Chiefs v Crusaders - Diving on a player close to the line.

[damo]

Am I the only one who would have awarded a penalty try for this bit of work from Bundee Aki? I might well be, but then sometimes it is the whole platoon that is out of step and the one guy who has the timing right.

Here is the clip

Lets look at the law:

[LAWS]14.2 Players on their feet
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS]
Or, if you think it was a tackle:

[LAWS]15.6 Other players
(a)
After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick


Exception: Ball goes into the in-goal. After a tackle near the goal line, if the ball has been released and has gone into the in-goal any player, including a player on the ground, may ground the ball.
[/LAWS]
The TMO could clearly see that the ball was not over the line when Aki went off his feet.

[LAWS]15.6 Other players
...
(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS]
Again, he entered the tackle (if there was one) prior to the ball crossing the line.

[LAWS]22.4 Other ways to score a try
...
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.
(f)
In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.
[/LAWS]

I put it to the forumites that the action of Aki was illegal and prevented a possible try. I acknowledge that this is a frequent occurrence and is never pulled up, but I cannot see why not. Is it time to amend the laws to what everybody plays (ie, "if a player is in the field of play and reaches to ground a ball in the in-goal any player may play the ball regardless of whether they are on feet or not").

And if you think I am bonkers then feel free to say so; I am a big boy. This is something that has annoyed me for a while.

 

[smeagol]

Where's the tackle?

When the ball carrier goes low to dive in, I see a defender going low to play at the ball.

Momentum carries them across the goal line, where there is no longer a tackle.

If that action is illegal, then I fail to see what a defender in that spot could legally do to prevent a try.

 

[Andrew1974]

Damo,

I see where your thought process was going, but my immediate response was 'good defense'.

Right or wrong I don't think I would ever of given any decision other than held up, scrum 5. (assuming I was quick enough to get there to see what actually happened!!!)

Andrew

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Penalty Try............for that kit!

In real time I think I'd go for held up although your case is well made.

 

[didds]

If that action is illegal, then I fail to see what a defender in that spot could legally do to prevent a try.

I sympathise with this view, but don't think damo is bonkers. There probably isn't a tackle but that is irrelavent anyway - the player is on the floor with the ball - its not different in this regard to a full back goping down onto a rolling ball. In that regard the oppo cannot dive on top of the player. If the players had been reversed, this woud be a PK to the defenders (ie defender on floor, oppo dives on top of him).

That said, as smeagol says, what is a defender to do? basically the almost-scorer is now so low there is no defence. This may of course be fair enough - a defender in a legal position would be in the same scenario. This is the crux of the reply I gave in another thread about "high" or throat tackles when the scorer is only inches above the turf.

maybe the answer is there is no defence available so tough.

And yes - PT for me in that clip.

didds

 

[beckett50]

Agree with Didds. Tough call either way under the letter of the Law

 

[menace]

Damo....agree with you on the basis of 14.2.. but IMO you're bonkers with regard to tackle law (as there was no tackle). ( you asked for it :biggrin
Ordinarily I would PK..and PT this ....and perhaps this is a case for game context at the expense of law BUT what are we to do if a fully fledged TMO interprets this as legal and we don't? Bet you spectators will think we are the jobsworths if we PT something like that!

 

[Phil E]

Is it clear, obvious and expected?
I suspect not one single person in that stadium was expecting a PK.

Don't make yourself the centre of attention if you don't have to.

 

[damo]

Is it clear, obvious and expected?
I suspect not one single person in that stadium was expecting a PK.

Don't make yourself the centre of attention if you don't have to.

I have conceded the point that nobody is expecting a PK there.

However it is kind of a circular argument - nobody expects a penalty there because no-one ever penalises it. Though it may be good practice to not rock the boat, that doesn't mean it is good policy.

As for the claim that there is nothing that a defender in that situation can legally do to prevent a try, that is only an argument that the law should be amended, not an argument that what the defender has done is legal.

 

[didds]

I wonder then just how far from the goal line "anybody" WOULD expect a PK?

