22 drop out/scrum/something else entirely...

[JJ10]

Saturday, White playing with a strong breeze. White kick goes up, rolls into dead ball area. Yellow full-back makes the *attempt* to put his foot over the dead ball line and touch the ball to enforce scrum back. However, yellow 15 cocks it up by allowing the ball to stop moving. I award 22 drop out - he either 1) touched it down inside the dead ball area, or 2) had his foot over the dead ball line when touching a non-moving ball.... bit of both as he made such a mess of it.

Not entirely sure this was right, or whether 1) or 2) makes a difference to the final decision, given that White played the ball into the 22. No complaint from either side with the decision.

Thanks all!

 

[beckett50]

Ball had stopped.

Right call.

 

[Nigib]

Ball had stopped.

Right call.

Wot he said

 

[Pegleg]

Agreed.

not kicked dead (stopped moving) so the scrum back is not an option. Attacking side took it in to the in-goal and defenders minored it. 22 drop out.

 

[Taff]

The scrum-back option exists if the ball is kicked through in-goal.

This wasn't kicked through. It was kicked in - but not "through" so no scrum back option.

 

[Phil E]

The scrum-back option exists if the ball is kicked through in-goal.

This wasn't kicked through. It was kicked in - but not "through" so no scrum back option.

But "IF" the ball was still moving (in in-goal) when the defender, with a foot over the dead ball line, had picked it up, then it would have been a scrum back option; even though the ball didn't actually go "through" the the dead ball line.

But as the ball had stopped, it didn't matter.

PS Taff, you coming to Tigers Friday night?

 

[Dickie E]

So if defender has foot over DBL and ball is still moving and defender presses down on ball. 22 or option?

 

[FlipFlop]

So if defender has foot over DBL and ball is still moving and defender presses down on ball. 22 or option?

22. No Option. Defender has made it dead in goal. It has not been kicked through. In the same way an attacker can score a try by pressing down on the ball, even if in touch/touch-in-goal/over dead-ball line.

So if they want the option - defender has to pick it up, so that it has gone dead over the dead-ball or touch-in-goal line.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

22. No Option. Defender has made it dead in goal. It has not been kicked through. In the same way an attacker can score a try by pressing down on the ball, even if in touch/touch-in-goal/over dead-ball line.

So if they want the option - defender has to pick it up, so that it has gone dead over the dead-ball or touch-in-goal line.

An interesting one. 100% agree where the defender presses down on the ball (notwithstanding the lack of requirement of downwards pressure, this is helpful in indicating a defender's desire to claim the 22, whether the defender has his foot over DBL or not). But there was an incident in my game at the weekend where a prop of all people got right back after a quick from within the opponent's 22 and, as the ball cam towards him, lay down with his feet over the DBL and let the ball roll into his hands. He didn't lift the ball up, but to my mind and given the way he had positioned his body, his clear intention was to claim the right to an option and I felt he had done enough to do so. I believe Ben Foden similarly did this about four years ago for Northampton, though I can't find the clip and so can't recall if he actually lifted the ball in that scenario.

Purely out of interest, FlipFlop, would you have granted the option?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

An interesting one. 100% agree where the defender presses down on the ball (notwithstanding the lack of requirement of downwards pressure, this is helpful in indicating a defender's desire to claim the 22, whether the defender has his foot over DBL or not). But there was an incident in my game at the weekend where a prop of all people got right back after a quick from within the opponent's 22 and, as the ball cam towards him, lay down with his feet over the DBL and let the ball roll into his hands. He didn't lift the ball up, but to my mind and given the way he had positioned his body, his clear intention was to claim the right to an option and I felt he had done enough to do so. I believe Ben Foden similarly did this about four years ago for Northampton, though I can't find the clip and so can't recall if he actually lifted the ball in that scenario.

Purely out of interest, FlipFlop, would you have granted the option?

Was the prop's performance from a 22 drop out? If it was he needn't have bothered as he'd have the option of the scrum just by grounding the ball (immediately). Or was it just a kick from within the 22. Sorry if I've misread it.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Sorry - just a kick from within the 22. Bad typo of "quick" for "kick" - too early in the morning over here!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Sorry - just a kick from within the 22. Bad typo of "quick" for "kick" - too early in the morning over here!

