thought it was pretty much immediately but now I'm not so sure.

You are getting your Laws mixed up there I think Jarrod. There isn't any time limit as such after a missed PK, a player is allowed to look around and weigh up what they want to do, and if they touch the ball down, the 22DO is the only option.

What you are thinking of when the ball goes into in-goal from a kick off or a restart kick, or a drop-out

LAW 13 - KICK OFF AND RESTART KICKS
13.9 BALL GOES INTO THE IN-GOAL

(b) If the opposing team grounds the ball, or if they make it dead, or if the ball becomes dead
by going into touch-in-goal, or on or over the dead ball line, they have two choices:
• To have a scrum formed at the centre, and they throw in the ball, or
• To have the other team kick off again.

(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.

(d) If the ball does not travel ten metres and ends up in the kicking team’s in-goal and:
• it is made dead by a defending player, or
• the ball goes into touch in goal, or
• lands on or over the dead ball line;
a 5-metre scrum is awarded and the attacking team throw in.
13.15 DROP-OUT GOES INTO THE OPPONENTS’ IN-GOAL

(a) If the ball is kicked into the opponents’ 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.

(b) If the opposing team grounds the ball, or makes it dead, or if the ball becomes dead by
going into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, they have two choices:
• To have a scrum formed at the centre of the 22-metre line from where the kick was taken
and they throw in the ball, or
• To have the other team drop-out again.

(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.

ChrisR
18-07-15, 13:07
Kick-off goes into goal. Receiver, staying in goal, holds the ball and does not ground it "without delay". As a chaser from the kicking team approaches the receiver then grounds the ball.

At this point I assume that the opportunity for a scrum at center has been lost and the delayed grounding will now result in a 22 drop out.

Although not required I think it good practice for the referee to give a warning of "Ground it or play on" or some such.

OB..
18-07-15, 14:07
Kick-off goes into goal. Receiver, staying in goal, holds the ball and does not ground it "without delay". As a chaser from the kicking team approaches the receiver then grounds the ball.

At this point I assume that the opportunity for a scrum at center has been lost and the delayed grounding will now result in a 22 drop out.

Although not required I think it good practice for the referee to give a warning of "Ground it or play on" or some such.Not really practical. By the time the referee decides a reminder is needed, the player has already delayed.

Browner
18-07-15, 15:07
Kick-off goes into goal. Receiver, staying in goal, holds the ball and does not ground it "without delay". As a chaser from the kicking team approaches the receiver then grounds the ball.

At this point I assume that the opportunity for a scrum at center has been lost and the delayed grounding will now result in a 22 drop out.

Although not required I think it good practice for the referee to give a warning of "Ground it or play on" or some such.

Agree, given that there will be wide referee variances on 'without delay' ( as there invariably is with immediately) some kinda warning makes sense, as long as its not "Use It" cos that will no doubt be taken to mean they have 5s to dilly dally .

crossref
18-07-15, 15:07
And after a ko they only need to act without delay if they want the scrum back / kick again option. If they delay, and then touch down, they still get the 22m drop out

ctrainor
18-07-15, 17:07
The answer to your question Jarrod is he can take as long as he wants

ChrisR
18-07-15, 22:07
Not really practical. By the time the referee decides a reminder is needed, the player has already delayed.

... and now we start a discussion as to the difference between "immediately" and "without delay".

I think there is a moment when the player picks up the ball instead of grounding it that a call of "Ground it or play on" is appropriate.

If the law said "immediately" then I would say that you are correct and I would expect the receiving player to simply ground it and for him to pick it up he has "played on".

Dickie E
19-07-15, 00:07
What would yo do in this situation:

Blue kicks off and ball rolls into Red in-goal. Red player stops the ball with his foot. Another Red player, coming from an onside position, dives on and grounds the ball.

Restart?

crossref
19-07-15, 00:07
What would yo do in this situation:

Blue kicks off and ball rolls into Red in-goal. Red player stops the ball with his foot. Another Red player, coming from an onside position, dives on and grounds the ball.

Restart?

Dropout

Ian_Cook
19-07-15, 01:07
Dropout


I agree, because "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."

By stopping the ball with his foot, he has done an action other than grounding the ball.

