Player on ground plays the ball

[OB..]

Ah, so it wasn't an instruction to NZ referees it was Rod, replying to your email..

If that was "New Zealand Rugby high performance referee manager Rod Hill", I would say his view carries considerable weight.

It is a controversial issue, but I think you are clutching at straws here.

 

[crossref]

OB I do pay it due weight, but I think Ian is over-egging it to say that it represents an instruction to NZ refs
I note that in Rod's email he does say that some RWC refs will ref it differently (which is rather my point!)

And I would love to hear what Rod thought of the Folau incident

 

[Ian_Cook]

If that was "New Zealand Rugby high performance referee manager Rod Hill", I would say his view carries considerable weight.

It was, and it does

OB I do pay it due weight, but I think Ian is over-egging it to say that it represents an instruction to NZ refs

Quite recently (end of the Club season) I was at a Referees Association meeting where Law 14 was discussed. They were discussing it because I asked the Referee Education officer about it. He said (and everyone) agreed that a player already on the ground in General Play must not play the ball.

I note that in Rod's email he does say that some RWC refs will ref it differently (which is rather my point!)

No, he does not say that at all...

"And yes there may be times when referees “miss” the correct decision

Missing the correct decision is not the same as "refereeing it differently", it means the the referees on those occasions got it wrong!!

We did see a couple of these ruled on during the recent RWC, so the law remains valid."

"These" being instances of players on the ground playing the ball being PK

 

[didds]

Rubbish. He was not tackled at all. He was the acting halfback at the breakdown. The ball was jarred loose from his grasp but not knocked on, and he was knocked to the ground. Law 15 cannot apply at all, because he was not grasped and brought to ground with the ball.

totally agree with this. He was certainly knocked over, but I don;t see any "held and brought to ground".

didds

 

[Pinky]

Since the opponent did not knock the ball free, that sounds to me like a knock-on. My only doubt was whether or not the ball actually went forward, since the player was knocked backwards, but to me, after several replays, it looks as if it hits the ground forward of where he was when contact took place.

If you thought I was suggesting that the opponent knocked on, I certainly agree that he didn't.

However it does not matter in this case, because I agree that the PK was correct for playing the ball on the ground.

Is the KO (if there was one) not the first offence? So if KO, then scrum, if no KO then penalty for playing on the ground?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is the KO (if there was one) not the first offence? So if KO, then scrum, if no KO then penalty for playing on the ground?

That would only apply if an opponent knocked the ball on.

Scenario: White is the ball carrier, the ball is dislodged in collision with Black player, and goes forward off Black, then White player already on the ground, plays the ball. Scrum for the KO - White to throw in.

However, what happened in this play is that White is the ball carrier, the ball is dislodged in collision with Black player, and goes slightly forward off White, then (as odd-shaped balls are wont to do) bounced backwards where the white player, already on the ground, played the ball. That is a PK under Law 14 (he was off his feet and denied an advancing opponent the opportunity to play the ball.

Its a similar scenario to a player knocking the ball on and an offside team mate playing the ball. The offside PK trumps the knock on. Its only a scrum of the offside player cannot avoid the ball touching him.

 

[crossref]

totally agree with this. He was certainly knocked over, but I don;t see any "held and brought to ground"

OK agreed, let's go with this -- [and if 15 doesn't apply then it makes it a much more interesting example to discuss].


So in this example we have a ball on the ground, no tackle, so it's Law 14 territory
- the ball is on the ground because it was dislodged in an attempted tackle
- White is on the ground because he has been [legally] knocked over by Black

Now, the game is to be played by players on their feet.

But if you say that that white cannot immediately play the ball then you have the curious situation that
- a player who has been knocked over by an opponent near the ball, has less rights than a player who has deliberately gone to ground near the ball

which seems a curious outcome, doesn't it, in game to be played by players on their feet?
the game is to be played by players on their feet, but you are rewarded for going off your feet deliberately.

Here's the law again (my bold)

[LAWS]DEFINITIONS

This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.

It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.

A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.

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.

