AB v AUS - 2nd AB Try

[Dickie E]

does anyone remember, not so long ago, when everyone in the world played with the same laws and we didn't have every union cherry-picking which laws they would or wouldn't apply?

 

[PaulDG]

does anyone remember, not so long ago, when everyone in the world played with the same laws and we didn't have every union cherry-picking which laws they would or wouldn't apply?

Who changed it? (And why?)

 

[SimonSmith]

I am frankly appalled at the amateurish way in which these laws have been rolled out, and indeed written.

If I take a step back from my role as an amateur referee seeking enlightenment and view this through a more professional lens, I'm shocked. If I applied the "I know it's written one way, but we intend for it to be read and applied in another" I'd be fired; I have in fact terminated people for similar. Admittedly I work in HR, and that kind of mistake in a legal document can be costly, but the premise still holds good.

As aggravating as Chopper can be in how he raises the question, his underlying premise is still good: it looks at first blush like the RFU taking a unilateral interpretatio. It isn't one with which I disagree, but the optics of it look shaky.

 

[OB..]

"You cannot quote the "standard" law to justify using the 5 metre line because that bit of the laws HAS been changed" - OB I just did so, as did AM (a mutual Scottish friend of ours), and assorted other RFU staffers.

I have absolutely no problem at all with the RFU line, which I have always thought was the only sensible one.

However referring to the standard laws does not work simply because the ELV changes the only bit of the standard law that covers it.

The conclusion is correct, but the argument is wrong, and I think that confuses the issue unnecessarily.

 

[OB..]

does anyone remember, not so long ago, when everyone in the world played with the same laws and we didn't have every union cherry-picking which laws they would or wouldn't apply?

Do please tell me when that was.

There have long been variations at Junior levels, and for much of the last century Australia and New Zealand played to different laws from the rest of us.

In 2000 the lawmakers hoped they had settled a point of contention between Australia and New Zealand over who was responsible for the ball going into touch if it was caught by a player with a foot in touch.

Yes, I agree the current situation is farcical - last weekend I watched matches under 3 different sets of laws: Tri Nations, Currie Cup, Air New Zealand Cup.

 

[Account Deleted]

Sadly the wording of the ELVs is much like the rest of the Law book: Poor to say the least.

We don't need a draft of "new" laws we need the old ones rewritten properly and clearly and then we need to see if they actually work when applied (and that includes not straight and foot up)!

 

[chopper15]

Sadly the wording of the ELVs is much like the rest of the Law book: Poor to say the least.

We don't need a draft of "new" laws we need the old ones rewritten properly and clearly and then we need to see if they actually work when applied (and that includes not straight and foot up)!

I think it was SimonT who some months ago, when I was ranting on about getting the LoG written in plain English by a pro' copywriter, said that the IRB did actually commission a rewrite, but I can't recall the reason he gave why it was never published.

Perhaps when it was just about completed, someone remembered that there were some ELVs in the offing?

 

[Davet]

The Laws made Simple was the rewrite that renumbered and amended the words of the old Law book - back in about 1999 I think.

Thats the one where the change of a comma altered the whole of the knock-on law....

 

[OB..]

Up to 1999 the RFU published the IRB laws in England. In 1994 and 1996 (and maybe other years) they also produced "The Laws in Plain English".

Since 2000, when the laws were re-written, they have been published by the IRB. The 2000 edition proclaimed "The Laws of the Game made easier".

There is a basic conflict: language is full of ambiguities, and if you try to tie it down as much as possible, you end up with the sort of legal language that most people find unreadable. The laws of rugby are a hybrid: they are meant to be definitive, but readable for the ordinary player.

Problems are inevitable. Currently they are dealt with by producing amendments, Rulings, and guidelines. I think that is a pretty good compromise, since perfection in unattainable.

 

[The umpire]

The laws of the game are, in fact, much like the laws of the land (here, at least). There are two types of laws: those written by the lawmakers - parliament and the IRB - and case law - those applied at the coal face by the judges and the referees.

Parlaiment and the IRB set out what they think they want to happen and then the judges and us decide what they really meant and apply it accordingly. FOr example, hands in the ruck - no.8 picks up and holds the ball beteween his legs for the scrum half to use. Parliament/IRB - penalty for handling in the ruck - and that's what you'll put on your exam paper. Judges/us in the field - Play on.

It doesn't matter what you write in the laws, there will always be some case you hadn't foreseen that will trip you up, or some smart-a**e who can think up a "what happens if..." question and someone will have to make a decision about. In legal circles they have books and books of precedents, all we have are discussion forums like this, our monthly society meetings and what we see the great and the good do on TV.

Good luck to us all on the first game.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just to get back to the ORIGINAL subject of this thread.....

Just seen this seconds ago..

Aus player catches rolling ball with his right foot in touch. Brief squabble in touch and line out given to All Blacks.

Aus lineout is dreadful so far this match and AB score from the resulting 5m lineout.

Shouldn't that have been an Aus throw in?

(Actually the Aus lineout is so bad is probably wouldn't have mattered...)

I've just seen an interesting analysis of this on the Rugby Channel. It reviewed a couple of replays of the incident from different angles. Its possible that the TJ thought the ball had stopped rolling and was stationary when Yellow15 picked it up. He (the TJ) was running flat out directly towards the ball which was rolling directly away from him. If he had judged, albeit wrongly, that the ball had stopped, then he made the correct call based on what he saw (Nigel Owens might be his mentor )

Ruling 5. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, is that player deemed to have picked up the ball in the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)?


