Weird In-Goal Play Question

[jdeagro]

Hi,

I had a weird question about a play that I saw occur in a team's own in-goal area. I'll preface this by saying it was a D1 College Men's rugby match in the USA.

What happened was an attacking player from team A was close to scoring a try against team B. The player from team A grubbered the ball into team B's try-zone. Then, a defending player from team B (who was already in their own try-zone) picked up the ball (from inside their try-zone) and punted it out of their try-zone. After the ball left their try-zone, a player from team A charged-down the kick and the ball went directly back into team B's try-zone. Finally, a player from team B grounded the ball in their own try-zone.

What is the resulting action that occurs? Who technically brought the ball into team B's try-zone before the defending player from team B grounded the ball?

(I'm new here, so sorry if this is not the best place to make this post.)

Thank You,
-Jon DeAgro

 

[Toby Warren]

Welcome Jon.

It is very simple - once you get your head round it.

Who put the ball in goal. So in your case if the kick from team b went back into the field of play before a charge it down then team a put it in. If the kick was charged down and it never entered the field of play team a put it there.

Simple!

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

and a 22m Restart team B

 

[Taff]

team A grubbered the ball into team B's try-zone. So A put in in-goal .... or "try zone" if you prefer.
team B .... picked up the ball ... and punted it out of their try-zone. So B kicked it out
the ball left their try-zone .. So it's not in-goal anymore
a player from team A charged-down the kick and the ball went directly back into team B's try-zone. So A put it back in-goal
a player from team B grounded the ball in their own try-zone. So the ball is grounded and made dead.
What is the resulting action that occurs? Forget the first part, once the ball went out of in-goal you start from scratch. The ball had been kicked out of in-goal and Team A charged it down putting the ball back in-goal (or "try-zone" if you prefer). So ball put in the try zone .... sorry in-goal by A and made dead is a 22m Drop Out, or abbreviated to 22DO. If Team B had passed it back into in-goal and the ball had been charged down in-goal, it would have been an a 5m Scrum to Team A.

Just ask yourself "Who put it in-goal?" Attackers = 22DO. Defenders = 5m scrum

(I'm new here, so sorry if this is not the best place to make this post.) Welcome, but please don't use "try-zone" again. :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

1) Attacker grubbered ball in. So attacker responsible for ball going in-goal. If defender had simply grounded ball at that point then he gets a 22DO, which is a better place to clear from than in your own ingoal! I trust his coach discussed this with him afterwards.

2) However, defender punts ball to try to clear, and ball goes back over goal-line - but is charged down by attacker and goes back in goal. So - again - attacker is responsible for ball going in goal. If ball is now grounded by defender (or kicked out over DBL or TiG) then 22DO awarded

In this example then even if the ball had not cleared the goalline when the defender tried to kick it it would still be a 22DO when the defender finally grounded it - the ball was originally put in goal by the attackers.

All that matters is who put the ball in-goal, if attackers did so - 22DO; defenders then 5m attacking scrum.

The only time it's worth trying to clear with a kick from in-goal is if the defenders put in goal themeselves.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Pretty much the only times I can think of when (in your example) Team A put the ball into the in goal and it would NOT result in a 22DO would be if a player in Team A knocked the ball forward, and then the ball was grounded by a player in Team B. This would result in a 5m scrum, with Team B throwing the ball in.

 

[Dixie]

Pretty much the only times I can think of when (in your example) Team A put the ball into the in goal and it would NOT result in a 22DO would be if a player in Team A knocked the ball forward, and then the ball was grounded by a player in Team B. This would result in a 5m scrum, with Team B throwing the ball in.

If you are the OP, don't read this.

However, if you are an experienced ref, you will know that if Team A kicks the ball in-goal and a Team B player picks up the moving ball in-goal while having a foot in touch, then there is an option of a 22DO or a scrum where the ball was kicked. Equally, if the ball itself went THROUGH in-goal to go beyond either the Touch-in-Goal or Dead Ball lines, then the same option applies. Others that may apply but not (as Ian makes clcear) in this scenario of a grubber: If a kick-off, restart or 22DO is kicked into in-goal without touching another player and is then immediately made dead by Team B, the options are kick again or a scrum at the place of the kick. Also, if the kicker from Team B failed to kick the ball out of in-goal, and it was collected by a team-mate closer to the goal line and then grounded, that team-mate is offside and a PK is awarded on the 5m line. Equally, if the Blue player caught the ball on the full in in-goal and shouted MARK, the mark is awarded as a FK on the 5m line. There may be others.

 

[OB..]

If we are going to get esoteric, then we need to look at the charge-down. This implies that the two players were very close, with the kicker just inside the in-goal and the opponent just outside. If the kicker was 5m back and the opponent blocked the kick, I would not regard that as a charge down, but as a knock-on.

 

[Davet]

Depends how high the ball was kicked - 5m back flat trajectory into opponent who is trying to block it - charge down.

If the ball was high and loopy and the opponent tried to catch not block - knock on.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Pretty much the only times I can think of when (in your example) Team A put the ball into the in goal and it would NOT result in a 22DO would be if a player in Team A knocked the ball forward, and then the ball was grounded by a player in Team B. This would result in a 5m scrum, with Team B throwing the ball in.

Ian - good point. I have seen referees get this wrong, and the urban myth applied - "we will take the advantage sir and have the 22m please".

 

[Ian_Cook]

If you are the OP, don't read this.

Why?

Its 100% correct, and as ST says, a referees do get this wrong. Why would the OP (an inexperienced referee) not want to get the Law right?

Start as you mean to go on!!!

 

[DrSTU]

I always feel that there's some inequality to this scenario:

Team A kicks ball into team B's in goal. B player picks the ball up, runs around in goal for a while and then decides to run over the dead ball line or touch in goal. Never liked that one.

Taff, try zone is so common here that you'd be fighting a losing battle to try change it. I see that try line is becoming prevalent on most TV commentary too!

 

[Davet]

I see that try line is becoming prevalent on most TV commentary too!

Makes me feel like Mr Thomas.
Harrrumph!

 

[pwhaling]

It's better than calling it the end zone

 

[Phil E]

It's better than calling it the end zone

Not really. Just call it what it is, "In Goal". Otherwise you might as well call it a wheelbarrow. :nono:

 

[OB..]

Depends how high the ball was kicked - 5m back flat trajectory into opponent who is trying to block it - charge down.

If the ball was high and loopy and the opponent tried to catch not block - knock on.

For me the essence of a charge down is that the charger had acted essentially before he knew quite where the ball was going, and had no time to react to it.

 

[OB..]

Not really. Just call it what it is, "In Goal". Otherwise you might as well call it a wheelbarrow. :nono:

As a general rule, it is best to use the terms in the Laws. However that is not the way language works, and unless the term is actually misleading (like "double movement"!), I see no reason to worry.

 

[Phil E]

As a general rule, it is best to use the terms in the Laws. However that is not the way language works, and unless the term is actually misleading (like "double movement"!), I see no reason to worry.

So lets all start calling it the End Zone.....and while we are at it, lets call it a touchdown instead of a try.....and we might as well call referees, umpires.

 

[Dickie E]

I would rather encourage newbies to ask their questions without regard for the minutiae of the rules. Do you understand what is meant by "try zone"? If yes, move on.

 

[DrSTU]

You sir are correct. Encourage the game not the pedantry.

I would rather encourage newbies to ask their questions without regard for the minutiae of the rules. Do you understand what is meant by "try zone"? If yes, move on.