(I think I know what the counter to that might be, but I'm going to keep my powder dry for now)

ChrisR
19-07-15, 01:07
... and if, instead, the first player to the ball simply picks it up and dabs it down?

... or stops the ball with his foot and reaches down and grounds it?

C'mon, please, scrum center.

Pinky
19-07-15, 01:07
... and if, instead, the first player to the ball simply picks it up and dabs it down?

... or stops the ball with his foot and reaches down and grounds it?

C'mon, please, scrum center.

For me 1 is making the ball dead without delay, so that is OK, and scrum of kick option remains. Similarly I would allow a stop with a foot and then bend down to ground it to mean that the options are on, but I think I would draw the line at another player actually grounding it. I would also allow eg a catcher of the ball to be told to ground it the time to follow the instruction and not consider that a delay.

crossref
19-07-15, 08:07
... and if, instead, the first player to the ball simply picks it up and dabs it down?

... or stops the ball with his foot and reaches down and grounds it?

C'mon, please, scrum center.

For those two examples I agree.

OB..
19-07-15, 13:07
... and now we start a discussion as to the difference between "immediately" and "without delay".I don't. I go back to my view that we cannot forensically dissect the words. Since WR did not bother to define a distinction, I think it best not to infer one. We have no basis for doing so.


I think there is a moment when the player picks up the ball instead of grounding it that a call of "Ground it or play on" is appropriate.Not my view.


If the law said "immediately" then I would say that you are correct and I would expect the receiving player to simply ground it and for him to pick it up he has "played on".I think that is a common view. "There is no point in picking the ball up if you want the option, so don't do it" is what I was always told. You certainly don't want to risk a knock-on.

Of course if it bounces up you may have to catch it. Option if you ground it immediately without looking up.

ChrisR
19-07-15, 13:07
The requirement to act "without delay" was, to my mind, included in the laws to prevent some smart ass from waltzing around in goal with the ball in hand until threatened by an opponent then grounding the ball and claiming the scrum center.

No need to be a pedant.

Pegleg
19-07-15, 19:07
If the player passes or runs / walks with the ball then "without delay" has gone If he stands still he might get a more "lenient" interpretation.

If a second player touches down? I doubt that is immediate.

ChrisR
19-07-15, 20:07
Pegleg, the law doesn't require 'immediate', just 'without delay'.

Now, OB doesn't see a difference but I do.

OB..
19-07-15, 21:07
Pegleg, the law doesn't require 'immediate', just 'without delay'.

Now, OB doesn't see a difference but I do.
Why? It just complicates matters, particularly since AFAIK there is no general agreement on what the difference might be.

Maybe you have in mind a difference that you think is a good idea, but unless referees both know and agree, I don't see that it helps.

ChrisR
20-07-15, 00:07
It does sound like we're splitting hairs. However, this isn't the only law that requires "No delay". See Law 20 Scrum.

No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the
ball without delay.

Even before current scrum engagement management we never required the SH to feed the ball at the instance of engagement. We simply didn't want him dawdling.

I see that same requirement for a kick-off in goal. Yes, pick it up, take a look but don't make it look like you're going to run it out then dot it down. If the ball stops in goal, don't stand there letting the ops run down the pitch then ground it.

So as a referee I'd allow the time to look and make a decision. As a coach I'd expect the first player there to ground it immediately unless: The end of game hooter has sounded or the referee has indicated 'last play' in which case you'd better run it as the scrum center won't be awarded.

Dickie E
20-07-15, 00:07
It does sound like we're splitting hairs. However, this isn't the only law that requires "No delay". See Law 20 Scrum.

No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the
ball without delay.

Even before current scrum engagement management we never required the SH to feed the ball at the instance of engagement. We simply didn't want him dawdling.

I see that same requirement for a kick-off in goal. Yes, pick it up, take a look but don't make it look like you're going to run it out then dot it down. If the ball stops in goal, don't stand there letting the ops run down the pitch then ground it.

So as a referee I'd allow the time to look and make a decision. As a coach I'd expect the first player there to ground it immediately unless: The end of game hooter has sounded or the referee has indicated 'last play' in which case you'd better run it as the scrum center won't be awarded.

