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

[didds]

as I hope my post above highlighted, i see this more of a philosophical debate. If the attacker is in a position whereby the defence cannot legally defend, then the attackers reward is the score. In this case it so happened that in fact a defensive attempt created the almost-impossible defendable position... them's the breaks!

didds

 

[smeagol]

My position is not one regarding allowing a defender to act contrary to the LotG.

My question is, in that position, what can the defender legally do to prevent the try? If we are granting that the defender cannot play the man, should we ping a man who dives down to play at the ball?

 

[Rushforth]

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].

We just had this discussion; where the ball was grounded despite the defender using his arm on the only part he could on the diving defender.

If we go with a momentum interpretation of the game, I'd argue that a defender is within his rights to stop an attacking player in the act of grounding the ball, as long as there is no foul play.

By the letter of the law, yes, this could technically be considered a PT. Or not, see later.

Fair contest? There would be NO contest if the consequence were not only a PT but the obligatory YC for the defender for a PK offence in the zone.

Continuity of play? In a game where a TMO is available, the referee has the luxury of checking if he is correct as to grounding. Imagine that red 8 HAD grounded the ball, their supporters would be "gutted". But the TMO is there to make sure there are no "howlers", similar to DRS in cricket. In any other game, it is either scrum 5 or try where grounded. It is not within the remit of the TMO to mention that is ITMOHO a PT, even less so when that isn't vaguely the question being asked.

Safety? Not an issue, unlike the case of the shortarm.

As to law 14.2, the ball carrier is not "lying on the ground". Lying, similar to sitting and standing, is a verb which to me evokes a certain lack of dynamism, as opposed to such verbs as diving, sliding, walking and running. In other terms, the first derivative of the position of the player as projected onto the line of touch is (near) zero.

Back to fair contest: not giving up when defending is to me just as important as atractive rugby with ball in hand. Brilliant attempt at a try by red! Spirited defence by octarine making the play even better. Correct use of the TMO.

Materiality: I found it attractive rugby. Clearly material, given 5+ or perhaps even an almost certain 7 points available. All that is material though is WAS THE BALL GROUNDED. No it wasn't. Red gets another chance from 5m out, so their brilliant play does not go completely unrewarded.

Question: if you thought this SHOULD have been a PT, do you also agree it MUST be a YC?

 

[Browner]

Question: if you thought this SHOULD have been a PT, do you also agree it MUST be a YC?

I can see your thrust, but PT is sufficient for me.

- - - Updated - - -

If the attacker is in a position whereby the defence cannot legally defend, then the attackers reward is the score.
didds

+1 agree

 

[Browner]

My question is, in that position, what can the defender legally do to prevent the try?

Nothing - unlucky.

His only hope was to commit an offence & hope the referee overlooks/misses or disregards it. it's a long shot, but it's his only shot nevertheless, & sometimes your luck is in !

 

[Rushforth]

I can see your thrust, but PT is sufficient for me.

- - - Updated - - -

+1 agree

I have didds on forum ignore, but will read whatever he has to say over in the other thread. No way to legally defend against a forward pass, under the momentum interpretation.

 

[didds]

My position is not one regarding allowing a defender to act contrary to the LotG.

My question is, in that position, what can the defender legally do to prevent the try? If we are granting that the defender cannot play the man, should we ping a man who dives down to play at the ball?

Yes of course you do! If he did the same thing 10m out you'd PK him. the bottom line is that the attackers have created a situation whereby the defenders cannot stop them from scoring. Kudos to them.

end of.

I'd add that this doesn't mean that a defender shouldn't ATTEMPT to stop the try by a LEGAL action (which discounts diving on top of a grounded player in the FoP) - but if the LEGAL attempt ends up being viewed as ILLEGAL eg a last ditch tackle attempt that accidentally throats a diving player then the repercussions have to be taken.

didds

didds

- - - Updated - - -

I have didds on forum ignore, but will read whatever he has to say over in the other thread. No way to legally defend against a forward pass, under the momentum interpretation.

Other than of course under momentum interpretation it is not a forward pass.

???

didds

 

[Davet]

I have didds on forum ignore,

Your loss.

Didds is one of the goto folks on here to get some sensible opinions.

If you are a "newish" ref then my advice would be to get all the views you can - and putting a coach with a long experience of grass roots rugby on ignore is simply effin stupid.