14.1 Players on the ground
(a)
A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b)
A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c)
A player without the ball must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d)
A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

Ian,
You have been an absolutist in this debate, awarding the PK in every situation, even the Folau incident that most people thought was OK,

Apart from this one ---

I can't see it on the BBC site, but if its Rob Lyttle's first try you are talking about.....

....then I have no problem with what he did.

The only doubt for me was, did he knock it on initially. TMO said it wasn't C&O.

You never explained why that particular incident of a player on the ground, playing a ball that happens to come to him, is OK?

 

[Ian_Cook]

So in this example we have a ball on the ground, no tackle, so it's Law 14 territory
- the ball is on the ground because it was dislodged in an attempted tackle
- White is on the ground because he has been [legally] knocked over by Black

Now, the game is to be played by players on their feet.

But if you say that that white cannot immediately play the ball then you have the curious situation that
- a player who has been knocked over by an opponent near the ball, has less rights than a player who has deliberately gone to ground near the ball to gather the ball

FTFY - saying that he goes to ground near the ball is risky given the wording of Law 14.1 (c) so lets proceed from what the Law Definitions actually say, not from your re-imagined version of them.

I don't find that at all curious. I expect that a player who complied with the Laws of the game to have greater rights than a player who does not.

Law 14 Definitions specifically allow for two, and only two scenarios

1. A player who goes to ground to get a loose ball

[LAWS]This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to
ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.[/LAWS]

2. A player who goes to ground in possession of the ball without being tackled

[LAWS]It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not
been tackled.[/LAWS]

There is NO allowance in the Laws for a player already on the ground to be involved in the game.

which seems a curious outcome, doesn't it, in game to be played by players on their feet? The game is to be played by players on their feet, but you are rewarded for going off your feet deliberately.

It doesn't seem at all curious to me, since Law 14 specifically allows it.

The Laws are full of things that seem to conflict. Do you find it curious that fending and cleaning out at a ruck is legal, given that playing an opponent who is not holding the ball is foul play under Law 10? Of course you don't; you are well aware there are Laws that provide exceptions and which specifically allow certain things in certain circumstances that other Laws do not in other circumstances.

Ian,
You have been an absolutist in this debate, awarding the PK in every situation, even the Folau incident that most people thought was OK,

Apart from this one ---

You never explained why that particular incident of a player on the ground, playing a ball that happens to come to him, is OK?

This is just obvious application of Law 14

The ball is loose on the ground from a kick ahead by White 9. White 23 goes to ground to gather the ball...

[LAWS]This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to
ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.[/LAWS]

.. he gathers it on the second attempt, and scores. The only issue for me is did he knock it on (and that is the only thing the TMO was looking at). Its not C&O so fair try!

 

[DocY]

NB - my position here is not that there is a right answer, but that the Law (outside of a tackle situation) is ambiguous, and that different referees ref it differently.

I think the length of this thread bears testament to that!

 

[Pinky]

That would only apply if an opponent knocked the ball on.

Scenario: White is the ball carrier, the ball is dislodged in collision with Black player, and goes forward off Black, then White player already on the ground, plays the ball. Scrum for the KO - White to throw in.

However, what happened in this play is that White is the ball carrier, the ball is dislodged in collision with Black player, and goes slightly forward off White, then (as odd-shaped balls are wont to do) bounced backwards where the white player, already on the ground, played the ball. That is a PK under Law 14 (he was off his feet and denied an advancing opponent the opportunity to play the ball.

Its a similar scenario to a player knocking the ball on and an offside team mate playing the ball. The offside PK trumps the knock on. Its only a scrum of the offside player cannot avoid the ball touching him.

BC (white) loses possession of the ball forward, that is normally a scrum? Unless it has been punched or ripped out by black (which it didn't seem to be) It's not a similar scenario to an offside team mate playing the ball - that is specifically provided for in law and is only a PK if he prevents an opposition player from taking advantage of the KO. 11.7

 

[OB..]

BC (white) loses possession of the ball forward, that is normally a scrum? Unless it has been punched or ripped out by black (which it didn't seem to be) It's not a similar scenario to an offside team mate playing the ball - that is specifically provided for in law and is only a PK if he prevents an opposition player from taking advantage of the KO. 11.7

Having (probably) committed a scrum infringement, he then commits a penalty infringement. PK trumps scrum, even without a specific law.

