Drop goal attempt touched by Defender and goes dead

[Ian_Cook]

Sorry if this should be a new thread but im new so please cut me some slack. this is along the same lines


If the drop goal attempt is touched by a defending player trying to deflect the ball, but it still goes over the sticks, is it a successful drop goal or played back by a defending player scrum 5 meter.

Firstly, welcome to Rugbyrefs.com.

In answer to your question, Yes, it is a successful dropped goal. Peep!! 3 points

Defending player touching the ball is irrelevant.

Attacking player... different story

9.A.2 KICK AT GOAL - SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
(a) If after the ball is kicked, it touches the ground or any team-mate of the kicker, a goal cannot be scored.

 

[OB..]

It is a goal.

 

[froggie]

Thanks gents

 

[jules]

Thanks to all those who replied. Didn't think it would go on this long but good to see all the contributions and it just shows how difficult a game it is to ref!

 

[chopper15]

So what if a a DK attempt is touched in flight by a defender while the FK law is still in effect and it goes over the bar?:clap:

Jules, also see last few threads of; http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10047&page=2

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

So what if a a DK attempt is touched in flight by a defender while the FK law is still in effect and it goes over the bar?:clap:

Play on, 5m scrum attacking if made dead

 

[chopper15]

Play on, 5m scrum attacking if made dead

But as the ball was touched by an opponent, NKW, wasn't the FK restriction lifted?

And if it wasn't, wouldn't the decision have to be a scrum where the ball was kicked - if it was taken back beyond the 5m line - as a DG/DK is not allowed during the imposition of a FK?

 

[OB..]

As far as I am concerned, the drop goal attempt preceded the touch by an opponent, so a goal cannot be scored.

In which case you treat it like a punt: played by an opponent before going dead, therefore 5m scrum attacking ball.

The defender was not thinking: if he had not touched the ball, he could have had a scrum back where the ball was kicked from or a drop out.

 

[chopper15]

As far as I am concerned, the drop goal attempt preceded the touch by an opponent, so a goal cannot be scored.

In which case you treat it like a punt: played by an opponent before going dead, therefore 5m scrum attacking ball.

The defender was not thinking: if he had not touched the ball, he could have had a scrum back where the ball was kicked from or a drop out.

Good point. And if it wasn't touched and we assume the kicker was either ignorant of the restriction or simply forgot, it would then be considered a punt and a scrum back to where the kick took place defending side ball?

 

[OB..]

Law 21.6
(b) The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until ...

Law 22.8
If a team kicks the ball through their opponents' in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal ...

As I have pointed out before, in law you cannot murder a dead person, but you can be guilty of attempted murder. [Note however that this is specifically enshrined in a statute because it was a hotly argued Moot point before then.]

It could be argued that you should apply the same principle here: it is an attempted dropped goal even though you cannot actually score from it.

I don't think that makes any sense. It is not spelled out in the laws. I prefer the view that it cannot be an attempted dropped goal, so should be treated as a punt.

 

[Dickie E]

Good point. And if it wasn't touched and we assume the kicker was either ignorant of the restriction or simply forgot, it would then be considered a punt and a scrum back to where the kick took place defending side ball?

I agree noting that the defending team could take a 22 as an option.

 

[chopper15]

I agree noting that the defending team could take a 22 as an option.

Noted, Dickie. Thanks.

 

[Davet]

They cannot score a dropped goal until, inter alia, the ball is played by an opponent.

Although the defenders touch in flight precedes the ball going between the posts I think any ref who awarded a goal would be rightly accused of over-intellectualising the issue.

I do like the thinking part of our sport, but sometimes logic chopping just gets us nowhere

 

[chopper15]

They cannot score a dropped goal until, inter alia, the ball is played by an opponent.

Although the defenders touch in flight precedes the ball going between the posts I think any ref who awarded a goal would be rightly accused of over-intellectualising the issue.

I do like the thinking part of our sport, but sometimes logic chopping just gets us nowhere

But as OB pointed out to us in #48 Davet, it would simply be an incorrect interpretation of 21.6(b);

The team awarded a free kick cannot score a drop goal until . . . after an opponent has played or touched it (the ball). This restriction also applies to a scrum taken instead of a free kick.

 

[OB..]

But as OB pointed out to us in #48 Davet, it would simply be an incorrect interpretation of 21.6(b);

As far as I am concerned, the drop goal attempt preceded the touch by an opponent, so a goal cannot be scored.

Although the defenders touch in flight precedes the ball going between the posts I think any ref who awarded a goal would be rightly accused of over-intellectualising the issue.

I think we are both saying we would not allow the goal.

 

[Rit Hinners]

Thanks to all those who replied. Didn't think it would go on this long but good to see all the contributions and it just shows how difficult a game it is to ref!

Not necessarily.

It could be that this audience is willing to "argue angels and pinheads" about rugby with little provocation. :wink:

 

[Dickie E]

Its an interesting & logical (albeit unlikely) scenario that Chopper raises. Ball has been touched by defender prior to the drop goal being scored.

I, too, would not allow the score, however. Like many aspects of rugby, it comes down to intent. The kicker intended to illegally attempt a drop goal when the ball left his boot. Nothing will subsequently change that.

 

[Dickie E]

It could be that this audience is willing to "argue angels and pinheads" about rugby with little provocation. :wink:

Rit, I think that's a bit myopic.

What makes these scenarios relevant isn't so much about whether we will ever see them occur on a rugby field, but more about forcing us to examine our own philosophy towards refereeing.

Chopper's logic is sound - a defender has played the ball prior to the drop goal being scored which meets the requirements of Law 21.6(b). But we all say we would disallow the score.

Why?

I use the intent argument. Others use the "law writer is an ass" argument.

What would you do if this unlikely event occurred and why?

 

[Drift]

I would agree with Dickie here.

if the player plays for he ball and touches it, as they would in charge down, 5m scrum.

If a player kicked the ball, and it accidently clouts an opponant who obviously was not attempting to play the ball -22m

I raised this with one of our A panel refs today and he took up Ian's stance of even if it touches the defender by accident it's been played and should start with a 5m scrum.
He used the grubber kick that hits a defender going into touch scenario and pointed out it would be attacking teams ball so why not in this case.

 

[Dickie E]

He used the grubber kick that hits a defender going into touch scenario and pointed out it would be attacking teams ball so why not in this case.

Because the Law wording is noticably different in the 2 cases