Player on ground plays the ball

[L'irlandais]

I think in that case the important factor is whether you can interfere with play when being treated for injury, more than whether you are standing up or sitting down.

Let's say a player is being treated standing up - if a ball carrier runs past can he tackle him? if the ball comes past can he kick it as it comes past ?

I'd say : no. If you are actually being treated then you are clearly out of the game for safety reasons.

(although I think it's pretty moot, if the ball comes that close to someone being treated then the ref will blow)

Jurisprudence :

Tackle whilst injured, Leinster v Munster, 2011
Having been completely blindsided by Marcus Horan during a Leinster attack moments earlier, O’Driscoll was still receiving treatment when he managed to briefly get up off his feet and make what proved to be a crucial tackle in stopping a dangerous-looking Munster counter-attack.

 

[OB..]

Jurisprudence :

Tackle whilst injured, Leinster v Munster, 2011
Having been completely blindsided by Marcus Horan during a Leinster attack moments earlier, O’Driscoll was still receiving treatment when he managed to briefly get up off his feet and make what proved to be a crucial tackle in stopping a dangerous-looking Munster counter-attack.

(I presume that is the same as "get up ON his feet" :hap

 

[L'irlandais]

Absolutely.

Jurisprudence :

... get up off his a$$ and ...

That's the down side of using 3 languages every day, start making mistakes in all 3 of them.

 

[crossref]

Excellent here is our exact scenario in a real game.

Australia v England just now 57'30 on game clock

Watson and Folau jump for a high ball and both miss it, and both end up on the ground

Folau is on the ground and the ball rolls into his reach

Folau, on the ground, grabs the ball and pops it up to a team mate

no one raises and eyebrow and Joubert plays on.

I think that if he had blown for a PK against Folau there would have been 70,00 astonished people in the stadium



I think this shows conclusively that there are two valid schools of thought

 

[crossref]

it's not often that a long running rugbyrefs.com discussion is settled conclusively.. No one else have any comment?

Ian you were so angry at the idea that anyone could disagree with your point of view, and now we find that Craig Joubert disagrees with you. Nothing to say?

 

[Balones]

Agreeing that there is a difference of opinion on this matter, I would like to say that international refs are not infallible and it can be a dangerous thing to say that their decisions determine the way in that the rest of the world interprets the laws. They do influence by their decisions which is not the same as getting things right.
In this particular incident the commentators thought he had got it wrong, as as we all know they quite often don't get it right also.

 

[Balones]

I would like to emphasise that I am making a general point about international referee decisions and not a specific one about this decision.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The incident you mention in no way resembles any of the discussion points that the OP made or that I made. In this incident, both players ended up on the ground as a part of the play they were involved with.

My point is, and always has been, that a player who is well away from the play, who is not involved with the play itself, and who benefits from remaining off his feet and has the ball roll up to him, cannot play the ball while off his feet. That remains my opinion, and this is backed by the head of SANZAR referees, and the NZRU Referee High Performance manager.

Sent

Hi Rod
I have always believed that players who are on the ground are out of the game. While Law 14 pretty much states this..."The game is to be played by players who are on their Feet" , it nonetheless does seem to leave a couple of loopholes. I have seen occasions when that is not enforced, i.e a player is already on the ground from previous play, grabbing a ball that rolled up to him and popping it up (for example, Nigel Owens in the second Argentina v England test in 2013). South African referee Louren van der Merwe, answering a question about that incident on SAReferees.com made it pretty clear what his thoughts are... "in the definitions section under law 14 it’s clearly stated that: The Game is to be played by players on their feet. Therefore such a player who plays the ball whilst on the ground should be penalized."
I have also read that Lyndon Bray is clear about this. When asked the question in an interview a couple of years ago, he replied "It is clear to me that if a player is already on the ground he cannot then play the ball without first getting to his feet.".

I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on this. Is it something you have discussed with your referees? Is it something worth asking WR to clarify?

