France v Australia: Kuridrani's try

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
IMO, the last Aussie try should have been no try, touch-in-goal.

LAW 22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.


https://youtu.be/DLjLt2K3yuo?t=726

The ball touches the corner post fractionally before being grounded on the goal-line.

Now, if that does not meet the description of first grounded against a flag post then I would like someone to explain to me what does?
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Curiously the France try they checked for knock forward seems hard to fathom why that was allowed? How does a player that knocks it a considerable amount forward and not regather it but ball is collected by a 2nd player behind him (but well in front of the first point is was knocked) not be called is perplexing. It was pretty clear on the side replay they looked at...not that GJ gave the TMO much chance to say anything though!
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
yes, all very odd. Like Barrett's "try" in 14th minute:

https://youtu.be/xlRz1E3Fvac?t=364

1. I don't see what relevance this has to the question I asked

2. Looks like a pretty clear grounding to me

IREvNZ-Barrett.png


3. Even if you argue that it wasn't grounded (which it was) then it should have been PT anyway for the coathangar tackle by Green 10
 

Rawling

Getting to know the game
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
285
Post Likes
12
Ball grounded against corner flag on goal line

Attacking player goes to ground the ball on the goal line; the ball touches the flag post on the way down and is still touching it as it is grounded:

https://streamable.com/5tky

I thought that should be a 22 drop out myself, but clearly a top referee and TMO disagree. Sadly we don't get the discussion.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
3. Even if you argue that it wasn't grounded (which it was) then it should have been PT anyway for the coathangar tackle by Green 10

Agreed.
 

dave_clark


Referees in England
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,647
Post Likes
104
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
i can't see a grounding there (although i agree that it *probably* was grounded). using the old lingo i would have thought this fails the "try: yes or no?" question, but passes the "any reason" one.

but PT if no try, so ultimately academic.
 

ianh5979


Referees in England
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
468
Post Likes
59
Re: Ball grounded against corner flag on goal line

Good try, flag post is counted as in field
 

Rawling

Getting to know the game
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
285
Post Likes
12
Re: Ball grounded against corner flag on goal line

Usually, yes, but in this scenario?

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.
 

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,556
Post Likes
423
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Re: Ball grounded against corner flag on goal line

See France v Australia thread in 'was it right?' forum.

- threads merged
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Re: Ball grounded against corner flag on goal line

Good try, flag post is counted as in field

See post #1 and #9, in particular, read Law 22.12 quoted therein

I ask the question again... if what you saw in this piece of play does not meet the description "first grounded against a flag post." then can you tell me what does?
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
IMO, the last Aussie try should have been no try, touch-in-goal.

LAW 22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.


https://youtu.be/DLjLt2K3yuo?t=726

The ball touches the corner post fractionally before being grounded on the goal-line.

Now, if that does not meet the description of first grounded against a flag post then I would like someone to explain to me what does?

It's a strange law isn't it?

The ball can bounce off the corner post, stopping it from going into touch/TiG, and then be grounded for a try but if the ball is grounded against the base of the corner post, even if it is not touching the touch/TiG line, it is no try.
Hhhhmmmm.....
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
IMO, the last Aussie try should have been no try, touch-in-goal.

LAW 22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.


https://youtu.be/DLjLt2K3yuo?t=726

The ball touches the corner post fractionally before being grounded on the goal-line.

Now, if that does not meet the description of first grounded against a flag post then I would like someone to explain to me what does?

IMO this is an over-literal interpretation of this law and I can see why you have done that as the wording is very clumsy. This law is trying to make the point that the ball is out of play if it makes simultaneous contact with the corner post and touch line / TiG line.
 

Blackberry


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,120
Post Likes
199
I always took this law to mean that if the ball touched the flag / post in the air its still in play, but if it touched the post on the ground its out of play. Hope I'm right, but luckily I've never had to put it to the test.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
IMO this is an over-literal interpretation of this law and I can see why you have done that as the wording is very clumsy. This law is trying to make the point that the ball is out of play if it makes simultaneous contact with the corner post and touch line / TiG line.

No, I don't believe that is what it means.

Firstly, the earlier wording of the Law specifically excludes that interpretation... "without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal"... if the ball is touching the touchline or the touch in goal line, then surely it is otherwise in touch, and the grounding against the flag post would not be relevant

Secondly, when this Law was first introduced after the 2008 ELV came into Law in 2009, I attended a briefing of Wellington Rugby referees, and this subject came up. Previously, the Flag post was going to be on the outside junction of the intersection of the goal lone and touchline. A ball grounded at the very end of the goal line might also touch the touchline, so that ball would be deemed touch in goal due to simultaneous grounding. When the decision was taken to put the flag post on the goal line, the base of the touch/touch in goal flag post became touch in goal in much the same way that the base of the goal post is deemed to be in-goal

Thirdly, I saw a near identical try - Nadolo(?) for Crusaders v ??? disallowed. The TMO gave exactly that explanation, that a ball grounded against the flag post was touch in goal
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I always took this law to mean that if the ball touched the flag / post in the air its still in play, but if it touched the post on the ground its out of play. Hope I'm right, but luckily I've never had to put it to the test.

I've taken the law to mean:
1. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and touchline - it is in touch
2. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and touch-in-goal line - it is TiG
3. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and FoP - it is in FoP (eg ball rolls and comes to rest at base of corner post)
4. if the ball simultaneously touches corner post and in-goal - it is in-goal
 

Guyseep


Referees in Canada
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
378
Post Likes
48
1. I don't see what relevance this has to the question I asked

2. Looks like a pretty clear grounding to me

IREvNZ-Barrett.png


3. Even if you argue that it wasn't grounded (which it was) then it should have been PT anyway for the coathangar tackle by Green 10

Ian your bias for NZ is "clear and obvious" here, much like the grounding was NOT clear and obvious. In the pic you give Barrett's arm is obstructing the view and there is ample evidence to suggest it may not have been grounded(ie not clear and obvious).
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Ian your bias for NZ is "clear and obvious" here, much like the grounding was NOT clear and obvious. In the pic you give Barrett's arm is obstructing the view and there is ample evidence to suggest it may not have been grounded(ie not clear and obvious).

whenever I hear "clearly", "obviously", "the reality is" (usually from politicians) alarm bells start ringing.
 
Top