[In-goal] Downward pressure / in control

[Thunderhorse1986]

Debate rising again possibly after incident in the France-Scotland game... comments about control/downward pressure in the act of scoring...

My understanding - if player is holding the ball, they only need to maintain contact with the ball while placing it into in goal (no "downward pressure required", no mention of control in 22.1(a) ). If the ball is in-goal on the floor then we do need downward pressure, but no control needed.

Does Nigel Owens get it wrong here? Can anyone give a definitive answer to the above.

1hr 10 minutes in...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ull-contact-nick-evans-gavin-hastings-listen/

 

[didds]

"Scotland legend Gavin Hastings"

Hogg is multiple times the player Hastings ever was. Irvine was a better FB than GH - and I consider AI a show pony.

didds

 

[didds]

Debate rising again possibly after incident in the France-Scotland game... comments about control/downward pressure in the act of scoring...

My understanding - if player is holding the ball, they only need to maintain contact with the ball while placing it into in goal (no "downward pressure required", no mention of control in 22.1(a) ). If the ball is in-goal on the floor then we do need downward pressure, but no control needed.

Does Nigel Owens get it wrong here? Can anyone give a definitive answer to the above.

1hr 10 minutes in...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ull-contact-nick-evans-gavin-hastings-listen/

As I understand it - NO gets confused here. You do NOT need downward pressure if carrying the ball. All the ball needss to do is touch the grass. I agree that "control" is needed - which I would say means the BC is holding the ball.

ball on the ground already - downward pressure but control is NOT needed.

didds

 

[DocY]

The laws don't say you have to be in control, just that you have to touch the ball down.

The way incidents like the one in question have been being refereed recently has been that if the player didn't obviously lose contact with the ball before it hit the ground, it should be a try.

It's a bugbear of mine. For me, a try should be clear and obvious and the absence of a clear and obvious infringement shouldn't down grade the requirements to award the try.

 

[Crucial]

After a number of debates around tries scored/not scored like this example during Super Rugby, I am fairly sure the refs came to an agreed approach.
If a player has possession of the ball, he maintains possession until the ball is no longer touching him. As soon as there is daylight he's lost possession and if the ball is travelling forward then it's a lost forward. The player cannot regain possession unless catching (not just touching) the ball.
If you reach out and never lose contact, despite maybe only having a finger on the side then the try is scored (if the ball touches ground).
Seems fairly clear and fits in with other interpretations around possession.
It can look funny, but usually because an uneducated commentator is blathering on about 'control' and 'downward pressure', neither of which are required in this situation.

 

[oliver]

It can look funny, but usually because an uneducated commentator is blathering on about 'control' and 'downward pressure', neither of which are required in this situation.

But Nigel Owens mentioned control. Although, I agree. Recently it appeared contact was how "holding" was being refereed. But that goes against the decision in the France v Scotland game.

 

[FlipFlop]

The ruling was that the French player "lost control" of the ball. So the player in possession lost control. No try - knock on.....

I don't think this is "wrong", but it is possible to have other opinions on it.

The question asked was "try or no try", so the TMO had to be clear the try was scored. So I can see why it wasn't given. I suspect if the ref asked "Any reason...." - the try might have been given, as not C&O he did lose control.

Perhaps the best solution here is to apply the "doubt about grounding" (I know this really applies to which team first grounded it, but would be a good extension of teh law).. Scrum to France - doubt about grounding.

 

[DocY]

Perhaps the best solution here is to apply the "doubt about grounding" (I know this really applies to which team first grounded it, but would be a good extension of teh law).. Scrum to France - doubt about grounding.

This is the approach I'd like to see, if neither is C&O.

It's a strange situation in that you don't have the option of playing on if something isn't C&O, which I don't feel is adequately handled at the moment.

 

[ChrisR]

For me the most questionable is when a player loses the ball forward into goal but guides it to the ground with one hand. Knock-on or try? If the ball was kicked into goal and an attacking player guided it to ground with one hand I would expect a try to be awarded.

 

[DocY]

For me the most questionable is when a player loses the ball forward into goal but guides it to the ground with one hand. Knock-on or try? If the ball was kicked into goal and an attacking player guided it to ground with one hand I would expect a try to be awarded.