 

[The Fat]

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[?!]

I think that either you have missed my point or possibly I have failed to make it clearly.
If an attacker hits the ground just short (as I said earlier by say 20cm) of the line and a defender dives in and makes contact on the sliding/rolling/moving forward attacker just before the line (again let's say 20cm), in such a dynamic situation, how many referees who do not have the luxury of a TMO are likely to penalise the defender? I have already said that the action by the defender is technically illegal and therefore penalisable. What I am also saying is that I believe most refs, in that fraction of a second, would already be concentrating on a possible grounding ie: his thought processes have anticipated and jumped to the grounding/non grounding.
If we all had a TMO then we could all go back and ask if the defender fell onto the attacker before crossing the goal line and get the call technically correct 100% of the time. However, in a dynamic situation I'm betting that most of us would get it technically incorrect and be concentrating on the grounding.

 

[damo]

I think that either you have missed my point or possibly I have failed to make it clearly.
If an attacker hits the ground just short (as I said earlier by say 20cm) of the line and a defender dives in and makes contact on the sliding/rolling/moving forward attacker just before the line (again let's say 20cm), in such a dynamic situation, how many referees who do not have the luxury of a TMO are likely to penalise the defender? I have already said that the action by the defender is technically illegal and therefore penalisable. What I am also saying is that I believe most refs, in that fraction of a second, would already be concentrating on a possible grounding ie: his thought processes have anticipated and jumped to the grounding/non grounding.
If we all had a TMO then we could all go back and ask if the defender fell onto the attacker before crossing the goal line and get the call technically correct 100% of the time. However, in a dynamic situation I'm betting that most of us would get it technically incorrect and be concentrating on the grounding.

I agree with much of this. I specifically brought this incident up because I thought with the benefit of slow-mo, the TMO had a really good view of the incident and could see exactly what had happened. I was screaming for a PT after the first replay. A referee without the ability to call up the TMO would find it very difficult to see whether the ball had crossed the line or not before the defender dived on the player and should not guess on an incident like this.

I would not be wholly opposed to a law change which allowed a defender off his feet to play the ball in the case of a ball-carrier reaching out to ground the ball.

 

[RobLev]

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.

Search me:shrug:

Guessing seriously, though. Ignoring different rules on right of way between the weapons, probably the fact that fencing was practice for duelling, and duelling was all about honour. Losing a duel with honour was preferable to winning it without honour - apart from being dead, of course.

 

[Browner]

I think that either you have missed my point or possibly I have failed to make it clearly.
If an attacker hits the ground just short (as I said earlier by say 20cm) of the line and a defender dives in and makes contact on the sliding/rolling/moving forward attacker just before the line (again let's say 20cm), in such a dynamic situation, how many referees who do not have the luxury of a TMO are likely to penalise the defender? I have already said that the action by the defender is technically illegal and therefore penalisable. What I am also saying is that I believe most refs, in that fraction of a second, would already be concentrating on a possible grounding ie: his thought processes have anticipated and jumped to the grounding/non grounding.
If we all had a TMO then we could all go back and ask if the defender fell onto the attacker before crossing the goal line and get the call technically correct 100% of the time. However, in a dynamic situation I'm betting that most of us would get it technically incorrect and be concentrating on the grounding.

Ok, clearer now.
cheers

 

[Browner]

I agree with much of this. I specifically brought this incident up because I thought with the benefit of slow-mo, the TMO had a really good view of the incident and could see exactly what had happened. I was screaming for a PT after the first replay. A referee without the ability to call up the TMO would find it very difficult to see whether the ball had crossed the line or not before the defender dived on the player and should not guess on an incident like this.

I would not be wholly opposed to a law change which allowed a defender off his feet to play the ball in the case of a ball-carrier reaching out to ground the ball.

Problem remains that jumping on the player on the ground is a safety issue isn't it?, so any law change mightn't erradicate this clip. I'm still surprised that following TMO review it wasn't correctly called.

 

[Ian_Cook]

OK, so let me throw a spanner in the works!

The defender has infringed Law 14.2 in order to prevent a try being scored. However, this is not foul play, it is merely an infringement of that Law.

