[In-goal] player on the ground presents the ball over his own try line

[didds]

We do see on occasion PTs being awarded for offside particularly when its been a few offsides in a row - an obvious example that springs to my mind was paddy O'Brien (IIRC) awarding england a PT against Scotland at Twickers for this.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.rugby.union/scotland$20england$20penalty$20try$20o$27brien$20gomersall/rec.sport.rugby.union/M3gzOiGVP8U/uB49qmbEcE8J

didds

 

[ChrisR]

I think StroudBoy's post #40 supported his decision in the OP.

However, I disagree with those who consider the ball to be grounded when it is pushed back on/over the goal line.

The definition for grounding from Law 22.1:

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

I think this allows a defending player, on the ground, to push the ball back into goal without it being considered grounding. Placing the ball back or placing the hand on top of the ball should be grounding.

Rushforth, if you have read this far then I apologize for the tone implied in my use of "Where on earth". Instead I should have simply asked you to support your statement in Law.

 

[Dixie]

I disagree with those who consider the ball to be grounded when it is pushed back on/over the goal line.

The definition for grounding from Law 22.1:

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

....

I think this allows a defending player, on the ground, to push the ball back into goal without it being considered grounding.

I don't see how you can apply the definition and come to that conclusion. No downward pressure is required. A player grounds the ball in-goal by touching the ground with the ball while holding it. How can you push it back (assuming constant contact) along the ground without the ball touching the ground?

 

[DocY]

I don't see how you can apply the definition and come to that conclusion. No downward pressure is required. A player grounds the ball in-goal by touching the ground with the ball while holding it. How can you push it back (assuming constant contact) along the ground without the ball touching the ground?

The image I have is a player pushing the ball from the side, but making on attempt to hold, or even control it (as it's a hypothetical situation, let's even assume his fist is clenched when he's doing this). I wouldn't see a C&O grounding in this (albeit unlikely) situation.

 

[crossref]

for me the haziness is : can you ground the ball unintentionally -- eg because you didn't realise you were so close to the try line, or perhaps you are holding the ball and slip and fall over.

I think you can, and in both cases that's a grounding.

 

[Phil E]

When I read the OP I immediately thought taken back and grounded. Attacking scrum.

Nothing I have read in the last 5 pages has changed my mind on that.

 

[ChrisR]

I don't see how you can apply the definition and come to that conclusion. No downward pressure is required. A player grounds the ball in-goal by touching the ground with the ball while holding it. How can you push it back (assuming constant contact) along the ground without the ball touching the ground?

No 'downward pressure' is required if the ball is 'held'. Is pushing it along the ground holding it? If, in your opinion, it is then you are correct in considering it grounded.

In my opinion, pushing is not holding unless the ball is grasped which would change the action to 'placing'.

This sounds like splitting hairs re. an event that would happen rarely but I make the distinction so that players tackled close to their own goal can make the ball available to teammates without grounding it and giving the ops the 5m.

 

[crossref]

I make the distinction so that players tackled close to their own goal can make the ball available to teammates without grounding it and giving the ops the 5m.

that's the nub of it -- can they? or does that amount to an inadvertant touch down

 

[OB..]

No 'downward pressure' is required if the ball is 'held'. Is pushing it along the ground holding it? If, in your opinion, it is then you are correct in considering it grounded.

I don't see it as realistic to push the ball back along the ground without applying some downward pressure to keep control. I strongly recommend NOT trying to split this particular hair, because it relies overmuch on a limited interpretation of the words.

 

[Pegleg]

Are you sure you don't mean "within the spirit of the laws"?

Considering how badly they are written, perhaps so. The point of my post, which I'm sure you understand, is that defending (legally) is as important as attacking (legally). Without the contest between the two the game is meaningless.

 

[L'irlandais]

I think StroudBoy's post #40 supported his decision in the OP.

However, I disagree with those who consider the ball to be grounded when it is pushed back on/over the goal line.

The definition for grounding from Law 22.1:

you are entitled to differ from the overall consensus.
For my money when the TMO, is looking for a grounding, the ball touching the whitewashed line is good enough. Which it must have in this case. Downward pressure not required. YmMV

 

[chbg]

The word 'pushing' seems to mean different things to different people. Plus ca change. If it is to be taken literally - hand to the side of the ball, like a train/car shunt - then there is no downward pressure nor carrying. If it describes what happens more often in rugby, where the player has (usually both) hands on the ball and extends his arms so that the ball moves along the ground, but under control, until the extent of his reach, then he is holding the ball and it is grounded as soon as it touches the GL.

 

[OB..]

If you push the ball back with one hand under the centre of gravity, the ball will go up in the air. If your hand is above the centre of gravity, the ball will tend to stay on the ground. Instead of splitting hairs I suggest what counts is whether or not the ball stays on the ground, because if it does, there must have been some (slight) downward pressure.

(Downward pressure is needed because otherwise knocking the ball forward could score a try.)

 

[ChrisR]

I think gravity comes into play.

 

[OB..]

I think gravity comes into play.

Of course, but in what way does that make a difference?

 

[BigClothesSir]

When I read the OP I immediately thought taken back and grounded. Attacking scrum.

Nothing I have read in the last 5 pages has changed my mind on that.

^^^^

So very much, this!

 

[Nigib]

From the OP, defender on the floor deemed to be holding on, not releasing while attacker on his feet "gets hands on the ball". From that, I would say advantage to attacking team. Defender pushes ball over while still contact on ball from attacker. The defender's force is horizontal, attacker's downward. I stay with my original take - try.

 

[Dickie E]

not releasing while attacker on his feet "gets hands on the ball". From that, I would say advantage to attacking team.

We have a concept here that the jackaler has to "survive the cleanout" to have rights to the ball. This means a grasp of the ball, not just hands on the ball

 

[Nigib]

We have a concept here that the jackaler has to "survive the cleanout" to have rights to the ball. This means a grasp of the ball, not just hands on the ball

Agreed; really difficult to tell what's happening without a video, but my interpretation of the OP is that the defender was holding on to the ball to prevent the attacker taking it, and in doing so pushed the ball backwards on the ground and over the goal line. So the 'cleanout' phase IMO is over, we are beyond where any sort of ruckus was (I'm avoiding breakdown or ruck terminology here) with two players grappling for the ball. Defender is off his feet, so therefore illegally grappling - hence advantage to the attacking team. As the attacker must have had downward pressure on the ball as it is pushed horizontally but not pressed by the defender, I would award the try.

 

[The Fat]

Agreed; really difficult to tell what's happening without a video, but my interpretation of the OP is that the defender was holding on to the ball to prevent the attacker taking it, and in doing so pushed the ball backwards on the ground and over the goal line. So the 'cleanout' phase IMO is over, we are beyond where any sort of ruckus was (I'm avoiding breakdown or ruck terminology here) with two players grappling for the ball. Defender is off his feet, so therefore illegally grappling - hence advantage to the attacking team. As the attacker must have had downward pressure on the ball as it is pushed horizontally but not pressed by the defender, I would award the try.

The defender does not have to exert downward pressure. If he is in possession/holding the ball and is pushing it along the ground, the instant it touches the goal line it has been made dead by way of a touch down. No further advantage available to the attacker so come bake to PK against the defender for not releasing.