Trty or no try?

[Buffalo]

It is the first minute of a game. play has started, and the ball has been in play since.

A player is lying on his knees in touch, off the field of play. He hasn't touched the ball yet in the game. The ball is in play, near the touchline, in front of him on the ground. While still in touch, he knocks the ball backwards one handed, (towards his own tryline) straight into the arms of an oncoming team member who races under the posts to score a try.


Try or no try? And why?

 

[Dixie]

This is a tough one, as it cuts across two conflicting definitions regarding touch. On the one hand, the ball is in touch if it comes into contact with anyone or anything on or beyond the touchline - suggesting that the ball is in touch when the player in touch knocks it backwards. On the other hand, a player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided
it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. You then have to add into the mix the idea that the game is to be played by players on their feet.

I wouldn't be comfortable disallowing the try because the ball was in touch. Contentious, and apart from anything else, it puts the TJ in a difficult position. I would ping the kneeling player for playing the ball while off his feet. I'd also feel that a player who hasn't even touched the ball deserves to be pinged for the very fact of being off his feet and in touch, when he should be getting stuck in !

 

[Bryan]

See scenario 6 here

Ball inside field of play, with player in touch, knocking the ball back.

PLAY ON.

 

[PeterTC]

Agree with Bryan, it is as written in the last paragraph of the law 19 definitions which explains it clearly.

 

[Davet]

Given that he is on-side he can knock the ball so long as it has not crossed plane of touch.

He is off his feet, but is complying with Law in that his act, playing the ball, is instantaneous. He does not prevent access to it.

I would say play on is a good call.

 

[OB..]

Back to the thorny question of a player off his feet. I think it is a general rule that such a player must not interfere with play. Davet thinks the restriction applies to specific situations only. Your choice!

 

[PeterTC]

OB, I'm not sure I agree. The main references to playesr off their feet are in Laws 14 and 15. Law 14 seems the relevant one here and doesn't prohibit a player on the ground from playing the ball, but prohibits them from making the ball unplayable on the ground. Equally Law 15 regarding the tackle prevents players on the deck from making a tackle doesn't seem to prohibit this. While the Law does indeed say and promote a game played by players on their feet. Law 15.6(g) covers players off their feet after a tackle preventing an opponent playing a ball and could feasibly cover tapping the ball back, but this appears not necessarily to be after a tackle and at least unrelated. The Law I suppose is unclear as to whether it implies players participating in the tackle or not, but it would seem to be stretching it rather. I think that this is perfectly acceptable (if somewhat odd and probably unlikely to happen), though I may have missed a key law somewhere.

 

[Dixie]

Peter, I don't think you've missed a key law - Buffalo has posed an excellent question, on which the laws are unable to give a satisfactory answer. When that happens, I guess most of us fall back on what seems "right" at the time. In this case, the player's action would not seem right to me, for the following reasons:

a) If I had any TJ at all, it's 99% certain he wouldn't well enough versed in the relevant laws to make the correct call
b) In the absence of a TJ, I am not sure I could accurately judge whether the ball had broken the plane of touch
c) I have a general objection to players on the deck taking part in the game, unless they've fallen on (or with) the ball per Law 14.

I am fairly confident I wouldn't face any query on the decision in the bar afterwards, and I'd travel home happier with myself than if I'd allowed the try (in which case, I am fairly confident I WOULD have faced some sharp and probing questions over a pint!)

 

[Unregistered]

As he didn't start the game he would need the ref's permission to come on after the TJ had signalled, and not until. Skulking 'round the touchline on his knees indeed! I would give him a red card for interfering with the game whilst off the field of play, and if he or his captain didn't come up with a satisfactory explanation I'd report the club for bringing the game into disrepute!

 

[FlipFlop]

The off the feet, isn't an issue.

Think about a situation in field, ball on the floor. Player dives on it (goes of their feet). What do we expect them to do?
1) Not prevent players on their feet playing the ball; and
2) Either play the ball, or get to their feet

In the scenario given (ignoring the touch issue) the player has gone to ground, has not prevented players on their feet playing the ball, and has played the ball. So no problem there.

The touch issue is, in my view, a bit more judgmental.
If the player has possession (control?) of the ball, then the ball is in touch. If the player doesn't have possession of the ball, then play on. So does he have possession ?

The question doesn't tell us much, but the knocking of the ball back into the arms of a team mate, seems to imply to me he has lifted the ball up of the deck, and has therefore exhibited a fair degree of control over the direction of the ball, is it a flick pass from the deck? If so would probably say the player had possession, therefore in touch. If however he slapped it backwards, it took a lucky bounce, then no possession, play on.

So the question is (as far as I am concerned) did the match official(s) believe the player had sufficient control of the ball, so as to be deemed to be in possession? And that is a call you can only make if you see the play concerned.

 

[chopper15]

As he didn't start the game he would need the ref's permission to come on after the TJ had signalled, and not until. Skulking 'round the touchline on his knees indeed! I would give him a red card for interfering with the game whilst off the field of play, and if he or his captain didn't come up with a satisfactory explanation I'd report the club for bringing the game into disrepute!

Sorry,I forgot to sign in when I wrote the above.

 

[PeterTC]

The off the feet, isn't an issue.

Think about a situation in field, ball on the floor. Player dives on it (goes of their feet). What do we expect them to do?
1) Not prevent players on their feet playing the ball; and
2) Either play the ball, or get to their feet

In the scenario given (ignoring the touch issue) the player has gone to ground, has not prevented players on their feet playing the ball, and has played the ball. So no problem there.

The touch issue is, in my view, a bit more judgmental.
If the player has possession (control?) of the ball, then the ball is in touch. If the player doesn't have possession of the ball, then play on. So does he have possession ?