I think that a PT can only be awarded if, but for foul play, a try would have been scored. Every mention in the Laws of the Game regarding of the awarding of a Penlty Try have the following or similar wording

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team"

Perhaps the Law does not permit the awarding of a PT for a mere infringement... for example, can a PT be awarded for hands in the ruck, not releasing in the tackle, not rolling away from a tackle etc... PK infringements that are not foul play?

 

[RobLev]

OK, so let me throw a spanner in the works!

The defender has infringed Law 14.2 in order to prevent a try being scored. However, this is not foul play, it is merely an infringement of that Law.

I think that a PT can only be awarded if, but for foul play, a try would have been scored. Every mention in the Laws of the Game regarding of the awarding of a Penlty Try have the following or similar wording

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team"

Perhaps the Law does not permit the awarding of a PT for a mere infringement... for example, can a PT be awarded for hands in the ruck, not releasing in the tackle, not rolling away from a tackle etc... PK infringements that are not foul play?

Doesn't that depend on whether the infringement is deliberate?

Law 10.2(a)

Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.

Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Doesn't that depend on whether the infringement is deliberate?

Yes, that's the "catch-all", but then the referee would also have to decide if the infringement was deliberate, and the PT would be awarded for deliberate infringement.

What is the threshold for deciding that an infringement is deliberate?

I see a lot of players offside when defending their own goalline (feet in the FoP etc). You could make an argument that all such offending is deliberate, and if one of those offside players tackled a would be try scorer, you would be within your rights to award a PT if you felt the player would probably have scored but for the tackler being offside... but would you?

 

[Browner]

OK, so let me throw a spanner in the works!

The defender has infringed Law 14.2 in order to prevent a try being scored. However, this is not foul play, it is merely an infringement of that Law.

I think that a PT can only be awarded if, but for foul play, a try would have been scored. Every mention in the Laws of the Game regarding of the awarding of a Penlty Try have the following or similar wording

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team"

Perhaps the Law does not permit the awarding of a PT for a mere infringement... for example, can a PT be awarded for hands in the ruck, not releasing in the tackle, not rolling away from a tackle etc... PK infringements that are not foul play?

Foul play Law 10 includes Unfair play 10.2, which also includes Intentionally infringing any law 10.2[a]
So i'd say that if you think it's unintentional then don't PT it, but most awards will fall into one of these x3 categories.

 

[Rassie]

The laws only make provision when the ball has gone to ground and is stationary, This case the tackle was not completed and momentum was still carrying him along. Chiefs defender attempted a tackle? Interesting this cause what is the difference between someone sliding before the goal line and the defender sliding in to make a last ditch tackle? Would basically mean the same thing as this incident.

 

[menace]

The laws only make provision when the ball has gone to ground and is stationary, This case the tackle was not completed and momentum was still carrying him along. Chiefs defender attempted a tackle? Interesting this cause what is the difference between someone sliding before the goal line and the defender sliding in to make a last ditch tackle? Would basically mean the same thing as this incident.

As per highlighted bit, I'm not sure where that is in the laws?

So probably a good idea to refresh the definition for law 14.

[LAWS]This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.

It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.[/LAWS]

So IMO nothing about applying only when ball goes to ground nor it being stationary.

I've highlighted some important points as to when I think law 14 is in play and therefore what all players, and particularly the defenders, must do (or not do).

Does this mean law 14 in this case is still in play?

 

[damo]

OK, so let me throw a spanner in the works!

The defender has infringed Law 14.2 in order to prevent a try being scored. However, this is not foul play, it is merely an infringement of that Law.

I think that a PT can only be awarded if, but for foul play, a try would have been scored. Every mention in the Laws of the Game regarding of the awarding of a Penlty Try have the following or similar wording

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team"

Perhaps the Law does not permit the awarding of a PT for a mere infringement... for example, can a PT be awarded for hands in the ruck, not releasing in the tackle, not rolling away from a tackle etc... PK infringements that are not foul play?

Ha ha, yes I was wondering when someone would bring this up. It was in the back of my mind when I wrote the OP, it is hardly foul play and is arguably not even intentional offending - "sorry sir, I thought the ball was over the line". It is a bit of a stretch to get it under the PT criteria. However I still think that an infringement like this can lead to a PT, at the end of the day it is less about the offending and more about the fact that the team was denied an opportunity to score a try. Is there any discretion to not also give a YC in an incident like this?

If a guy is offside close to the line and runs up to intercept a pass to an unmarked man in the corner, it should also be a PT.