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

[Rassie]

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.

I am glad you brought that up. How many times the weekend have I seen that. Why was the guy offside and stop the ball going further when the defending team were short on numbers vs the attacking team with a overlap and quickball?
Common sense that one but then we see the dreaded penalty for offside

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

Nope, this was not a tackle, it was a "Law 14 situation"


[LAWS]LAW 14 DEFINITION
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]

The problem is that Law 14 applies everywhere in the playing area, whereas Law 15 (tackle) only applies in the field of play, i.e. it does not apply in-goal, and it doesn't mean that you can't tackle (verb) a player in goal, it just means that if you do and even if you bring them to ground, it is not a tackle (noun).

Some sort of Law similar to 15.1 but applying to Law 14 would be useful, and would clear things up immensely

[LAWS]LAW 15.1 WHERE CAN A TACKLE TAKE PLACE
A tackle can only take place in the field of play.[/LAWS]

Proposed law amendment;

LAW 14 DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground, in the field of play, 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 the field of play, in possession of the ball and has
not been tackled.

 

[Rassie]

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?

Sorry technically I did not explain it right to what I meant.

Take my example for instance. Winger dashes for the goal line couple of meters before it he slides where momentum takes him over. I am sure you have seen this a 100 times. As he slides a defender who will come in and slide early as well in a last ditch effort. What is the difference between those situations and the current one?

Is it illegal to tackle a player on the ground?

 

[RobLev]

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?

Fortunately, it's not a decision I'd be called upon to make; but yes, I'd have thought you would.

In this instance, the #8 is already down, but a good meter short of the line, when Aki starts going down on him; it's (IMHO) difficult to see that as accidental.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry technically I did not explain it right to what I meant.

Take my example for instance. Winger dashes for the goal line couple of meters before it he slides where momentum takes him over. I am sure you have seen this a 100 times. As he slides a defender who will come in and slide early as well in a last ditch effort. What is the difference between those situations and the current one?

Is it illegal to tackle a player on the ground?

Yes. Law 14.2(a) - quoted at the top of the thread.

 

[Rassie]

Fortunately, it's not a decision I'd be called upon to make; but yes, I'd have thought you would.

In this instance, the #8 is already down, but a good meter short of the line, when Aki starts going down on him; it's (IMHO) difficult to see that as accidental.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes. Law 14.2(a) - quoted at the top of the thread.

Last question though if he slided with his feet further out where it would cross the goal line before the attacker and he fell on Read would that be deem legal?

 

[damo]

Well I never. At our refs meeting tonight one of the refs asked the question whether it should have been a PT. It seems I wasn't the only one screaming at the TV.

Last question though if he slided with his feet further out where it would cross the goal line before the attacker and he fell on Read would that be deem legal?

Can you rephrase this question Rassie; I can't quite understand what you are getting at here.

 

[OB..]

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.

That's known as defence.

I feel this is getting too legalistic. I don't think anyone is claiming the action was dangerous. If we are arguing about the precise point at which contact was made, or whether he fell on top of the ball carrier or beside him, or whether the ball carrier was moving or not, we are dealing with factors that cannot realistically be taken into account by the players because they have to act on instinct. Some instincts have to be suppressed (ask Dylan Hartley!), but in this case I thought it was a brilliant bit of defending to prevent the attacker touching down, and it did not offend my sense of how the game should be played. I would therefore interpret the laws as allowing it.

It's an arguable point, but we cannot expect robotic unanimity. even if the laws were better written.

 

[didds]

If an attacker had done this to a defender tho OB, to prevent a touchdown and to keep the ball off the deck - maybe for a supporting to play to "immediately" [1] rip and score... would you expect it to be allowed?

cheers

didds

[1] not meant in any legal sense... more a "it all happens at pretty much the same time" - dive, twist, rip and score. The attacker has still dived on top of the defender.

 

[Davet]

If you want to get ultra-technical you may ask yourself if the ball carrier going to ground, diving and sliding, has made the ball unplayable by doing so - and if so, then which way would the PK under Law 14 be awarded?

Reading the good-book literally can give you all sorts of rather serious problems - so best not to do that, really.

 

[OB..]