To paraphrase Tim White's signature... "You may be perfectly correct....BUT we have to play what the referee (or TJ) saw...."

The TMO dropped a goolie giving the last try of the game too!

Maybe not. While it may have appeared that the ball was bounced, in fact Nonu claims (and the slow-mo supports him) that his hand/fingers remained in contact with the ball until after it touched the ground. Remember that "downward pressure" is a commentator's myth!

LAW 22.1 GROUNDING 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.


Take a look at the "try" awarded to Rocky Elsom in this 2006 TMO decision. It occurs about 1m 50s into this video.



If that was a try, Nonu's certainly was!! Clearly a case of swings and roundabouts.

 

[PaulDG]

Maybe not. While it may have appeared that the ball was bounced, in fact Nonu claims (and the slow-mo supports him) that his hand/fingers remained in contact with the ball until after it touched the ground. Remember that "downward pressure" is a commentator's myth!

The commentary team Sky TV brought us was, I believe from New Zealand. They were banging on about "control", not "downward pressure".

I believe "Control" is a requirement in Rugby League....

 

[Dixie]

Maybe not. While it may have appeared that the ball was bounced, in fact Nonu claims (and the slow-mo supports him) that his hand/fingers remained in contact with the ball until after it touched the ground. Remember that "downward pressure" is a commentator's myth!

This raises an interesting point. When fingers remain in contact with a ball that is no longer under the control of the player, can the player be said to be "holding" the ball, thus bringing 22.1(a) into play? If not, then the ball cannot technically be grounded, as 22.1(b) doesn't cover the situation.

On the normal use of language, I cannot be said to be holding a ball if I am not in control of it. I accept that it makes no sense to disallow a try in these circumstances, but Ian's point about downward pressure becomes very relevant here. The principles of 22.1(b), requiring downward presure, seem more appropriate to this scenario than those of 22.1(a).

22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
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 ingoal.
‘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.

 

[OB..]

There is a gap between 22.1 (a) and 22.1 (b): holding the ball versus ball on the ground.

I resolve this by taking view that you are deemed to be holding the ball until you have lost contact with it.

If you do not do that, you have an impossible job in deciding at what point a player was no longer holding it.

 

[Davet]

I would agree with OB.

If you hold the ball then push it downwards, containing the ball under the palm of the hand, but not grasping it, then that would seem to me to still be holding it. If it isn't then several thousand tries awarded every season would be invalid.

If contact with the ball is maintained then I am happy.

To seek to say that even though that contact was maintained some arbitrary point of tenousness has been passed would lead to huge practical difficulties.

Once contact is broken THEN we need to determine if the ball went forward or not; and if not was downward pressure applied once it hit the ground?

 

[chopper15]

There is a gap between 22.1 (a) and 22.1 (b): holding the ball versus ball on the ground.

I resolve this by taking view that you are deemed to be holding the ball until you have lost contact with it.

If you do not do that, you have an impossible job in deciding at what point a player was no longer holding it.

Think you're pushing the dict.defs of 'holding' a bit, OB!

IMO the nearest you can get to allowing that try is; 22.1 (a) Player touches the ground with the ball.

Accepting 'with' as maintaining lateral finger-tip contact as the ball retreats along the ground. So if you witness a similar 'touch-down', it'll be 'make-your-mind-up-time', gents!

 

[PaulDG]

Accepting 'with' as maintaining lateral finger-tip contact as the ball retreats along the ground. So if you witness a similar 'touch-down', it'll be 'make-your-mind-up-time', gents!

It's always "make your mind up time" for us. Hundreds of times a match, in fact.

 

[Account Deleted]

Just to get back to the ORIGINAL subject of this thread.....



I've just seen an interesting analysis of this on the Rugby Channel. It reviewed a couple of replays of the incident from different angles. Its possible that the TJ thought the ball had stopped rolling and was stationary when Yellow15 picked it up. He (the TJ) was running flat out directly towards the ball which was rolling directly away from him. If he had judged, albeit wrongly, that the ball had stopped, then he made the correct call based on what he saw (Nigel Owens might be his mentor )

Ruling 5. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, is that player deemed to have picked up the ball in the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)?


To paraphrase Tim White's signature... "You may be perfectly correct....BUT we have to play what the referee (or TJ) saw...."



Maybe not. While it may have appeared that the ball was bounced, in fact Nonu claims (and the slow-mo supports him) that his hand/fingers remained in contact with the ball until after it touched the ground. Remember that "downward pressure" is a commentator's myth!

LAW 22.1 GROUNDING 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.


Take a look at the "try" awarded to Rocky Elsom in this 2006 TMO decision. It occurs about 1m 50s into this video.



If that was a try, Nonu's certainly was!! Clearly a case of swings and roundabouts.

The AR may have though it was not rolling but he is clearly wrong.

The last try was good in Law.

 

[chopper15]

The AR may have though it was not rolling but he is clearly wrong.

The last try was good in Law.

Which part of which law, ATTR? The nearest I could get is 22.1 (a) first sentence. #56

 

[OB..]

Think you're pushing the dict.defs of 'holding' a bit, OB!

I effectively said that, and gave my reasons. Necessity. Dictionary definitions are frequently unhelpful. Referees have to make the laws work.

[quoteIMO the nearest you can get to allowing that try is; 22.1 (a) Player touches the ground with the ball.[/quote]
" holding the ball and touching the ground ..."