Ball Carrier Releasing Ball

[Iron_Lung]

Simple tackle in broken play where the ball carrier is brought down to a knee by the tackler. The tackler releases correctly, no problems thus far. The ball carrier is a big second rower who goes to his knee with the ball palmed in one hand, pressing the ball to the ground and effectively supporting his weight on the ball. He then gets up, without ever having lost contact with the ball, and continues running.

To PK or not to PK?

15.3(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.

Clearly this has happened. No question that he was tackled and brought to ground.

15.5(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.

Questionable. His hand was in contact with the ball at all times. However I don't give a PK to a tackler just because they have a hand in contact with the ball. I look for "possession" of the ball and a ball carrier preventing tackler from gaining clean possession.

15.5(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

Here's the interesting part. In touching it on the ground with a hand in contact (just as if he'd scored a try), has the ball carrier met their obligations as described above? Or, like a tackler, do they have to show clear and obvious separation to be considered to have released the ball?

Thoughts? :chin:

 

[Decorily]

At 6' 5", 115kg and 50 yrs old and joints to match, your description reminds me of how I would get myself up these days!

However, I think I would blow the penalty in this case. A much easier sell than the alternative....not that that is reason enough.

 

[didds]

well, he's clearly not released it has he?

There is no air between flesh and ball not even for a nano second.

didds

 

[Taff]

well, he's clearly not released it has he? There is no air between flesh and ball not even for a nano second.

+1. How likely is it to happen though?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here's the interesting part. In touching it on the ground with a hand in contact (just as if he'd scored a try), has the ball carrier met their obligations as described above? Or, like a tackler, do they have to show clear and obvious separation to be considered to have released the ball?

Thoughts? :chin:

Well, its right there in the wording of the Law you quoted..

[LAWS]15.5(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.[/LAWS]

Place AND release complies with the Law

Place AND keep your hand on it is not releasing; you haven't "put it on the ground" until you have let go of it.

PEEP!

 

[Iron_Lung]

I don't know how to describe it better, but it was clear that he was resting his hand/fingers on the ball while he got up. There was no clear and obvious release, but nor was it clear and obvious that he hadn't released either. I'm sure the player would tell me that he opened his hand on the ball and if he'd pulled it away the ball would have stayed on the ground.

In this case I erred the same way most of you have, and opted for a PK. However I was drawn into the discussion later by someone who asked me why I didn't err on the side of the ball carrier, given that it wasn't clear and obvious he hadn't released the ball.

Clear and obvious separation (or "Daylight") was the standard that I remember being applied for the tackler for a while, but it seems that has drifted back a little and the tackler is given more latitude. In tucking this example away for future reference I thought I'd see if anyone had another opinion. However it seems that for once we're all like minded...

Thanks for the input everyone!

 

[Dickie E]

I would have PK'd too but it makes me wonder how different it is from the tackled player who places the ball back towards his own goal line and keeps his hand on the ball until team mates arrive.

 

[Womble]

I would have PK'd too but it makes me wonder how different it is from the tackled player who places the ball back towards his own goal line and keeps his hand on the ball until team mates arrive.

My initial thought was ,has he prevented the opposition player playing the ball, if so pen, if not play on IMO

 

[ddjamo]

My initial thought was ,has he prevented the opposition player playing the ball, if so pen, if not play on IMO

beat me to it. forget law for a moment...did his actions take away the opposition's right to contest for possession?

 

[didds]

I would have PK'd too but it makes me wonder how different it is from the tackled player who places the ball back towards his own goal line and keeps his hand on the ball until team mates arrive.

Well, that is more to do with making sure some clodhopper of a bloody second row doesn't boot the ball accidentally to the opposition than stopping the oppo taking the ball. Not allowing the latter is a PK anyway. The former could end uyp with a broken wrist though!

didds

 

[Dickie E]

My initial thought was ,has he prevented the opposition player playing the ball, if so pen, if not play on IMO

Well, presumably there is a tackler. Hasn't his rights to the ball been denied?

The logical follow on from your PoV is that any tackled player may get up and run with the ball without releasing provided an opponent isn't denied access. I wouldn't referee that way.

 

[Womble]

Well, presumably there is a tackler. Hasn't his rights to the ball been denied?

The logical follow on from your PoV is that any tackled player may get up and run with the ball without releasing provided an opponent isn't denied access. I wouldn't referee that way.

