Coach in In Goal

[Stuartg]

So did I get it right or not?

U17 game with reds 12-7 up and attacking near the green line. Green recover the ball and the SH passes it back into in-goal. He thinks it's one of his players but it's not. It's his own side's coach who has encroached into the in-goal area. The ball hits the coach and bounces towards a red player who puts it down for a try (he thinks). I did not have a clue what to do!! I decided to give an attacking/red scrum 5 metres out - as a result red did not score from this period of play. In the end red won comfortably 33-7 so the incident had no impact on the overall result.

At the time I was so taken aback by the coach's presence all I could say was 'You're not supposed to be there!' He was not on the field for an injury but had perhaps got carried away by his immersion in the game. The red coaches, even at the time, were very good about it joking that it was a novel defensive strategy!

Having now had time to think it over I believe I should have awarded a try. What does the panel think?

 

[Phil E]

On the spur of the moment I would have done the same thing.

 

[Taff]

So did I get it right or not? ... Having now had time to think it over I believe I should have awarded a try. What does the panel think?

For what it's worth I reckon you were right the first time, ie attacking 5m scrum.

What I was told was if the ball hit a member of the public / coach / waterboy etc was to imagine what would probably have happened if the offending coach etc wasn't there. In this case the SH would probably have passed it from the FOP, through in goal and over the DBL ie defending team had put it in-goal and made it dead ie .... 5m attacking scrum.

 

[Robert Burns]

You got it right. You can't award the try because it was touched by a non player.

There is a law ruling about this. Have a look in the wiki, but your scrum 5 was an excellent and correct call.

Well done.

 

[OB..]

La 6.A.10 [LAWS]The ball in in-goal touched by a non-player
The referee judges what would have happened next and awards a try or touch down at the place where the ball was touched.[/LAWS]
This follows the pattern of 6.A.9 (b) & (c) about the ball touching the referee in in-goal.

I must say it seems odd that the referee is apparently not allowed to judge that ball would have gone straight out. However I would not have been very sympathetic towards the Green coach if he had effectively given away a try. If it had been the Red coach, a try would have been manifestly unfair.

You may like to know that in 1886 the RFU decided that a dog in in-goal did not count as a spectator.

 

[didds]

I suppsoe the real point here from the OP is that the pass woud not have been at the green coach had he not been there because the s/h thought green coach was a greebn player. In effect he dunmmied his own side.

I suspect had you awarded the try nobody would have really been in a position to argue, but it seems your call was correct in law - well done

didds

 

[Dixie]

I agree that your call was correct. Of course, you should then direct him to the (notional) technical areas between the 10m and half way lines, and explained that he should have been there by concession. As he's now interfering with play by illegally wandering around, he has to be where he should have been in the absence of the concession - which is behind the barrier, at least 5m from the touchline. I see you ref at L.10 so don't have a barrier; your spectators etc are probably ON the line itself. Don't let that stop you; if he encroaches within 5m and does anything to interfere with play again, order him somewhere so far away you can't even see him - and refuse to restart until he's gone.

 

[OB..]

it seems your call was correct in law
didds

Which law? 6.A.10 seems to say that the referee has to choose between a try and a touch down.

 

[Adam]

I must say it seems odd that the referee is apparently not allowed to judge that ball would have gone straight out. However I would not have been very sympathetic towards the Green coach if he had effectively given away a try. If it had been the Red coach, a try would have been manifestly unfair.

I reckon you can read the law in such a way that you can rule that neither a try nor a touch down must be awarded as it's clarifying where the mark for the conversion (or 5-metre scrum) would be if either of those options were taken.

 

[didds]

sorry OB... I was following - maybe naively! - the other ref's calls on this.

In which case then I retact that and thus say

Technically then i do not believe in all honestly the laws cover this scenario. How can the ref decide what is likely to have happened had the coach not been there - because the ball only got passed there because the coach was mistaken as a player standing soemwhere he shouldn't have. the "beam me up scotty" situation would actually alter the s/h#s decision to pass the ball at the coach.

If I had to whistle it? I'd probably award the try under equity. In that it is not red's fault that the green coach broke the laws and ended up embarrasing his own team. Though that only really works if you really know that it was the green coach - and not the red coach wearing green and creating the situation! If the line of thinking however is "what if the green coach HAD been a green player then the answer is we might reasonably expect a lineout to red 15m out from a clearing kick. Which is not an option.

I reckon whatever you award nobody can realistically disagree - the laws simply don;t really fit this and so you can pick an interpretation to justify your decsion.

didds

 

[andyscott]

I would PK the team for having to many players on the pitch, possibly give a PT.
I would then RC the coach. Report it to the league.

It winds me up no end, its a crap vantage point, but coaches think its good, and they know the laws.
Why do they insist on it?

 

[OB..]

didds - I don't think the law makes much sense, but I don't think it is ambiguous.

Pragmatically I would be happy with a referee awarding a 5m scrum if the ball would clearly have gone out. I would discuss it with the referee afterwards to make sure he knew the law, but not make a fuss about it.