Cheers

Ian

Received

Hi Ian

Simple answer is that there has been no change to Law 14 and a player is out of the game if they are on the ground. And yes there may be times when referees “miss” the correct decision. We did see a couple of these ruled on during the recent RWC, so the law remains valid.



Regards

Rod

 

[The Fat]

The incident you mention in no way resembles any of the discussion points that the OP made or that I made. In this incident, both players ended up on the ground as a part of the play they were involved with.

My point is, and always has been, that a player who is well away from the play, who is not involved with the play itself, and who benefits from remaining off his feet and has the ball roll up to him, cannot play the ball while off his feet. That remains my opinion, and this is backed by the head of SANZAR referees, and the NZRU Referee High Performance manager.

Craig Joubert penalised an England player in the same game for playing the ball whilst on the ground.

I think you'll find that Joubert allowed Folou to play the ball as both players had contested the ball in the air and went to ground as part of the same play.

Crossref,
I had been holding off replying to your post until video of both incidents becomes available.
I think there was also an instance in the ABs v Wales game where Peyper penalised a player on the ground as well.
If I get time tomorrow, I'll see if I can dig up some videos. Too busy preparing for local ref's education night to look for them at the moment.

 

[crossref]

Yes.
My position is that the Law doesn't cover this and that there are two schools of thought.
I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with that

 

[The Fat]

Yes.
My position is that the Law doesn't cover this and that there are two schools of thought.
I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with that

I believe that the law is clear.
I know what the views are from ARU, SANZAR and now NZRU Referee's High Performance Unit.
Unfortunately, we don't have anything by way of clarification from RFU and ultimately WR at this point in time.
I also believe that not all referees from the above three organisations get it right 100% of the time in accordance with their referees' bosses (so what's new?). It is this last point that causes the confusion and differing opinions.
At the end of the day, unless someone higher up the food chain makes an official request for clarification from WR, those differing opinions will continue.
Until then, for me at grassroots level, I'll continue to referee such incidents in accordance with my Union's directives/interpretations etc.

 

[crossref]

But Fat in your last post you said Joubert was right to allow Folau to play the ball on the ground..

 

[crossref]

Basically there are three possible approaches
1 a player on the ground cannot play the ball and if he does its always material and should be PK
2 a player on ground cannot play the ball, but if it happens and it's not material (eg no oppo anywhere near) then you can ignore it and play on
3 the player on the ground is the same as the player who goes to ground

So far as I can tell Ian's view is 1 (but perhaps moving toward 2 given the Folau incident)
The majority view in this forum seems to me to be 2

 

[didds]

...

no one raises and eyebrow and Joubert plays on.

FWIW the Aussie commentators remarked that Folau could have been penalised (clearly in their opinion).

didds

 

[crossref]

While FWIW the English Sky commentators didn't mention it...
Overall given the two incidents CJ seemed to ref it as if player on the ground is the same as player goes to ground

 

[crossref]

So no one here, not even Ian or Fat, has said that Joubert made a mistake a Folau should have been PK. That's quite a change of stance over the course of the thread

Here's video of the incident

(and FWIW these commentators don't mention it)

 

[Balones]

(and FWIW these commentators don't mention it)

Not at the time but is you listen a few minutes later you will find that they refer back to it and question whether a mistake was made. I'm afraid that I don't have access to the game to pinpoint the exact time. Sorry. perhaps someone with access could check.

 

[crossref]

ah, OK - I didn't watch through to any replays.

 

[Balones]

Crossref - thanks for link. The commentators question the decision (or non-decision?) at approx 58.38 on the game clock after the ball has been kicked long and there is a 22 drop out.

 

[chbg]

it's not often that a long running rugbyrefs.com discussion is settled conclusively.. No one else have any comment?

Most of us do not subscribe to the view that the last comment on a subject decides it's outcome. We've made up our minds long before the discussion grinds out into an argument, have perhaps made a comment if it appears pertinent, but will not go on and on ad nauseam playing the 'last score wins' game. Silence does NOT imply agreement.