Presumably from the above not 1m. So..

2m?

3m?

5m?


didds

 

[tim White]

ALL WITH THE BENEFIT OF THE SLO-MO MODE;-If they had not slid into in-goal most would have awarded a PK. Contact was clearly made before the try-line, and clearly not just attempting to play the ball (one hand under ball, one hand wrapped around body to prevent rotation off his back). If a referee had awarded a PK with explanation "you dived on him before the try-line" plus the 'going to ground' signal I suspect most of us would say "He's right, you know. Steve's not just a pretty face"

 

[Account Deleted]

I'd go with the game call. A PT would be a little "jobsworth" for me.

 

[didds]

even though the illegal play (hence the PK) prevented a probable try?

on what grounds?

What on earth are you going to say to the #8? Its a PK but ... err... i'm going to ignore the fact that without it you WOULD have scored?

Once you've awarded the PK how on earth can it NOT (in these circumstances) be a PT?

didds

 

[menace]

I must admit that after having another look at the clip, I don't think Aki actually falls on the #8, but rather falls next to him on the ground and only his arms grab the player and ball ie he didn't really fall on or over the player. Therefore I'm now less convinced law 14 is in play here, or at least enough benefit of the doubt to allow it go. Held up. ( ill have to remember this excuse for when it happens in my game)

 

[Browner]

I have conceded the point that nobody is expecting a PK there.

However it is kind of a circular argument - nobody expects a penalty there because no-one ever penalises it. Though it may be good practice to not rock the boat, that doesn't mean it is good policy.

As for the claim that there is nothing that a defender in that situation can legally do to prevent a try, that is only an argument that the law should be amended, not an argument that what the defender has done is legal.

Damo, I agree with you that
a] the try prevention was beyond what is legally permitted
b] many referees would avoid becoming the centre of intention (but making unpopular/but Law correct decisions comes with the whistle)
c] just because it's rarely seen, doesn't mean it should be never seen

Sometimes the only way to stop the try is to shortarm the attacker, that's not permitted either [yes yes, i know it's slightly more extreme].

It's not beyond the ability of commentators to help educate the audiences of the correct via, 'ref mike' 'slow mo' or 'TMO audio' The bottom line is do we think the defender knows 14.2 .....my bet is yes he does.

So, PT for me.

[ Being honest, i've never experienced this whilst refereeing, & the value of this site sometimes clarifies the thought process ]

Great Post. Thanks

 

[The Fat]

During a game yesterday in which I was AR, the ball is kicked ahead and retreating blue 15 goes to ground to gather the ball about 15m from his own goal line. Two attacking players get to him and I'm thinking "Don't flop on the 15". One did before releasing and the other then went for the ball winning a PK for the 15 not releasing.
Now the correct call should have been PK to blue 15 for the first attacker landing on him which is what I would have called had I been the ref.
Would I make the same call 1m from goal line if an attacker went to ground carrying the ball and a retreating/covering defender flopped on him? Most likely.
Would I make the same call 20cm from goal line if an attacker went to ground carrying the ball, with his momentum likely to carry him across the line, and a retreating/covering defender flopped on him to hold the ball up? Probably not as I think I would already be thinking that the attacker is in the process of trying to ground the ball and to hold him up would be a very skilful play. Would I be correct? Technically no but I would like to find one ref who, at full speed, would be likely to PK the defender and award a PT.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Where's the tackle?

When the ball carrier goes low to dive in, I see a defender going low to play at the ball.

Momentum carries them across the goal line, where there is no longer a tackle.

If that action is illegal, then I fail to see what a defender in that spot could legally do to prevent a try.

On the other hand, I see no reason why a player should get a free pass on the Laws just because he's trying to stop a try. If that had happened 10m short of the try line, I would expect any referee to have penalised the Orange player under Law 14.2., so why not if its closer to the goal line?

Q: How could a player defend against the try in that situation?

A: Don't miss the previous tackle that let the opponent get into try scoring position in the first place!

 

[RobLev]

Where's the tackle?