I'm glad you said "into"

To answer the question, though. For me, it depends how much guiding is involved (I'm reluctant to say "control"). If there was sufficient guiding that the ball could be considered to have been caught, no knock on.

Along similar lines, there was an incident in the French game yesterday - France knock forward, then the same player played the ball back to a team mate. You'd be hard pressed to say he caught it, but it was definitely well controlled and the ref didn't award a knock on.

 

[Phil E]

Along similar lines, there was an incident in the French game yesterday - France knock forward, then the same player played the ball back to a team mate. You'd be hard pressed to say he caught it, but it was definitely well controlled and the ref didn't award a knock on.

That should have been a knock on, but the ref was playing advantage and went back for the penalty after the knock on, that he didn't call. So right decision.

As for the commentators whittering on about downward pressure, they need to read a law book or stfu.

 

[DocY]

That should have been a knock on, but the ref was playing advantage and went back for the penalty after the knock on, that he didn't call. So right decision.

As for the commentators whittering on about downward pressure, they need to read a law book or stfu.

Thanks - I couldn't hear the sound and it looked to me like play went on a bit longer than if the ref had blown his whistle.

Agreed about the commentators - I wonder if Nige will start commentating when he hangs up his whistle.

 

[crossref]

Agreed about the commentators - I wonder if Nige will start commentating when he hangs up his whistle.

NO has a regular spot on Brian Moore's new rugby contact, answering Law questions.
(last week it was about diving on the ball as it emerges from the ruck.
I would imagine that this week's podcast will cover downward pressure )

 

[didds]

As for the commentators whittering on about downward pressure, they need to read a law book or stfu.

It doesn't help then when Nigel Owens talks about downward pressure though does it?

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

After a number of debates around tries scored/not scored like this example during Super Rugby, I am fairly sure the refs came to an agreed approach.
If a player has possession of the ball, he maintains possession until the ball is no longer touching him. As soon as there is daylight he's lost possession and if the ball is travelling forward then it's a lost forward. The player cannot regain possession unless catching (not just touching) the ball.
If you reach out and never lose contact, despite maybe only having a finger on the side then the try is scored (if the ball touches ground).
Seems fairly clear and fits in with other interpretations around possession.
It can look funny, but usually because an uneducated commentator Justin Marshall is blathering on about 'control' and 'downward pressure', neither of which are required in this situation.

FTFY....

and 100% agree.

If a player losses the ball (separation) as he reaches out to score, and then manages to get a finger or two in contact with the ball before it touches the ground, he has not regained possession under Law 12.

[LAWS]DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/LAWS]

He has to actually catch the ball.

And before DickieE wakes up and sees this, I object to the current elite refereeing practice of not ruling a knock on when the player loses a ball forwards and then bats it back to a team-mate. For mine, this is a knock on. If WR want this to be allowed, then they need to change the wording of Law 12 Definitions, replacing "catch" with "regain control of". It wouldn't be a bad idea to then define "Control" in the General Definitions.

 

[The Fat]

NO has a regular spot on Brian Moore's new rugby contact, answering Law questions.
(last week it was about diving on the ball as it emerges from the ruck.
I would imagine that this week's podcast will cover downward pressure )

Got a link?

 

[crossref]

here you go -here's this weeks. I haven't listened to it yet
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ull-contact-nick-evans-gavin-hastings-listen/

 

[Nigib]

here you go -here's this weeks. I haven't listened to it yet
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ull-contact-nick-evans-gavin-hastings-listen/

As if by magic. BM monitoring this site obv. Downward pressure and control, according to St Nige. Apparently how much downward pressure it has to be is debatable. Hmmm.

And crook feeds. Apparently all referees have to be better at it. Waiting for clear message from the referees' manager.

Tackle laws. Players questioning on high tackles... Not sure exactly what he said, but he did say many words.

 

[beckett50]

And crook feeds. Apparently all referees have to be better at it. Waiting for clear message from the referees' manager.

They must be missing the paragraph from the Directive on the WR Laws site. :deadhorse:

 

[Dickie E]

I object to the current elite refereeing practice of not ruling a knock on when the player loses a ball forwards and then bats it back to a team-mate.

good luck!