 

[Davet]

Green put the ball in their own ingoal.

Ref must judge what would have happened next.

If he judges a try would be scored he awards it.

If, as seems he did in this case, he judges the ball would have gone dead in goal he awards a touchdown.

Given Green put it in goal the a 5m scrim attacking ball is correct.

 

[Robert Burns]

The law ruling I referred to:

[LAWS]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling: 2-2005
Union: FFR
Law Reference: 6
Date: 1 April '05

Request

The FFR has requested a ruling with regard Law 6-Match Officials

Law 6 A.12 stipulates for “a ball in the in-goal touched by a non player”. In such situation, the referee considers what would have had occurred after this incident and will blow for a try or a touch in goal where the ball would have been grounded.

However, nothing is stipulated in the event of a person who is not a player touching the ball, intentionally or not, in the field of play or hinders the ball carrier or any other player who is in the position to intervene in the play. Would you please rule on the following scenarios?

1. A person from the technical staff (coach, physio, doctor, water carrier) unintentionally touches the ball or unintentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.

2. A person from the technical staff (coach, physio, doctor, water carrier) intentionally touches the ball or intentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.

3. An exterior element (spectator) unintentionally or intentionally touches the ball or unintentionally or intentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.

4. An exterior element (animal) touches the ball or hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.

Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

1. The referee shall judge what would have happened next. If either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.

2. The above scenario in 1. is applied whether it was intentional or unintentional.

3. The referee shall judge what would have happened next. If either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.

4. The above scenario in 3. is applied.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

The law ruling I referred to:

[LAWS]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling: 2-2005
Union: FFR
Law Reference: 6
Date: 1 April '05

Request

The FFR has requested a ruling with regard Law 6-Match Officials

Law 6 A.12 stipulates for “a ball in the in-goal touched by a non player”. In such situation, the referee considers what would have had occurred after this incident and will blow for a try or a touch in goal where the ball would have been grounded.

However, nothing is stipulated in the event of a person who is not a player touching the ball, intentionally or not, in the field of play or hinders the ball carrier or any other player who is in the position to intervene in the play. Would you please rule on the following scenarios?
[/LAWS]

Because of the bit in bold, that Ruling does not apply here.

The wording of Law 6.A.10 has remained the same since 2000 (though renumbered a couple of times).

The wording in 1999 was more specific
[LAWS]
Notes:- (i) If the ball, while in play in In-goal at either
end but not held by a player, touches the referee, a touch
judge, or a spectator, a touch-down shall be awarded
provided that a touch-down would otherwise have been
obtained or the ball would have gone into touch-in-goal or
on or over the dead ball line.



(ii) If the ball while in play in In-goal at either end, but
not held by a player, touches the referee, a touch judge, or
a spectator, a try shall be awarded at that place provided
an attacking player would otherwise have scored it.



(iii) When the ball touches a spectator in either of the
above cases, if the referee is in doubt, the award shall be
made to the visiting team if that team is the defending team
under (i) or the attacking team under (ii). [/LAWS]

The current law is much shorter but inadequate.

 

[didds]

ts a crap vantage point, but coaches think its good

???

how else do you see how backlines are aligning? Standing on the sidelines 90 degrees to the action won't show you that?

Not that standing IN goal is any better than standing behind the DBL naturally - I'm not condoning standing in-goal.

And sometimes standing behind the posts (and DBL!) is the only place to get any peace and quiet and to get away from the Vps and committee members all passing advice! ;-)

didds

didds

 

[didds]

Green put the ball in their own ingoal.

Ref must judge what would have happened next.

If he judges a try would be scored he awards it.

If, as seems he did in this case, he judges the ball would have gone dead in goal he awards a touchdown.

Given Green put it in goal the a 5m scrim attacking ball is correct.

All fine - except

Q: WHY did green put it in goal?

If you use the beam-me-up-scotty approach - then green wouldn't have put it in-goal to start with. You can't have one without the other.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

I'd go with Red 5 metre scrum.

What if Red had been attacking, put a grubber kick through which then hit the Green coach? 22 drop out would seem unfair.

 

[Taff]

Green put the ball in their own ingoal. Ref must judge what would have happened next. If he judges a try would be scored he awards it. If, as seems he did in this case, he judges the ball would have gone dead in goal he awards a touchdown.

This is exactly how I understood it, but having read OBs post ie

6.A.10 seems to say that the referee has to choose between a try and a touch down.

the book doesn't seem to give us that option. I think it's badly worded, but that's what it says. On the one hand it says judge what would have happened next, but you must decide between a try and a touchdown.

What if you judge it was neither a try or a touchdown and that the ball would have been passed over the DBL?

 

[Account Deleted]

All fine - except

Q: WHY did green put it in goal?

If you use the beam-me-up-scotty approach - then green wouldn't have put it in-goal to start with. You can't have one without the other.

didds

Why does it matter why green put the ball back into their in-goal area? There are many reason why and none are relevant to what happens next. Just stay with the facts.