In the OP the tackled player was on one knee ! If its 15 a side on a wet pitch may give us a different answer to a dynamic 7's game, proximity of all other players is key here as well as is the position and stability (if he is on his feet) of the tackler. The answer is all in the detail

 

[The Fat]

He is required to release the ball (place, pass, push) and get to his feet BEFORE playing the ball again. If he stays on one knee and, as someone else said takes his hand off the ball for a nano-second, then places his hand back on the ball before getting to his feet, he hasn't complied with the law.
As per the OP's description, the ball carrier should be penalised.
A call of "Tackle", followed by "Release" or "Play it" if necessary, would clarify the situation for the players.

However, as others have indicated, you might allow some leeway in similar situations depending on;
1. The level of the match. If it is a low level match and the player clearly releases and then puts a hand back on the ball as he is getting back to his feet AND there are no opposition players being denied access to the ball, I wouldn't have a problem playing on.
2. If the tackler had fallen off and was not in the immediate area to contest the ball (or other team mates). So long as there was a clear release, would touching the ball again before getting all the way back to his feet have any material effect?

 

[RobLev]

He is required to release the ball (place, pass, push) and get to his feet BEFORE playing the ball again. If he stays on one knee and, as someone else said takes his hand off the ball for a nano-second, then places his hand back on the ball before getting to his feet, he hasn't complied with the law.
As per the OP's description, the ball carrier should be penalised.
A call of "Tackle", followed by "Release" or "Play it" if necessary, would clarify the situation for the players.

However, as others have indicated, you might allow some leeway in similar situations depending on;
1. The level of the match. If it is a low level match and the player clearly releases and then puts a hand back on the ball as he is getting back to his feet AND there are no opposition players being denied access to the ball, I wouldn't have a problem playing on.
2. If the tackler had fallen off and was not in the immediate area to contest the ball (or other team mates). So long as there was a clear release, would touching the ball again before getting all the way back to his feet have any material effect?

Not so much touching it again, but not having to go back down to regather the ball, has a potentially material effect in allowing him to get moving again quicker.

 

[Blackberry]

This whole wonderful concept of materiality is a brilliant feature of our game, and our capacity (players and refs) to usually grasp it is also a good reflection on us all. I remember before all this poor Clive Woodwood (I really hope he does not read these forums) in the dying moments of an international, straying marginally offside out towards the wing miles away from play.... and getting pinged resulting in a result changing penalty. i can't remember what game it was, I was at the rugby club as a drunken youth, but I do remember the TV as B&W.

 

[OB..]

This whole wonderful concept of materiality is a brilliant feature of our game, and our capacity (players and refs) to usually grasp it is also a good reflection on us all. I remember before all this poor Clive Woodwood (I really hope he does not read these forums) in the dying moments of an international, straying marginally offside out towards the wing miles away from play.... and getting pinged resulting in a result changing penalty. i can't remember what game it was, I was at the rugby club as a drunken youth, but I do remember the TV as B&W.

17 January 1981 Wales v England in Cardiff. Woodward's 5th cap. Times report:-

Wales clawed themselves back into range and forced a scrummage in England's 22. Brynmor Williams dummied away without the ball, Woodward, in a moment of aberration that may haunt him for years to come, fell for one of the three-card tricks, and palpably strayed offside.

IIRC he was actually backpedalling when the PK was awarded, so no disadvantage to Wales at all.

Under current laws, Brynmor Williams would have been penalised!

 

[Ian_Cook]

This whole wonderful concept of materiality is a brilliant feature of our game.

I remember seeing some soccer goal highlights recently where a ball was passed to a player in the 18 yard box who was not offside (and who scored) but there was a teammate of the scorer who was well offside way out on the right. The commentator explained that an offside player like that would be ignored by the referee because he didn't receive the ball or could not have affected the play. That sounds like materiality to me.

 

[OB..]

I remember seeing some soccer goal highlights recently where a ball was passed to a player in the 18 yard box who was not offside (and who scored) but there was a teammate of the scorer who was well offside way out on the right. The commentator explained that an offside player like that would be ignored by the referee because he didn't receive the ball or could not have affected the play. That sounds like materiality to me.

It is actually in the laws

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
(curious co-incidence that the Offside law has the same number as in Rugby.)

 

[Dickie E]

It is actually in the laws

So too in rugby laws

[LAWS]11.1 Offside in general play
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
•Interferes with play or,
•Moves forward, towards the ball or
•Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.[/LAWS]