When the ball carrier goes low to dive in, I see a defender going low to play at the ball.

Momentum carries them across the goal line, where there is no longer a tackle.

If that action is illegal, then I fail to see what a defender in that spot could legally do to prevent a try.

I'm not a rugby referee, but back when I was fencing regularly, I used to do my fair share of refereeing (or "presiding", as we then called it).

In what follows, the female embraces the male.

Fencing is a sport where most of the thinking is done by the hand; once you get into a phrase, it is reflex and learned reactions that decide what you do next, not the brain. Those reflexes can be fooled by a "broken time" attack. In this attack, the attacker begins the attack in one line and then changes to another; the defender follows, covering the line into which the attack is being developed. The attacker then changes line again (rinse and repeat). By this time the defender is operating on reflex, picking up the attacker's rhythm and changing line in time with her. While this is going on the fencers are moving up and down the piste, with the attacker trying to close distance sufficiently for her purposes. The broken time comes when the attacker pauses for a beat; the defender then, following the rhythm, moves her blade out of line leaving herself entirely open. It is an attack that, properly executed, is very satisfying for the attacker, and very frustrating for the defender. You look a fool, with your blade covering an attack down the M11 and the attack travelling up the M4. It is very difficult to defend against legally.

The best way of defending is not to get into the situation in the first place; next best is to make sure that you kept sufficient distance so that when the broken time comes, you can step back out of distance. If you haven't done either of these, the only way left is illegal; to use the back arm to parry.

If when presiding I saw a back-arm parry, I would always penalise it; if itt prevented a hit, by awarding the hit; and in any event I'd give a yellow card - a warning that any repetition, whether it prevented a hit or not, would lead to an automatic hit against. I'd do it all day, every day.

Why is this relevant? Because as an outsider I don't understand the argument that "If that action is illegal, then I fail to see what a defender in that spot could legally do to prevent a try". It may well be that there is nothing the defender can do legally; but it doesn't follow that an illegal action is therefore to be permitted.

 

[Browner]

During a game yesterday in which I was AR, the ball is kicked ahead and retreating blue 15 goes to ground to gather the ball about 15m from his own goal line. Two attacking players get to him and I'm thinking "Don't flop on the 15". One did before releasing and the other then went for the ball winning a PK for the 15 not releasing.
Now the correct call should have been PK to blue 15 for the first attacker landing on him which is what I would have called had I been the ref.
Would I make the same call 1m from goal line if an attacker went to ground carrying the ball and a retreating/covering defender flopped on him? Most likely.
Would I make the same call 20cm from goal line if an attacker went to ground carrying the ball, with his momentum likely to carry him across the line, and a retreating/covering defender flopped on him to hold the ball up? Probably not as I think I would already be thinking that the attacker is in the process of trying to ground the ball and to hold him up would be a very skilful play. Would I be correct? Technically no but I would like to find one ref who, at full speed, would be likely to PK the defender and award a PT.

Your view, is / will be agreed by some. [many?] but my personal view is such an approach leaves all referees exposed to the inconsistency criticism, which in general does none of us any favours. In this case the LoTG are clear, not ambiguous, so we should apply them consitently irrespective of field position, players/coaches can't complain about that can they[?!]

 

[Davet]

the only way left is illegal; to use the back arm to parry.

Which I think is what I don't understand about fencing.

Surely, in the beginning, the winner was the one who ended up still living at the end of it - and how that was achieved was surely not the point.

How has it come to be that there are rules, and you should allow your opponent to "kill" or "wound" you rather than break them?

I can - I guess - understand why the sport version would not allow you to whip out a small dagger and use that - and similar things that detract from the contest of one person with a particular type of blade against another similarly armed person - but how did what seems to be a stylistic issue creep in? Or am I simply ignorant of say the dangers of a "back arm parry" if used against a lethal blade... eg if used against a blunt weapon it will prevent an attack, but if used against a "real" weapon you'd simply succeed in slicing off your arm...?

Genuine query out of interest only... no hidden agenda.