 

[chbg]

Having (probably) committed a scrum infringement, he then commits a penalty infringement. PK trumps scrum, even without a specific law.

Surely 8.5(a) applies - apply the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team.

 

[Ian_Cook]

BC (white) loses possession of the ball forward, that is normally a scrum? Unless it has been punched or ripped out by black (which it didn't seem to be)

...unless White then commits a PK infringement

It's not a similar scenario to an offside team mate playing the ball - that is specifically provided for in law and is only a PK if he prevents an opposition player from taking advantage of the KO. 11.7

The reasoning is similar even if the detail isn't. If a player commits an infringement that would normally result in a scrum, and then he or a team-mate commits a PK infringement the PK always trumps the infringement that would result in a scrum.

Blue 13 knocks the ball on, and then tackles Gold 12 when he tries to pick it up.

Blue 13 knocks the ball on, and then obstructs Gold 12 to prevent him from getting to the ball

Blue 13 knocks the ball on, and then intentionally knocks the ball forward as Gold 12 tries to pick it up.

Blue 13 knocks the ball on, and then intentionally knocks the ball into touch

and just in case you say its only because these are foul play

Blue 13 knocks the ball on, and then goes to ground and gathers the ball, then refuses to release to Gold 12 who is on his feet and latched onto the ball

I will PK Blue 13 for all of these, all day long, because the PK infringement always trumps any infringement by the same player, that would normally result in a scrum! Always!

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Saw this one on the SA refs website... so who is right?

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/view/2831246/

- Wayne Barnes "on the floor, out of the game" which is using the "game is to be played by players on their feet" mantra
- SA Refs who say the player on the floor actually made the ball more playable by kicking it

Please don't comment on the aerial collision in reply - I am only interested in the player on the ground issue... thanks!

 

[crossref]

Saw this one on the SA refs website... so who is right? !

I am ! epper:

 

[ChrisR]

As I understand the Laws the only prohibition re. an onside (legal) player on the ground in open play is not to tackle an opponent.

If I'm wrong please quote the appropriate law.

 

[OB..]

If I'm wrong please quote the appropriate law.

The article included it[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.[/LAWS]
The true discussion, as always, is about how far this applies. Some argue that it only applies to a restricted context in Law 14. Others see it as of more general application.

Personally I favour the referee's view. I don't see that kicking the ball made it "more playable" - it just made it more readily available to his own team.

 

[crossref]

Red and blue are chasing a loose ball on ground
Red dives for the ball (missing it) , and blue trips over him
Both players are on the ground and the ball is within reach of both

The game is to be played by players on their feet

Is anyone really proposing that Red (who went to ground deliberately ) has the right to play the ball while Blue (tried to stay on his feet, got tripped) does not have the exactly same rights

 

[Ian_Cook]

Saw this one on the SA refs website... so who is right?

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/view/2831246/

- Wayne Barnes "on the floor, out of the game" which is using the "game is to be played by players on their feet" mantra
- SA Refs who say the player on the floor actually made the ball more playable by kicking it

Please don't comment on the aerial collision in reply - I am only interested in the player on the ground issue... thanks!

Well, as it often the case with SA referees, they are wrong (and WB was right).

The fact that the ball was made more playable is irrelevant if what he did infringed the Laws. I could argue that a player playing the ball in an offside position, or a player throwing a forward pass or knocking the ball on can make the ball more playable too. Does that mean we give the player a free pass? Of course not

Red and blue are chasing a loose ball on ground
Red dives for the ball (missing it) , and blue trips over him
Both players are on the ground and the ball is within reach of both

The game is to be played by players on their feet

Is anyone really proposing that Red (who went to ground deliberately ) has the right to play the ball while Blue (tried to stay on his feet, got tripped) does not have the exactly same rights

No

We've had this from several elite referees and from people who assess and train elite referee referees, but some people want to just hand-wave this away and apply their own interpretations. Good luck explaining you personal Law book to your assessors.