I agree with all of this except this bit:


If the ball stops in goal, don't stand there letting the ops run down the pitch then ground it.

That is totally unenforcable.

OB..
20-07-15, 12:07
Yes, pick it up, take a look [...]I
For me that is a delay. By all means take a look before you play the ball, but once you touch it you must ground it without any other actions or forego the options.

Once you have the ball there is no point in taking a look unless you are thinking of doing something other than grounding it, so why should the referee allow it? It only makes his job harder.

Blackberry
20-07-15, 13:07
In my experience I have always let players have a look, what I don't want to see is any body movement to suggest s/he is trying something which s/he then decides against. Simples.

Why don't players get told this sort of thing???????? Don't you all get fed up when you become the "on-field-educator"?

Dickie E
20-07-15, 13:07
In my experience I have always let players have a look, what I don't want to see is any body movement to suggest s/he is trying something which s/he then decides against. Simples.

Why don't players get told this sort of thing???????? Don't you all get fed up when you become the "on-field-educator"?

Does it happen that often?

Browner
20-07-15, 14:07
In my experience I have always let players have a look, what I don't want to see is any body movement to suggest s/he is trying something which s/he then decides against. Simples.

Why don't players get told this sort of thing???????? Don't you all get fed up when you become the "on-field-educator"?

Perhaps the various referee interpretations ???

OB's hard line interpretation of "delay" could easy get you painted as a gotcha ref IMO, week in week out I don't see referees operating to that standard.
Most seem to operate a 'don't take a stride' or 'decide within say 1/2 secs'.

Notwithstanding these observations, in this cliphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?t=28&v=Z5SzVvpIVxoCJ introduces "immediately" [an alternative to delay] into his phraseology , however the player didn't have possession it merely bounced & touched him, so , if the ball strikes you have you delayed??? or does delay only happen if you're in possession?

IMO, being adjudged to be delaying when not in possession/control opens another can of worms entirely

OB..
20-07-15, 16:07
What is the point of taking a look if you intend to touch down anyway?

crossref
20-07-15, 18:07
For me that is a delay. By all means take a look before you play the ball, but once you touch it you must ground it without any other actions or forego the options.
.

I'd actually say the opposite -- for me if the defender reaches the ball, picks up the ball, glances up field and touches it down -- then that's 'without delay' and options.

But if the ball comes to rest in the in goal, and the defender stands over it, doing nothing, waiting for the oppo to run up and force him to play it, and eventually when the oppo get close, quickly picks and dots it down, then I'd say that was delay.

ChrisR
20-07-15, 19:07
Why don't players get told this sort of thing???????? Don't you all get fed up when you become the "on-field-educator"?

Blackberry, next time that you have some idle time start jotting down a coaching plan for a season. Figure in that you have two 2 hour (at most, mine run 11/2 hours) practices. Figure that you emphasize technical, unit and tactical skills and need to get all 15 plus subs on the same page. Exactly when do you fit in the rare occurrence of the ops kickoff going in goal?

Yes, I would expect experienced members of the deep three to know how to handle these kinds of situations but consider this: We don't get complete agreement on refereeing this situation so you shouldn't expect coaches to arrive at an approach that will be consistent with how you would rule.

SimonSmith
20-07-15, 19:07
Why don't players get told this sort of thing???????? Don't you all get fed up when you become the "on-field-educator"?

Blackberry, next time that you have some idle time start jotting down a coaching plan for a season. Figure in that you have two 2 hour (at most, mine run 11/2 hours) practices. Figure that you emphasize technical, unit and tactical skills and need to get all 15 plus subs on the same page. Exactly when do you fit in the rare occurrence of the ops kickoff going in goal?

Yes, I would expect experienced members of the deep three to know how to handle these kinds of situations but consider this: We don't get complete agreement on refereeing this situation so you shouldn't expect coaches to arrive at an approach that will be consistent with how you would rule.
A couple of points.

First, though you only get 90 minutes with them, they have other time to learn and seek out learning opportunities. The time I spend physically training is only part of my preparation.

Secondly, why not just tell them "don't run the risk. If you want the scrum back, just dot the ball down immediately. Don't do anything else at all." That removes any possibility of being on the wrong side of the referee decision.

