France v Australia: Kuridrani's try

[Ian_Cook]

so a ball that rolls and comes to rest against the corner post is what? Automatically TiG?

No more than a ball that comes to rest against the base of a goalpost is a try: reason? its not grounded

A ball can only be grounded by a player!

But of course, you already knew that!

 

[Ian_Cook]

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).

Well, the TMO thought it was clear and obvious, and he was firm about that in his communication with the referee!

I guess he must have been biased then?

If that ball isn't grounded, then half the ball is missing! Where did it go?

 

[talbazar]

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

That's my interpretation too.

For a bit of fun and maybe shed some light, the wording of the law in French (shared a lot on social media as you can imagine) is slightly different.
the words "out of play" have been replaced by "dead".

[LAWS]Out of play: This happens when the ball or the ball carrier has gone into touch or touch-in-goal, or touched or crossed the dead ball line.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]Dead: The ball is out of play. This happens when the ball has gone outside the playing area and remained there, or when the referee has blown the whistle to indicate a stoppage in play, or when a conversion kick has been taken.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]Law 21.11.(c) When a player scores a try or makes a touch down, the ball becomes dead.[/LAWS]

And then, all a sudden, if the law was worded:
[LAWS]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 touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not dead unless it is first grounded against a flag post.[/LAWS]

All becomes clearer

Isn't it?
Wouldn't that be the spirit of the law?

My 2 cents,
Pierre
:france:

 

[The Fat]

Here's a different slant on that part of the law.
Suppose that when the old law-makers sat down to write the bit about the ball being grounded against the corner post, they all assumed that the ball would be touching the ground very, very close to the base of the corner post, (as close as a curved object can be to let's say the junction of a wall and floor), and that, for all intents and purposes, there is an extremely high chance that some part of the ball would be touching either the Touch Line or the Touch-in-goal Line. Fair assumption???

Now let's look at the try in question. Kurindrani grounds the ball which is about 45 degrees off vertical i.e. the top of the ball is toching the corner post and the base of the ball is touching the goal line but not the Touch or TiG Lines.

Perhaps this is why the TMO tells GJ that he may award the try. It is the opinion of the TMO that the ball first contacts the ground on the goal line.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[FlipFlop]

I'm with The Fat here. I think the point of ball hits the tryline first, and then goes on to be grounded against the post.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, whatever the intent of this bit of Law 22.12 is, is very badly written.


Colour me surprised!

 

[FlipFlop]

Personally - think the "Doubts about grounding" law should be re-written to include not just doubts about WHO grounded it, but also WHERE it was grounded.

This was so close. And given there is no real clear cut answer, the equitable answer might well be - scrum 5m attack.

 

[didds]

or equitably... not C&O that isn't a try, reward attacking play, try given.

didds

 

[Guyseep]

Well, the TMO thought it was clear and obvious, and he was firm about that in his communication with the referee!

I guess he must have been biased then?

If that ball isn't grounded, then half the ball is missing! Where did it go?

Other angles suggest that the Irish player may have gotten an arm under the ball. And no the TMO wasn't biased. In this case it just seems like he got it wrong.

 

[didds]

Ive stop framed the video just now. I'd call that grounded against the base of the pole. TiG.

Then again I am not a TMO....

didds

 

[Guyseep]

Ive stop framed the video just now. I'd call that grounded against the base of the pole. TiG.

Then again I am not a TMO....

didds

I suggest everyone install "Frame by Frame for Youtube". It lets you advance video forward and back in finer slices than youtube's default 5 seconds or so.

After looking at it frame by frame, it definitely looks like the pole was touched by the top of the ball a few frames before the bottom of the ball touches the line. You can see the pole being compressed before the ball is grounded.

 

[FlipFlop]

I suggest everyone install "Frame by Frame for Youtube". It lets you advance video forward and back in finer slices than youtube's default 5 seconds or so.

After looking at it frame by frame, it definitely looks like the pole was touched by the top of the ball a few frames before the bottom of the ball touches the line. You can see the pole being compressed before the ball is grounded.

But touching the post is irrelevant. Did it touch the tryline before it touched the Touch-in-goal line? I.E. Where was it grounded?

- - - Updated - - -

I suggest everyone install "Frame by Frame for Youtube". It lets you advance video forward and back in finer slices than youtube's default 5 seconds or so.

