Contact with ref....Try awarded!

[Decorily]

Had a scenario at weekend which I am not sure I handled appropriately.

As follows....Red picking and driving towards Black goal line from 5m. 4 phases later and I had to come around to have a close look to see if Red were over. Just as I came around and had a look in at close quarters Red player picked and came low and hard over the line. He connected with my knee (standing in-goal) and lost ball forward.

I was of the opinion that if he had not connected with me he would undoubtably have scored.

I awarded a try an took some stick for doing so after the game.

Was I right or should I have awarded a scrum 5 to red?

 

[andyscott]

Seems simple enought to me

6.A.9 The ball touching the referee
(a)
If the ball or the ball carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues. If either team gains an advantage in the field of play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.
(b)
If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.(c)
If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of a defending player, the referee awards a touch down where the contact took place.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Simple enough Andy but on the spur of the moment great call by Decorily

 

[andyscott]

Yeah I agree mate, but simple enough to clarify.

 

[Camquin]

It should descrie what to do if the ref gets in the way of a pass in goal - I assume we would go to scrum 5 put in to the side that last played the ball.

Sorry been nit picking drat computing standards all week looking for small holes - I know you cannot always apply the same rigour to our laws.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It should descrie what to do if the ref gets in the way of a pass in goal - I assume we would go to scrum 5 put in to the side that last played the ball.

Sorry been nit picking drat computing standards all week looking for small holes - I know you cannot always apply the same rigour to our laws.

It does...

6.A.9 (a) = the ball touching the referee when the ball is NOT in possession of a player

6.A.9 (b) = the ball touching the referee when the ball IS in possession of a player

ETA

I agree that while 6.A.9 (a) does specify the "Field of Play" rather than the "Playing Area" (which IMO, it should), you can always argue that a loose ball touching the referee in goal is an "irregularity not covered by Law", so apply....

[LAWS]
20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

so in that case, a 5m scrum to the attacking team.


For those who would argue differently, remember that a player in possession is not the same as a team in possession

[LAWS]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its
control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.[/LAWS]

 

[Camquin]

6.A.9 (a) If either team gains an advantage in the field of play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.

FOP does not include In-goal.

6.A.10 probably covers it.


6.A.10 The ball in in-goal touched by non-player

The referee judges what would have happened next and awards a try or a touch down at the place where the ball was touched.

Mind you there are very few cases where you pass in goal. The defense running the ball out to attempt a score in the dying seconds is one of the few occasions I have seen it.

 

[Decorily]

Thanks for your responses....thought I had made the right decision at the time but only afterwards when I was questioned on it did I start to have doubts!!!

 

[menace]

As follows....Red picking and driving towards Black goal line from 5m. 4 phases later and I had to come around to have a close look to see if Red were over. Just as I came around and had a look in at close quarters Red player picked and came low and hard over the line. He connected with my knee (standing in-goal) and lost ball forward.

I was of the opinion that if he had not connected with me he would undoubtably have scored.
I awarded a try an took some stick for doing so after the game.

Was I right or should I have awarded a scrum 5 to red?

Seems simple enought to me

6.A.9 The ball touching the referee

(b)
If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place..

I'm not disputing this, but rather trying to understand the logic.

Sorry, but I don't see how the attacking team losing the ball when hitting the referee is gaining any advantage (as worded by the law) rather the referee caused a disadvantage, equally it seems a long bow to me to suggest the knock on caused by the ref is somehow an 'advantage' to the defending team? (I can understand how the ref being in the way preventing the defender from tackling the attacker and therefore allowing them to ground the ball). I'm just struggling to see that it's equitable to turn a disadvantage into an advantage and therefore award the try (especially when there was no grounding)? I guess you're deciding on a 'probable' try..but the law doesn't seem to necessarily describe that? (I don't think 6.10A can apply either, as the ref may not have touched the ball in goal)

Happy to be convinced.

I must admit I would have awarded 5m scrum to attacking team.

 

[crossref]

the logic is that if ball hits the ref in goal the ref doesn't have the option of awarding a scrum, he has to award either a try or a touchdown

 

[andyscott]

I'm not disputing this, but rather trying to understand the logic.

Sorry, but I don't see how the attacking team losing the ball when hitting the referee is gaining any advantage (as worded by the law) rather the referee caused a disadvantage, equally it seems a long bow to me to suggest the knock on caused by the ref is somehow an 'advantage' to the defending team? (I can understand how the ref being in the way preventing the defender from tackling the attacker and therefore allowing them to ground the ball). I'm just struggling to see that it's equitable to turn a disadvantage into an advantage and therefore award the try (especially when there was no grounding)? I guess you're deciding on a 'probable' try..but the law doesn't seem to necessarily describe that? (I don't think 6.10A can apply either, as the ref may not have touched the ball in goal)

Happy to be convinced.

I must admit I would have awarded 5m scrum to attacking team.

Cool,

If EITHER team gains an advantage in in-goal, (so the defending team has as gained the advantage as the attacking team have lost it) if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place..

 

[winchesterref]

6.A.9 (a) - 2 sentences.
The ball or the ball carrier hits the referee, neither team gains an advantage, play on.
If a team gains an advantage in the field of play then scrum down - this sentence is where the field of play bit applies.

6.A.9 (b) and (c) deal with what happens if the advantage to either side occurs in goal.

The ball hitting the referee from a pass is covered in (a).

This is how I've always interpreted it anyway....! Always thought the pass thing counted as not being in possession, so b/c couldn't apply.

I just assumed ball hitting the referee is included as a scrum option, sounds like I misread it... so a pass in goal hitting the referee, can that be awarded as a scrum or not? Surely can't be a try/touch down - I'd go with the irregularity thing from Ian!

 

[menace]

the logic is that if ball hits the ref in goal the ref doesn't have the option of awarding a scrum, he has to award either a try or a touchdown

Yes..but the ball didn't hit the ref, the player did..and then lost the ball forward.

I know it's symantics, and badly worded law (what's new) but you could argue that law 6A.9 refers to the ball hitting the ref...but the part a) where it includes 'or ball carrier' is to only refer to scenarios in a, and not apply to 6A.9.b or c?

Andy's post where he argues that the defending side gained an advantage by the attacker knocking on seems logical enough. I still think it's a bit of a long bow to draw...but I understand the logic of it. I get it.

It just doesn't seem right to award a try when it's so obviously lost forward, but the law appears to cover it sufficiently. Ill have to remember it now!

 

[menace]

If 6A.9 were meaning to have the 'ball carrier touching referee' applying to parts b and c wouldn't it be better to word it as

"6.A.9 The ball or ball carrier touching the referee

If the ball or the ball carrier touches the referee and;

(a) neither team gains an advantage, play continues. If either team gains an advantage in the field of play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.

(b) either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.

(c) either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of a defending player, the referee awards a touch down where the contact took place.

 

[menace]

6.A.9 (a) - 2 sentences.
The ball or the ball carrier hits the referee, neither team gains an advantage, play on.
If a team gains an advantage in the field of play then scrum down - this sentence is where the field of play

6.A.9 (b) and (c) deal with what happens if the advantage to either side occurs in goal.

The ball hitting the referee from a pass is covered in (a).

This is how I've always interpreted it anyway....! Always thought the pass thing counted as not being in possession, so b/c couldn't apply.

I just assumed ball hitting the referee is included as a scrum option, sounds like I misread it... so a pass in goal hitting the referee, can that be awarded as a scrum or not? Surely can't be a try/touch down - I'd go with the irregularity thing from Ian!

Furthermore, as I said above, b and c don't explicitly or even necessarily imply covering the ball carrier hitting the referee in-goal?