OB..
20-07-15, 21:07
I'd actually say the opposite -- for me if the defender reaches the ball, picks up the ball, glances up field and touches it down -- then that's 'without delay' and options.Since there is no discernible benefit in picking up the ball if the only intention is to ground it, then why pick it up in the first place? Keep it simple.


But if the ball comes to rest in the in goal, and the defender stands over it, doing nothing, waiting for the oppo to run up and force him to play it, and eventually when the oppo get close, quickly picks and dots it down, then I'd say that was delay.As has been pointed out earlier, the law refers to "any other action with the ball". That does not cover standing there looking around without touching the ball.

On the other hand surely picking the ball up is indeed "any other action with the ball".

If the player's aim in playing the ball is to ground it, that is what he should do. Why mess around and confuse the issue?

Dickie E
20-07-15, 23:07
What is the point of taking a look if you intend to touch down anyway?

The player takes a look to assess his options - will I run it, kick it, pass it or dot it down? Weighing up options is what rugby is all about.

ChrisR
21-07-15, 00:07
The 'scrum center' option was introduced to discourage teams from kicking off into the opponents goal with the intent of gaining ground by forcing a 22.

Whereas, as OB has pointed out, it make good coaching sense to simply ground the ball and get the scrum center what negative impact is there in simply picking it up, taking a peek and dotting it down. If you penalize that action by disallowing the scrum center I would consider you to be an insufferable pedantic prick.

Blackberry
21-07-15, 08:07
Marauder, you are the wind beneath my wings.

Blackberry
21-07-15, 08:07
Here's what the law means: you can ground the ball and get a scrum back at the centre unless you tried another option first.

Browner
21-07-15, 13:07
Perhaps the various referee interpretations ???

OB's hard line interpretation of "delay" could easy get you painted as a gotcha ref IMO, week in week out I don't see referees operating to that standard.
Most seem to operate a 'don't take a stride' or 'decide within say 1/2 secs'.

Notwithstanding these observations, in this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=28&v=Z5SzVvpIVxo CJ introduces "immediately" [an alternative to delay] into his phraseology , however the player didn't have possession it merely bounced & touched him, so , if the ball strikes you have you delayed??? or does delay only happen if you're in possession?

IMO, being adjudged to be delaying when not in possession/control opens another can of worms entirely

oops, clip didn't work, try

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=28&v=Z5SzVvpIVxo

ChrisR
21-07-15, 14:07
If you stand with one foot on the ball are you 'in possession'?

If you stand there, one foot on the ball as the ops run down the pitch are you delaying?

Would it be different if you didn't have your foot on the ball.

No can of worms for me. If you are in playing distance of the ball and elect to take no action to either take possession or ground the ball then at some point you are 'delaying' and will lose the scrum center option.

OB..
21-07-15, 15:07
Whereas, as OB has pointed out, it make good coaching sense to simply ground the ball and get the scrum center what negative impact is there in simply picking it up, taking a peek and dotting it down.It confuses the issue. If you are not assessing other options, there is no point whatsoever in taking a look first. In fact taking a look effectively tells the referee that you are indeed assessing other options. I see no positive benefit in taking a look if you have already decided to ground the ball.
If you penalize that action by disallowing the scrum center I would consider you to be an insufferable pedantic prick.I find that comment unnecessarily offensive. My view is entirely consistent with the law and moreover it makes life simpler for referees and players.

crossref
21-07-15, 15:07
my difference with you OB - is that I don't see 'without delay' precluding the player from looking up and assessing options.
often he'll run to collect the ball with his back to play, I don't think the Law is intended to stop him from gathering the ball, looking up to see where everyone is, and dotting it down to get the scrum back.

conversely if the ball is on the ground in goal I think the Law does preclude him from standing next to it for a prolonged period of time before taking action to touch down.

Browner
21-07-15, 15:07
No can of worms for me.

If you are in playing distance of the ball and elect to take no action to either take possession or ground the ball then at some point you are 'delaying' and will lose the scrum center option.

so anyone who sidesteps or avoids the bouncing ball or its direction change catches them by surprise [as per clip] , falls into that category , sounds a bit gotcha to me , id rather see something C&O.