The question doesn't tell us much, but the knocking of the ball back into the arms of a team mate, seems to imply to me he has lifted the ball up of the deck, and has therefore exhibited a fair degree of control over the direction of the ball, is it a flick pass from the deck? If so would probably say the player had possession, therefore in touch. If however he slapped it backwards, it took a lucky bounce, then no possession, play on.

So the question is (as far as I am concerned) did the match official(s) believe the player had sufficient control of the ball, so as to be deemed to be in possession? And that is a call you can only make if you see the play concerned.

FlipFlop, I am in full agreement with your view about the man on the deck. I really believe that we would have to stretch the laws as currently framed to say that his action is illegal. Without that, then there is no reason to say that what he did shouldn't be allowed. As a parallel, what if it is a really wet day and the player dived to keep the ball in, slid out of play and while sliding (but in touch), knocked the ball back in. I would allow that. I think we are overcomplicating it and need to almost go back to one of the fundamental questions to ask. Was the action the player took positive or was it a negative action designed to disrupt the game. In this case of the question, the action is a positive one, and as such I would let it go.

As for the touch question, the key comes down to the wording of the definitions in Law 19. "A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline". So if he purely knocks the ball back, that's fine. If he holds onto it (and the definition of that I will agree with you FlipFlop is judgemental), then it is in touch.

 

[Buffalo]

Cheers guys. It makes for interesting debate.

I'd like to think that the correct ruling is TRY. But I'm unsure how many referees would give it.

 

[chopper15]

As he didn't start the game he would need the ref's permission to come on after the TJ had signalled, and not until. Skulking 'round the touchline on his knees indeed! I would give him a red card for interfering with the game whilst off the field of play, and if he or his captain didn't come up with a satisfactory explanation I'd report the club for bringing the game into disrepute!

After only a minute's play, why was it assumed he did start the game? In the circumstances shouldn't he have been asked? This is probably the only reason it was unlawful surely? If so, was I correct in my premise?

 

[Glyndwr]

The original question stated that he had yet to touch the ball, not that he hadn't started.

 

[chopper15]

The original question stated that he had yet to touch the ball, not that he hadn't started.

OK, if he hadn't started of course he wouldn't have touched the ball on the field of play.

A genuine hypothetical posed to seek the indulgence of this learned panel should've stated pertinent circumstances, eg. 'He had started the game' and 'was on-side', not irrelevancies such as 'in the first minute' and 'hadn't touched the ball'. My gut feeling suggested this question had the hallmarks more of a 'test' than for an answer, which, given the pertinencies would've been answered immediately.

Hence my answer, as it wasn't stated to the contrary, that the consideration that he may not have started the game was a valid one and I'm surprised no one raised it. Even to the point of asking him. After all the game had only then got underway.

By the way, if he hadn't started would my reactions as the ref' been a bit strong?

 

[didds]

if he hadn't started he was an a*******le. Min YC.

If he had started, had never entered play - why? IN A MINUTE? Min YC.

If he had started, had been on the field of play, play on, try given.

After only 1 minute of play, many players will not have YET handled the ball!

no brainer.

didds

 

[mkottke]

if he hadn't started he was an a*******le. Min YC.

I have never had to award a YC to a player that was not playing on the pitch. Binning a non-fielded player for interfering with play is a allowing the team without an equal penalty. Personally, I would kick the player off the field (ie: red card for unsportman like conduct), have a stern chat with the capt, and give a fierce warning that the coach will be the next person off the field if he can not keep an orderly sideline.

This post is completely off topic and should probably have its own thread.

ONON-
Mark

 

[Account Deleted]

Ok, my thoughts.
1. Is the ball in “touch”? It is clear to me, from the question, that the answer is NO. We are told the ball is in play and he is in touch. He does not hold the ball but knocks it back.
2. Is he out of the game? Chopper says “As he didn't start the game he would need the ref's permission to come on after the TJ had signalled, and not until. Skulking 'round the touchline on his knees indeed! I would give him a red card for interfering with the game whilst off the field of play, and if he or his captain didn't come up with a satisfactory explanation I'd report the club for bringing the game into disrepute!” Excuse me? It does not say in the question that he did not start the game does it. All that it does say is he is in touch and off his feet and he has not yet touched the ball. We need to know why he is where he is. Law 14 deals with a player going to ground to get the ball LAW 14 – BALL ON THE GROUND - NO TACKLE DEFINITION This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball. If this was the scenario then it’s play on!
3. However if he was just lying on the floor following some other incident (line out catch and drive maybe) where he fell into touch and the ball came back towards him whilst he was starting to get up – hence being on his knees- and he knocked the ball back then LAW 14 – BALL ON THE GROUND - NO TACKLE DEFINITION “…the game is to be played by players who are on their feet.” And “…A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately” seems to say that he is not given the protection of this law. The accepted practice (though a quick trawl through the law book has not found a specific back up) by most pro refs is that when a player who is just on the floor plays the ball they get pinged.

I’m not sure you can answer simply from the information given. Without seeing the whole play there are a number of what ifs. I would guess that as touch is not an issue, at least not for me in the way the scenario is framed, the question of his having been on the pitch or on the pitch from the start / having come on with / without the ref’s permission etc is important. Also the question of materiality would come into play. As with so many “what if’s?” the answer is you had to be there!

 

[chopper15]

Ref; All The Time Ref's reply;

If Buffalo's original ques. was hypothetical or not, why for goodness sake, haven't any refs out there suggested asking both the TG and the player if he did start start the game ? Surely after only a minute's play the ques. is obvious.

And, incidently, if the player admitted he hadn't started, and just did it on impusle?