Defender Held Up In-Goal

pwhaling


Referees in America
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
279
Post Likes
16
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

22.10 Ball held up in-goal
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,542
Post Likes
809
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

22.10 Ball held up in-goal
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?

I thought you were correct but then I thought about it and I think you may be wrong. The more I think about it I'm tending to agree with your Society view although I can appreciate where you are coming from.

I think I would concentrateon the who put it in goal bit and less of the player held up although the same could be said for attackers carrying the ball into in-goal and getting held up.

I honestly don't know and will watch this thread with interest! :biggrin:

Hopefully the decision you made was sold with a swagger and a degree of élan. Don't forget bullshit baffles brains!
 

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
I'll give it a go... :confused:

I believe Pwhaling was.... Drum roll.... Correct :clap:

Because:
1. Law 22.10 doesn't precise attacking vs. defending
2. Law 22.9 (just before) describes what happen for defending player in in-goal
3. Law 22.11 called "Ball dead in in-goal" doesn't cover held-up
4. It is in-line with law 22.15 "Doubt about grounding" which gives scrum attacking team

What do you think LLP? :biggrin:

Cheers,
Pierre.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
It's a great question.
Attacking 5m scrum feels rght, to me
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

22.10 Ball held up in-goal
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?

The law you quote covers the situation. Those who have doubts (including your Society) presumably follow the "who took it into in-goal" principle - which works for pretty much every other situation. The question is ... is there a law that supports them?

The principle derives from law 22.11, and specifies the ways that the ball is made dead if that law is to apply. 20.10 specifies a different way for the ball to become dead, and a different outcome. 22.10 immediately precedes 22.11, so it seems clear that it is intended to stand on its own.

You were correct; your Society is wrong. I'd have got it wrong too, without the luxury of time to review the texts.
 

Womble

Facebook Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,277
Post Likes
47
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
Is the aw specific that it should be attacking put in? why not defending put in? Attacking team held up in goal. scrum 5 attacking put in. Defending team held up in goal, scrum 5 defending put in. Just putting it out there as I have no law book here but would make rugby sense to me
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
So, here's one from Saturday.

Attackers kick into in-goal. Defender picks up the ball (no attempt to ground) and gets swarmed and the ball gets held up.

I awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum because:

22.10 Ball held up in-goal
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.


makes no mention of attacking vs defending player held up.

Society meeting said I was wrong, should have been a 22 drop out.

Where do others fall on this?

Did the defending side revolt?
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
Is the aw specific that it should be attacking put in? why not defending put in? Attacking team held up in goal. scrum 5 attacking put in. Defending team held up in goal, scrum 5 defending put in. Just putting it out there as I have no law book here but would make rugby sense to me

[LAWS]22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]
 

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,513
Post Likes
223
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Like Dixie, my initial thought was 22m would be the answer, however he argues a very good point and one with which I find myself agreeing.

Thanks for bringing this scenario to light and one awaits some form of WR clarification on this point
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
If we go by the law book, it's a 5m attacking scrum.
I would have got it wrong in the game.

Learn something every day.
 

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Perhaps one for the SArefs, could be an interesting response? I've asked Laws@RFU too.
 
Last edited:

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
975
Post Likes
63
I too think that on the day - if it was prior to last week when we had a similar scenario with a maul going in and out of the in-goal - I too would have applied the who brought it in logic to award a 22-drop.

But now I think 5m attacking scrum is the correct decision.
 

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Response from Laws@........

hi
Apologies for the late answer but I have been asking around the office and colleagues and no one has ever seen what you have described. We all agreed he was a Wally and should have touched the ball down for a 22 metre drop out but as he missed that opportunity it is a 5 metre scrum attack ball.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Response from Laws@........

hi
Apologies for the late answer but I have been asking around the office and colleagues and no one has ever seen what you have described. We all agreed he was a Wally and should have touched the ball down for a 22 metre drop out but as he missed that opportunity it is a 5 metre scrum attack ball.

Agreed he was a Wally
, isnt exactly a professional reply.


Did they try asking the office tea lady?!! , seriously though, does anyone know who these office/colleagues are? that possess the authority to share such opinion! ?
 

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6

Agreed he was a Wally
, isnt exactly a professional reply.


Did they try asking the office tea lady?!! , seriously though, does anyone know who these office/colleagues are? that possess the authority to share such opinion! ?

I believe that one of them IS Tony Spreadbury
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
I believe that one of them IS Tony Spreadbury

LOL.

What's he doing in the 'referees dept', surely he should be out heading up 'developing professional referees' !:biggrin:

Wombles suggested logic makes more sense, Its possible that 22.10 omits forgets that a defender' could get held up, otherwise law might have said

. [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Whenever a ball is held and not grounded inside the in-goal area, a 5-metre scrum is awarded with the attacking team throwing in the ball.[/FONT]
 
Top