Ah yes - sunrise in the Carribean - and here was me not realising all the fun I was having doing an hour's work before the sun came up to reveal another, windy, shitty day. :biggrin:

Thanks for clarifying Dave.

 

[FlipFlop]

Dave - has he taken possession of a rolling ball, or grounded a ball?
You don't need to lift a ball up to have possession, and you can have possession without grounding it, and ground it without possession, but I struggle to see how a player lying down can't lift the ball, even a little..... Especially a prop, who if his feet are on the ground, then his belly will be a pivot point, so quite easy to lift arms as his shoulders will be some way off the ground. :biggrin:

So what would I give? If I thought he had possession, then the option. If I thought he grounded it, then 22.

Lots of players know there is an advantage if some part of their body is beyond the dead ball line, but most will not know what, or why, and won't know the difference between grounding and taking possession. I'm not rewarding a player for getting it half right!

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Dave - has he taken possession of a rolling ball, or grounded a ball?
You don't need to lift a ball up to have possession, and you can have possession without grounding it, and ground it without possession, but I struggle to see how a player lying down can't lift the ball, even a little..... Especially a prop, who if his feet are on the ground, then his belly will be a pivot point, so quite easy to lift arms as his shoulders will be some way off the ground. :biggrin:

So what would I give? If I thought he had possession, then the option. If I thought he grounded it, then 22.

Lots of players know there is an advantage if some part of their body is beyond the dead ball line, but most will not know what, or why, and won't know the difference between grounding and taking possession. I'm not rewarding a player for getting it half right!

This made me smile! To be honest, I rather suspect that the prop who had sprinted back all that way couldn't have lifted his arms up for love nor money due to exhaustion. We had to stop the clock to allow him to get all the way back to the scrum!

 

[Taff]

But "IF" the ball was still moving (in in-goal) when the defender, with a foot over the dead ball line, had picked it up, then it would have been a scrum back option; even though the ball didn't actually go "through" the the dead ball line.

One of the quirks of the lawbook. You can make sure the ball goes through in-goal by standing over the dead ball line and picking up (not grounding) a moving ball which is still in-goal; or you can effectively make sure a ball goes direct to touch by standing in touch and catching a ball landing in-field etc. I've tried explaining it to some U15 players, but I don't think they all got it. :biggrin:

... PS Taff, you coming to Tigers Friday night?

Sadly not. :frown: Working Friday, Team Manager for an U15 Cup game on Saturday morning and reffing a Youth game in the afternoon.

I'll be watching on telly sat in front of the log fire with a whiskey. epper:

So if defender has foot over DBL and ball is still moving and defender presses down on ball. 22 or option?

No option - 22 DO only. The ball wasn't "kicked through". It was just grounded in-goal. If the straddler had picked up the moving ball - then there's an option.

 

[JJ10]

Thanks for all the answers. Glad I got it right. Also very happy to have opened a new discussion; I can't help laughing imagining the sight of a prop lying down half in, half out, and waiting for the ball to reach him. Brilliant.

 

[Dickie E]

So if defender has foot over DBL and ball is still moving and defender kicks the the ball over DBL or TiG. 22 or option?

 

[JJ10]

So if defender has foot over DBL and ball is still moving and defender kicks the the ball over DBL or TiG. 22 or option?

For me at that point he is standing on one foot, touching a moving ball, thereby making the ball go "through" in goal... i guess option..... :chin:

 

[Taff]

So if defender has foot over DBL and ball is still moving and defender kicks the the ball over DBL or TiG. 22 or option?

Personally, I would say 22m DO only.

The ball was kicked into in-goal by an attacking player and made dead. IMO there should be no scrum back option as the attacking player didn't kick the ball through in-goal. The attacking player put the ball in-goal, but it was the defender who kicked it out and made it dead. That's my logic anyway, and I'm sticking to it. :biggrin:

 

[ChrisR]

Moving ball strikes object beyond DBL. Option. If the player has foot on/beyond DBL then just putting his foot on the moving ball meets the requirement as he is not grounding it.

Ground the moving ball. 22 DO, he made it dead in goal.

Stationary ball? 22 DO, he put it dead.