Double movement

[Taff]

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?

Sorry, but what second offence? In fact I can't even see a first offence.

He tripped over his own feet and tried to get up. I can't see the problem. I would have given the try.

If he wasn't tackled surely he's fine to do this?

Exactly. If he'd been tackled, that changes everything - but he wasn't tackled.

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?

Why would anyone want to effect a tackle? Just go for the ball - you'll either get the ball, or a PK for the man on the ground not releasing.

... 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".

Perhaps the law should read "Where possible the game is to be played by players who are on their feet". After all, as written it isn't 100% accurate anyway, because players on the ground are allowed to reach out and score, players on the ground are allowed to pass the ball etc etc.

 

[OB..]

He reached out to score, but the ball was a yard short.

Sorry, but what second offence? In fact I can't even see a first offence.

The OP makes clear the basis for theoffence. Surely you would have penalised a tackled player who subsequently moved his body forward without getting to his feet first?

He tripped over his own feet and tried to get up. I can't see the problem.

Apparently he did not actually get up. That is technically the problem.

Perhaps the law should read "Where possible the game is to be played by players who are on their feet".

Why? If was perfectly possible for the player to regain his feet

After all, as written it isn't 100% accurate anyway, because players on the ground are allowed to reach out and score, players on the ground are allowed to pass the ball etc etc.

Passing the ball is specifically permitted. Reaching out is allowed in a tackle. I would allow it in a Law 14 situation, because the two are so similar in that respect. However both 14 and 15 require a player to get to his feet otherwise before playing the ball again. 14 even allows him to get up holding the ball.

I think the point is to agree that failing to get up properly was technically illegal, and then discuss when/if a sanction or just a warning was appropriate.

 

[Taff]

The OP makes clear the basis for the offence.

The OP says the BC fell over and the Ref penalised him for "double movement". Falling over isn't an offence and the OP is asking whether the "double movement" penalty was right. I would say it wasn't.

.. Surely you would have penalised a tackled player who subsequently moved his body forward without getting to his feet first?

Yes, but the BC wasn't tackled. As I said, if he had been tackled it changes everything.

 

[OB..]

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.

The OP says the BC fell over and the Ref penalised him for "double movement". Falling over isn't an offence and the OP is asking whether the "double movement" penalty was right. I would say it wasn't.

I have put the relevant part of the OP in bold.

"Shove yourself forward" is not listed as a valid action in Law 14. Given the assertion that players should be on their feet, it would be curious to interpret "get up with the ball" as permitting actions that are expressly forbidden elsewhere.

 

[Browner]

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.

Critical - i agree , necessary.

But for the host of immaterials!!! Really???? Wouldnt this involve the referee in a virtually permanent running dialogue with players that are near him, semi inviting a communication exchange???? I wouldn't want to do that, ever.

 

[Taff]

OK. Imagine a BC was haring towards downfield and gets tap-tackled. He stumbles about 5 metres, falls to the ground and the Referee shouts "Not held. Play on." The BC then scrambles on the ground for about another metre or two before eventually getting back to his feet.

Do we expect that BC to immediately release the ball before getting back on his feet?

If not - why not? And if not - what's the difference between this and the OP?

 

[OB..]

OK. Imagine a BC was haring towards downfield and gets tap-tackled. He stumbles about 5 metres, falls to the ground and the Referee shouts "Not held. Play on." The BC then scrambles on the ground for about another metre or two before eventually getting back to his feet.

Do we expect that BC to immediately release the ball before getting back on his feet?

If not - why not? And if not - what's the difference between this and the OP?

A tap tackle is not a tackle under Law 15.

 

[Taff]

A tap tackle is not a tackle under Law 15.

But the BC in the OP wasn't tackled either. He just fell over his own feet.

So in the example I gave in Post 26, would we expect the BC to release the ball before getting back on his feet or not?

I still reckon we wouldn't and can't see any difference between the example and the OP.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

A tap tackle is not a tackle under Law 15.

But the BC in the OP wasn't tackled either. He just fell over his own feet.

So in the example I gave in Post 26, would we expect the BC to release the ball before getting back on his feet or not?

I still reckon we wouldn't and can't see any difference between the example and the OP.

Taff, i think OB is telling us to use Law 14 not 15 in this case. Tap tacklee must follow law 14

 

[OB..]