If an attacker had done this to a defender tho OB, to prevent a touchdown and to keep the ball off the deck - maybe for a supporting to play to "immediately" [1] rip and score... would you expect it to be allowed?

cheers

didds

[1] not meant in any legal sense... more a "it all happens at pretty much the same time" - dive, twist, rip and score. The attacker has still dived on top of the defender.

Probably, but the devil is in the detail.

 

[Rassie]

Well I never. At our refs meeting tonight one of the refs asked the question whether it should have been a PT. It seems I wasn't the only one screaming at the TV.


Can you rephrase this question Rassie; I can't quite understand what you are getting at here.

If the defenders feet cross the in goal area then the defender is technically in goal correct?

 

[damo]

If the defenders feet cross the in goal area then the defender is technically in goal correct?

The crucial thing in this situation is where the ball is. Once the ball crosses the line anyone can play it regardless of whether they are on their feet or not.

I think that the words of OB above about not getting overly picky and legalistic on the issue are wise.

 

[FlipFlop]

If the defenders feet cross the in goal area then the defender is technically in goal correct?

Not quite right. Feet must touch the ground, or something on or over the touchline - being in the air doesn't put the defender in touch.

 

[Rassie]

If the defenders feet cross the in goal area then the defender is technically in goal correct?

I am referring to this

22.9 DEFENDING PLAYER IN IN-GOAL
(a) A defending player who has part of one foot in in-goal is considered to have both feet in ingoal.

Lets say the defender came from the side and fell on the attacker busy sliding forward towards the goal line. The defender both feet is behind the goal line when he slides in and make contact with the attacker on the ground.

Still a penalty?

 

[damo]

I am referring to this



Lets say the defender came from the side and fell on the attacker busy sliding forward towards the goal line. The defender both feet is behind the goal line when he slides in and make contact with the attacker on the ground.

Still a penalty?

22.9 is a section which is entirely to do with the issue of whether it was the defenders or attackers that put the ball into goal. I think it is irrelevant to the situation at hand because we are concerned about where the ball is, not where the defenders are.

 

[Rassie]

22.9 is a section which is entirely to do with the issue of whether it was the defenders or attackers that put the ball into goal. I think it is irrelevant to the situation at hand because we are concerned about where the ball is, not where the defenders are.

Understood.

Coming back to this situation. The Chiefs defender did nothing to harm Read or block the ball. He does not make the ball unplayable.

These laws

Law 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
(b) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Can anyone define "lying on the ground for me"? I am sure one can not include a player sliding towards the goal line as lying on the ground.

 

[damo]

Can anyone define "lying on the ground for me"? I am sure one can not include a player sliding towards the goal line as lying on the ground.

Good question. That is something I hadn't really considered. Perhaps you have cracked the case. These terms are often not defined so as to enable a referee to make a sensible decision that is not too rigidly defined.

If we say that Read is not lying on the ground then what Aki did is probably not illegal in terms of 14.2.

 

[Browner]

Good question. That is something I hadn't really considered. Perhaps you have cracked the case. These terms are often not defined so as to enable a referee to make a sensible decision that is not too rigidly defined.

If we say that Read is not lying on the ground then what Aki did is probably not illegal in terms of 14.2.

Yep, I found myself nodding ..........
a] a player who is 'static' & therefore lying on the ground is protected by 14.2
b] a player who is moving, sliding, scrambling, diving, rolling trying to regain feet isn't protected

but then ....

my best guess says that Law was designed to protect a player who drops down onto the ball to recover possession from being dropped on by another with some velocity most likely because he's vunerable & his body is forced to absorb the majority of the impact [aka crushed] because it has a unmoveable object beneath it - the pitch. [safety concerns]

??

 

[didds]

my best guess says that Law was designed to protect a player who drops down onto the ball to recover possession from being dropped on by another with some velocity most likely because he's vunerable & his body is forced to absorb the majority of the impact [aka crushed] because it has a unmoveable object beneath it - the pitch. [safety concerns]

??

which would fit with the video way up there ^^^ - wouldn't it?

didds

 

[Davet]

Which is the question I asked in #49 -

1) Has a ball carrier diving and sliding for the line made the ball unplayable by going off his feet?

Or,

2) is the ball still playable? In which case surely players can go to ground themselves in an attempt to play it?

If they can't then surely 1 above must be true, in which case that ball carrier, diving and sliding for the line, should be penalised....