Double movement

[lawsons]

At a game on the weekend, the winger, clear through to score, tripped over his own feet and landed short of the line. He reached out to score, but the ball was a yard short. He then raised himself on one hand, shoved himself forward and reached out again, to put the ball on the line and score the try.

Or so he thought. The ref penalised him for double movement.

Right ?

 

[OB..]

If he moved his body forward without getting to his feet, the referee was technically correct to penalise him.

 

[Taff]

So he just tripped over - not tackled. Correct?

 

[chbg]

A tackled player can release the ball by placing it in any direction immediately. There is no such latitude expressed for a player in possession of the ball on the ground who has not been tackled. He/she must immediately: either get up with the ball; or pass the ball; or release the ball.

The referee was correct, but perhaps he penalised the second offence, by the same player?

 

[talbazar]

The referee was correct, but perhaps he penalised the second offence, by the same player?

Ha ha ha! You mean he should have penalised the "trip"?
Red Card offence that is!

 

[Dickie E]

If he moved his body forward without getting to his feet, the referee was technically correct to penalise him.

Maybe not. The law says:

[LAWS]14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
•Get up with the ball
•Pass the ball
•Release the ball.[/LAWS]

Is "get up with the ball" synonymous with "get to your feet" or perhaps going from a prone position to hands & knees is sufficient?

 

[leaguerefaus]

If he wasn't tackled surely he's fine to do this?
I'd argue the law provided by Dickie E above backs that up!

 

[The Fat]

Nup .

 

[Browner]

If an opponent isnt nearby, then im giving the try, as any offending wasn't a material gain.

If an opponent is close enough to have been disadvantaged by his repositioned thrust forward, then its a PK, as it would be material.

 

[menace]

If he wasn't tackled surely he's fine to do this?
I'd argue the law provided by Dickie E above backs that up!

Nup .

It's not league...leagueref. What Fat means as part of law 14 is
[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.[/LAWS] (I can't understand why this is not part of law 7. :shrug
And
[LAWS]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]

Having said that...like Browner, if there was no defender within cooee of the BC then a half -assed stand up stumble on his knees is good enough.

 

[OB..]

Maybe not. The law says:

[LAWS]14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
•Get up with the ball
•Pass the ball
•Release the ball.[/LAWS]

Is "get up with the ball" synonymous with "get to your feet" or perhaps going from a prone position to hands & knees is sufficient?

You would presumably allow him to crawl along the ground? An opponent would not be allowed to fall on him, so how would he effect a tackle?

As far as I am concerned it has always meant the same as "get to your feet" - after all Law 14 is the one that says "a game is to be played by players who are on their feet".

 

[didds]

being pedantic if a defender was that close presumably the defender would just grab the ball and if the crawler didn't let go would gain a PK.

its presumably a "manage it" scenario rather than a black and white "PK" or "ignore" ? eg If there wasn't a defender within 50m then award the try and have a quiet word afterwards that next time ghe may not be quite so lucky. alteratively if he is surorunded by defenders, then PK.

didds

 

[OB..]

being pedantic if a defender was that close presumably the defender would just grab the ball and if the crawler didn't let go would gain a PK.

The crawler would presumably be holding the ball under his body. How would a defender get to it?

its presumably a "manage it" scenario rather than a black and white "PK" or "ignore" ? eg If there wasn't a defender within 50m then award the try and have a quiet word afterwards that next time ghe may not be quite so lucky. alteratively if he is surorunded by defenders, then PK.

didds

I have some sympathy with that, which I why is said "technically" in my initial response. I would not fault a referee who penalised the player. If the referee allowed the score and did not speak to the player, I would query that.

 

[Browner]

The crawler would presumably be holding the ball under his body. How would a defender get to it?

I have some sympathy with that, which I why is said "technically" in my initial response. I would not fault a referee who penalised the player. If the referee allowed the score and did not speak to the player, I would query that.

I would.
Id say The purpose of this law is to ensure fair access to the ball IF an opponent is seeking it
Definition says [LAWS] [LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular] Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team[/FONT][/LAWS]. [/LAWS]
If none of the defenders are within 50m, then the BC can't have made it unplayable to them , as they weren't in the vicinity to play it ( if you deem them close enough to do so then its a PK)

If that's your criteria, then it follows ....would you expect a referee to similarly 'have a word' after any immaterial interpretation ??

IMO its better to either Penalise OR allow, but not highlight it as a hybrid of both, unless your seeing this as a 'preventative' for next time, in which case 'a word' with all 36 potential participants is needed - to clarify future interpretations ?!!? No, not for me OB, I'd expect to clarify my 'immaterial interpretation' to an enquiring defending captain only.

 

[OB..]

If that's your criteria, then it follows ....would you expect a referee to similarly 'have a word' after any immaterial interpretation ??

As a general rule, yes. You don't want players to get the impression that a particular infringement is acceptable. If it was a Critical Incident, I would regard it as mandatory.

 

[didds]

The crawler would presumably be holding the ball under his body. How would a defender get to it?.

Presumably in much the same way a jackler attempts gets to a ball that is squeezeballed?

The point being whatever is done the defender isn't tackling the player, he is trying to play the ball. any sensible defendern wilkl also at the same time be shouting stuff like "My ball. Must release. I want the ball" etc. ie making it obvious that he is trying to play a ball that he is being illegally prevented from so doing.

ie he doesn;t have to attempt a tackle.

didds

 

[didds]

I would not fault a referee who penalised the player. If the referee allowed the score and did not speak to the player, I would query that.

which is emminently sensible if only to ascertain that the referee had understood what had happened.

didds

 

[OB..]

Presumably in much the same way a jackler attempts gets to a ball that is squeezeballed?

Penalise the squeeze-baller?

The point being whatever is done the defender isn't tackling the player, he is trying to play the ball.

Crawling will probably prevent him from doing either effectively. Which is a good reason to regard it as illegal.

any sensible defendern wilkl also at the same time be shouting stuff like "My ball. Must release. I want the ball" etc. ie making it obvious that he is trying to play a ball that he is being illegally prevented from so doing.

I advise referees to warn players against that sort of comment. Too often the player is wrong anyway. If he is right, it makes it look as if the referee is being told how to decide, so their opponents will try it on as well.

 

[didds]

yeah.. ? I'm not suggesting crawling is legal per se?

you opined that a crawling player couldn't be tackled. Of course not. but a squeeze ball player can;t be tackled either. Defenders don't tackle oppo ball carriers on the floor - they try to play the ball. There wouldn't be any other option available to a defender faced with a crawler.

and yes, of course the crawler would be penalised if he didn't give up the ball to a defender trying to claim the ball.

I'll in future advise my players that the shouts aren't directed at the ref - they are directed at the bugger on the floor holding onto the ball!

;-) <---

didds

 

[OB..]

I'll in future advise my players that the shouts aren't directed at the ref - they are directed at the bugger on the floor holding onto the ball!

;-) <---

didds

Sadly that would not be a new excuse! :sad: Back in 1823 ....