Ball on the ground, after tackle...

[Steve70]

Red ball carrier tackled by blue. Red 9 ends up in resulting ruck, pulls himself out and ends up in a heap on the floor behind the ruck, while the rest of the red forwards push on - and the ball is now available to reds.

Does red 9 need to get to his feet to play (i.e. pass) the ball?

or is that now "ball on the ground, no tackle", and under 14.1 Players on the Ground, can he immediately pass the ball without getting to his feet?

 

[crossref]

player already on ground for some reason, and ball comes to him --- we have discussed this general scenario a few times, and opinons differ.

some people think he can play it, others think he must get up first.

 

[Browner]

player already on ground for some reason, and ball comes to him --- we have discussed this general scenario a few times, and opinons differ.

some people think he can play it, others think he must get up first.

IIRC there was a third opinion given (?) , that if an on feet opponent was about to gain possession - then R9 preventing Mr on feet from doing so became a material offence, and conversely if there wasn't a Mr On Feet nearby ...then it wasn't

In my matches, materiality is adjudged and if the R9 ( on one knee or on the ground) flipped the ball up off the deck to a teammate on his feet , then there is no way I'd PK it.

But then, I'm in the its not an offence camp anyway, despite it being applied as such by other refs.

To me the thrust of Law 14 is not making the ball unplayable, not penalising anyone expediting it back into play quickly.

 

[OB..]

To me the thrust of Law 14 is not making the ball unplayable

While that is fair conmment, the preamble explicitly says[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.[/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

While that is fair conmment, the preamble explicitly says[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.[/LAWS]

OB et al. That statement is part of the definitions, not part of a specific law and is the first sentence of a paragraph that is the context in which it should be read. Browner's last sentence is the gist of it.

 

[Steve70]

So this actually happened to me two weeks ago as a player - I was red 9. In the past, before I started reffing, I'd have just hoiked it back whilst I was on my knees. This time though, I paused and started thinking! I actually ended up doing a half and half thing, trying to get up while passing, ending up doing neither, apart from getting a mouthful from our hooker to the effect 'I say, what do you imagine you are doing old boy?' Or words to that effect....

To me it's 14.1 - ball on the ground no tackle (any more) and player on ground - must get up or pass. I wish I'd done that, and I'll ref it that way in future if the tackle is 'officially' over.

 

[The Fat]

Steve70,
You'll not get agreement from this forum on your OP even though the correct answer is that red 9 must get to his feet before playing the ball. You will get people telling you what THEY would do under the guise of getting the ball back into play but they are not backed by law.
The arguments will now come thick and fast so this is the only post I'll make on this as we have discussed it at great length before. Someone may wish to post a link.
Bottom line is that red 9 did not go to ground to gain possession of a ball on the ground in a law 14 situation. He was on the ground from the ruck and then the ball "came to him".
Penalty against red 9.

Here we go (you'll see what I mean shortly)

PS:
Robbie put this question to Lyndon Bray and he confirmed what I have said above (cue more howls from the non-believers)

 

[crossref]

Sooner or later there will be a law clarification request and the irb will tell us how they would like us to ref it.

 

[Steve70]

Steve70,
Bottom line is that red 9 did not go to ground to gain possession of a ball on the ground in a law 14 situation. He was on the ground from the ruck and then the ball "came to him".
Penalty against red

Fair enough. Mind you I never got pinged and I was off my feet! But I take your point.

 

[Browner]

As long as a player on the ground does one of the permitted 3 immediate actions , then the game should be expected to continue.

There simply isn't a Law that being on the ground 'in advance' of the ball coming into your possession bars you from quickly exercising any of 14.1(a).

To penalise is merely an interpretation, albeit a popular one, although Lyndon Bray certainly adds a chunk of weight behind his preference.

Hopefully one day 'Portugal' will propose a clarification !

 

[OB..]

OB et al. That statement is part of the definitions, not part of a specific law and is the first sentence of a paragraph that is the context in which it should be read. Browner's last sentence is the gist of it.

The Definitions help set the context, and your restrictive interpretationof that sentence is fro me very unnatural. I therefore disagree with you.

 

[The Fat]

Steve70,
You'll not get agreement from this forum on your OP even though the correct answer is that red 9 must get to his feet before playing the ball. You will get people telling you what THEY would do under the guise of getting the ball back into play but they are not backed by law.
The arguments will now come thick and fast so this is the only post I'll make on this as we have discussed it at great length before. Someone may wish to post a link.
Bottom line is that red 9 did not go to ground to gain possession of a ball on the ground in a law 14 situation. He was on the ground from the ruck and then the ball "came to him".
Penalty against red 9.

Here we go (you'll see what I mean shortly)

PS:
Robbie put this question to Lyndon Bray and he confirmed what I have said above (cue more howls from the non-believers)

Yes I know what I said before (highlighted in bold above), but I forgot to mention that as well as Lyndon Bray, the question was also put, by others, to a current international referee assessor and his response was the same. By international referee assessor, I mean that he was the assessor for several of the November internationals, just not quite sure what his actual title would be.

 

[crossref]

Why doesn't someone submit it to SAReferees, see what they say? (I have sent two questions already this month, they'll be sick of me )