OB..
21-07-15, 16:07
my difference with you OB - is that I don't see 'without delay' precluding the player from looking up and assessing options.
often he'll run to collect the ball with his back to play, I don't think the Law is intended to stop him from gathering the ball, looking up to see where everyone is, and dotting it down to get the scrum back.We do indeed take a totally different view of the law. I don't see how holding the ball and assessing your options can fail to constitute delay.


conversely if the ball is on the ground in goal I think the Law does preclude him from standing next to it for a prolonged period of time before taking action to touch down.Strictly speaking he is not taking an action with the ball. I don't like to see players doing that - it just uses up time. Unfortunately I think they are exploiting a loophole.

I have just looked back at the history of this law. The options date from 1992, and a note was added in 1995 The options in Section (4) must be exercised without delay and if a defending player after gathering the ball in-goal, runs with it or passes it, he has taken the option to play on.

In the 2000 re-write it became "Any other action with the ball ...".

The problem has been with us for a long time. I remember a team-mate picking up the ball and immediately grounding it without looking up. The referee allowed the option this once but warned him against doing it again. Afterwards the player explained that he had merely been making it clear he was grounding it as on a previous occasion when he just put a hand on it the referee thought he had missed touching it.

crossref
21-07-15, 17:07
I remember a team-mate picking up the ball and immediately grounding it without looking up. The referee allowed the option this once but warned him against doing it again. Afterwards the player explained that he had merely been making it clear he was grounding it as on a previous occasion when he just put a hand on it the referee thought he had missed touching it.

I take on board your view that the player is not allowed a quick look -- but to me it beggars belief that this action quoted would constitute undue 'delay'

Blackberry
21-07-15, 19:07
Quote from OB My view is entirely consistent with the law

No its not!!!!! That is why we are having this discussion!!

Again I urge you to look at the idea behind the laws (and I feel your quoting of 2000 version and the subsequent re-write do not help your case). You also, as an aside, claim there is no discernible advantage to picking the ball up in post 31 then give a very good reason for doing so in post 41. :yellow:

OB..
21-07-15, 21:07
I take on board your view that the player is not allowed a quick look -- but to me it beggars belief that this action quoted would constitute undue 'delay'You have slipped in the word "undue". If the player only ever intended to make the ball dead, then the quick look serves no purpose at all - but it may make give the referee cause for uncertainty. Why risk it?

OB..
21-07-15, 21:07
Quote from OB My view is entirely consistent with the law

No its not!!!!! That is why we are having this discussion!!
The discussion is about the meaning of the. phrase "without delay" ie the interpretation of the law. My view is entirely consistent with meaning that the player should not do anything else instead of making the ball dead. I do not claim my view is the only possible one, even though I reject yours (and give my reasons)

Again I urge you to look at the idea behind the lawsI think the aim was to require the player to make the ball dead without doing anything else first. Your view AIUI is that they only wanted to prevent players running up and down in the in-goal to make the opponents waste time and effort chasing them. To me it makes sense that in 2000 they decided to cut out any form of messing about so the referee had an easy call.

(and I feel your quoting of 2000 version and the subsequent re-write do not help your case).The main point was to show how long ago it was introduced, but a subsidiary point was that the two specific actions mentioned in 1995 (presumably what you have in mind?) were eventually expanded to "any other action with the ball"

You also, as an aside, claim there is no discernible advantage to picking the ball up in post 31 then give a very good reason for doing so in post 41. You have missed the point. The incident occurred when the change was relatively new. Players and referees were still sorting out the implications. The referee in question took my view, but in a low level game was prepared to be lenient on the one occasion.

ChrisR
21-07-15, 23:07
Does the punishment fit the crime?

Ob, you assert that picking up the ball before grounding it is in violation of 'without delay'. For this violation the receiving team has to kick the ball to the opponents from inside their 22 instead of having a scrum, and most likely ball retention, at the center.

Yes, I believe that you have made a case for that. I also believe that this would show no empathy for the players or the game. It's a big "gotcha". This view is not consistent with what I read in your posts on this site where you demonstrate empathy for players and game.

Regards a previous post of mine: Agreed, no need to say "prick".