• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Clarification 2022/1

Reading that clarification notice has left me scratching my head for two reasons...
For a try to be awarded, Law 8.2a says an attacking player has to ground the ball first. Where there is simultaneous grounding by an attacker and a defender, the attacking player did not do so ‘first’, so a try cannot be awarded.

Therefore the defender’s touch takes precedence in determining the restart.
Click to expand...
I've looked again at Law 8.2a and am left a little puzzled by this. There is no mention (that I can see) on how to deal with a simultaneous grounding... as a ref, I had always given favour/benefit of doubt to the attacker and awarded the try... rather than saying the attacker is not first, I would say simultaneous = joint first (you certainly can't say the attacker grounded the ball second, so it must be first when simultaneous!)

I initially wondered if this only applies to a loose ball (as per the question presented in the clarification), but Laws 8.2.b and c indicates this includes scrum, ruck, maul and tackle scenarios... in a maul or tackle scenario a defender could also get hands on the ball before it was grounded and then claim a simultaneous grounding and therefore no try... is this legit?

  • Charged down from the field of play into in-goal; or a penalty/drop kick at goal strikes the post and remains in in-goal = 22 Drop out (Law 12.11)
Click to expand...
I'll admit that I would have given a GLD for this... attacking team last to touch ball within FOP, ball goes in-goal and is touched down by defender = GLD for me. I can't find reference to this charge-down situation in other text... can someone point me to the correct place that this was originally stated?

Checking the GLT, it says the following:
If the ball is held up in in-goal, there is a knock-on from an attacking player in in-goal or an attacking kick is grounded by the defenders in their own in-goal, then play restarts with a goal line drop-out anywhere along the goal line.
Click to expand...
A charge down is not (1) held-up in goal, (2) a knock-on by attacker, or (3) an attacking kick, so we can't award a GLD and it must be a 22 drop out.
 
Last edited:
The clarification is written for the professional game. At community level, what the referee sees is the ultimate authority. If you are not sure that attackers grounded the ball first, then (due to 'simplification' of the Laws) Law 21.17 (the last in the Book!) applies:

[LAWS=]If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal, play is restarted with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.[/LAWS]

Your last sentence is an accurate analysis, and should always be used in awarding a GLDO.
 
As per Stu10's post I was more confused after reading the clarification.

Before that, I was awarding a GLDO if the attackers charge-downed a kick and it went into in-goal. My rationale being that law 12.11
[LAWS=]
  • Play is restarted with a goal line drop-out when:
  1. The ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is held up by an opponent.
[/LAWS]

The interpretation of "played" recently appearing in the definitions as "intentionally touched by a player".
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, this clarification tells me that we now have to treat a charge-down differently to what is in the laws.

Fine - I shall change in accordance with this new clarification. Very strange given that the question that led to this clarificaiton wasnt really asking about charge-downs - so not sure why it needed to be changed/clarified.

Can someone please help me by telling me I'm wrong.
 
CrouchTPEngage said:
As per Stu10's post I was more confused after reading the clarification.

Before that, I was awarding a GLDO if the attackers charge-downed a kick and it went into in-goal. My rationale being that law 12.11
[LAWS=]
  • Play is restarted with a goal line drop-out when:
  1. The ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is held up by an opponent.
[/LAWS]

The interpretation of "played" recently appearing in the definitions as "intentionally touched by a player".
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, this clarification tells me that we now have to treat a charge-down differently to what is in the laws.

Fine - I shall change in accordance with this new clarification. Very strange given that the question that led to this clarificaiton wasnt really asking about charge-downs - so not sure why it needed to be changed/clarified.

Can someone please help me by telling me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Scenario 1 in the clarification is addressing
"How should play be restarted when there is a simultaneous touchdown in in-goal, with hands of a player from each team on a loose ball?"

which is different from Held Up.

So attacker in field-of-play charges down a kick and ball goes into in goal
- held up = GLD drop out
- ball is simultaneously grounded by both teams (when does this ever happen?), clarification says 22m DO
 
Thanks Crossref. Makes sense now.
So I can still carry on awarding a GLDO is its charged-down into in-goal then held-up. That was what the scenario in my head.
Phew !
 
I’m still somewhat confused on this. I can see it stated in the guidelines that:
Charged down from the field of play into in-goal; or a penalty/drop kick at goal strikes the post and remains in in-goal = 22 Drop out (Law 12.11)
Click to expand...
But the law itself has:
12.11 Play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out when an unsuccessful penalty goal or dropped goal attempt is grounded or made dead in in-goal by the defending team, or the ball goes dead through in-goal from one these attempts.
Click to expand...
No mention of a charge down (except, maybe when the charge down goes over touch-in-goal or the dead-ball line).

Or is the logic more that the charge down is not listed in 12.12 (charge down is not not held up, not kicked, not knocked-on) so is not GLDO? What am I missing?
 
Let's hope the review of this Global Law Trial finds it as confusing as the rest of us. I would find it hard to criticise any referee who got this wrong at my level.
 
CrouchTPEngage said:
Thanks Crossref. Makes sense now.
So I can still carry on awarding a GLDO is its charged-down into in-goal then held-up. That was what the scenario in my head.
Phew !
Click to expand...
Correct, but if it it touched down by a defender, or goes dead or touch in goal then it is a 22.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top