Taff, i think OB is telling us to use Law 14 not 15 in this case. Tap tacklee must follow law 14

Yes indeed, thank you.

Taff's #26 and the OP are both Law 14 issues and the question is whether "get up with the ball" means the player has to get to his feet or could move himself forward some other way in order to reach out for the goal-line. I maintain that it does mean "get to his feet".

That is a question of law. Whether or not you apply the appropriate sanction in a particular case is as ever a matter of judgement.

 

[chbg]

But the BC in the OP wasn't tackled either. He just fell over his own feet.

So in the example I gave in Post 26, would we expect the BC to release the ball before getting back on his feet or not?

I still reckon we wouldn't and can't see any difference between the example and the OP.

Law 14 - he must: get up with the ball; pass the ball; or release the ball. (Post #4)

So as long as you consider that he is trying to get to his feet, which can be with the ball, then he is complying with Law.

 

[OB..]

Law 14 - he must: get up with the ball; pass the ball; or release the ball. (Post #4)

So as long as you consider that he is trying to get to his feet, which can be with the ball, then he is complying with Law.

You don't think it is necessary to succeed? For me he should get to a position where only his feet are in contact with the ground, however he does not have to be in balance. I think that is something the referee can judge relatively easily.

 

[Dickie E]

Law 14 - he must: get up with the ball; pass the ball; or release the ball. (Post #4)

So as long as you consider that he is trying to get to his feet, which can be with the ball, then he is complying with Law.

I agree. Likley to be a quite dynamic situation with lots of movement. I would allow play to continue in Taff's scenario.

 

[matty1194]

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 ?

On reading the OP

I would award the score and just get on with the game - sometimes referees just look for reasons to get involved - are some referees becoming to precious?

If a player as stated in the OP falls over his own feet then he has not been tackled, he is clear through to score the try and in the OP no mention is made of players being in the immediate area to prevent a try or attempt to tackle a player that has fallen over his own feet the argument of preventing a player being able to tackle doesnt stand up with me.

Award the score and get on with the game.

The only thing this player would be getting off me would be the nomination for dick of the day for falling over short of the line :shrug:

 

[Taff]

Taff, i think OB is telling us to use Law 14 not 15 in this case. Tap tacklee must follow law 14

I think I can see what you're driving at. Law 15 doesn't apply because in neither case (ie my example or the OP) has there been a tackle. The BC is only obliged to release if he's been tackled, and if he goes to ground (either with the ball or to gather the ball) then he can get up with the ball. What we are arguing over then is what does "getting up" mean. OB obviously wants to see the BC on his feet. Personally I reckon a good effort to get up is good enough.

Law 14 - he must: get up with the ball; pass the ball; or release the ball. (Post #4)
So as long as you consider that he is trying to get to his feet, which can be with the ball, then he is complying with Law.

I agree. Likley to be a quite dynamic situation with lots of movement. I would allow play to continue in Taff's scenario.

For what it's worth, that is exactly how I see it.

Dickie, if you would allow play to continue in my example, presumably you would have awarded a try in the OP.

 

[Dickie E]

Dickie, if you would allow play to continue in my example, presumably you would have awarded a try in the OP.

Probably.

 

[OB..]

OB obviously wants to see the BC on his feet. Personally I reckon a good effort to get up is good enough.

We are not that far apart in fact, since I do not expect him to actually be balanced on his feet. However I think my criterion is simpler than yours: the player should at some stage have only his feet on the ground.

 

[ChrisR]

From the OP description I would award the try. However, OB posted earlier:

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?

This raises the question of degree. Without a defender anywhere near how much latitude would you give this guy? A foot? A yard? Ten feet? If it were the Cup Final or the 5th side?

If a defender was in the picture would you consider it a tackle if he grasped (held) the BC after he hit the deck? I would but I think I'd be in a minority on that point.

 

[OB..]

From the OP description I would award the try. However, OB posted earlier:

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?

This raises the question of degree. Without a defender anywhere near how much latitude would you give this guy? A foot? A yard? Ten feet? If it were the Cup Final or the 5th side?

If a defender was in the picture would you consider it a tackle if he grasped (held) the BC after he hit the deck? I would but I think I'd be in a minority on that point.

I'm afraid the only answer is that it is a matter of judgement.