After looking at it frame by frame, it definitely looks like the pole was touched by the top of the ball a few frames before the bottom of the ball touches the line. You can see the pole being compressed before the ball is grounded.

But touching the post is irrelevant. Did it touch the tryline before it touched the Touch-in-goal line? I.E. Where was it grounded?

 

[Cryath]

Which does bring us back to the line from the law book.

This first part of law suggests that actually this is fine - 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 dead

until you read the last part - unless it is first grounded against a flag post.


Which to me suggests the law book is suggesting that this is 'in touch'/TiG.

 

[didds]

and doesn;t that also depend on what we mean by "grounded against a flag post".... now that to me suggests where the p[ost connects to the ground ie the base.

but I appreciate others disagree.

This raises its ugly head in discussions about scoring against a goal post of course.

didds

 

[talbazar]

Which does bring us back to the line from the law book.

This first part of law suggests that actually this is fine - 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 dead

The problem to me is that the law doesn't use the word dead...
Because, if it were, it would be easy: the ball is not in play anymore when it has been grounded against the corner post, it's dead.
It can be dead because it's out of play (= in touch or in touch-in-goal) or it can be dead because it's be grounded on the try line or in in-goal (try or touch down).
The law uses "not out of play" which by definition doesn't cover the try/touch down.

Look at the law to explain that a kick where the ball hits the post and the ball lands in the playing area, the ball is still in play.
With that (hopefully meaningful) assumption, the fact the grounding against the post is added in the law starts to make sense...

And the interpretation seen above: if grounded against the post, where is it grounded? make sense too.

I mean seriously?, let's look at that sentence in a logical way (what comes first: ground or post)
[LAWS]unless it is first grounded against a flag post.[/LAWS]
1. Ball grounded on the try line (first)
THEN
2. Player with momentum pushes the ball against the corner post

That would mean "out of play".

By the way, thanks a lot Mr. Law-Maker for "out of play"... is it in touch or in touch-in-goal? :knuppel2:
Because it wouldn't be the same restart :dead horse:

Logical, concise, easy to remember and probably a tad too simple for a normal Rugby Football Union Law

 

[OB..]

"[...] unless it is first grounded against a flag post" is ambiguous. IMHO the sensible interpretation of the wording is "unless when first grounded it is touching a flag post". However the most sensible in rugby terms is to ignore the flag post (the aim of the change in the law) and simply say that what matters is where the ball was first grounded.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Look at the law to explain that a kick where the ball hits the post and the ball lands in the playing area, the ball is still in play.
With that (hopefully meaningful) assumption, the fact the grounding against the post is added in the law starts to make sense...

And the interpretation seen above: if grounded against the post, where is it grounded? make sense too.

Look at this in relation to the goalpost

If a loose ball touches a goal post on the field of play side of the post, the ball is not in goal
If a loose ball touches a flag post on the playing area side of the post, the ball is not in touch

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up the field of play side of a goal post, the ball is not in-goal
If a ball being held by a player touches part way up the playing area side of a flag post, the ball is not in touch

However

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a goal post and then is slid down, and grounded on the field of play side of the base of the goal post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in-goal.

so it stands to reason that,

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a flag post and then is slid down, and grounded on the playing area side of the base of the flag post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in touch.

This last sentence is what actually happened, and fits exactly what the law says for the ball to be in touch when grounded against the base of the post.


NOTE: I still maintain that if the Law makers had followed through with their original plan to place the flag posts on the outside junction of the goal-line and touch-in-goal line (i.e. so that the flag post is completely outside the field of play with the inside of the padding in contact with the outside of the touch line) like it was during the 2008 ELV trials....

...then we would not be having this problem. A ball grounded against the flag post would have to be also touching the touchline and the decision would be easy.


Here is another interesting one.....

The padding is narrower than the width of the touchline, and a little of the line is "exposed". Would Kuridrani's try have still bee awarded if the flag posts were like this.

 

[Guyseep]

so it stands to reason that,

If a ball being held by a player touches part way up a flag post and then is slid down, and grounded on the playing area side of the base of the flag post, while still in contact with it, then the ball has been grounded in touch.

This last sentence is what actually happened, and fits exactly what the law says for the ball to be in touch when grounded against the base of the post.

.

This is the way I see the law intended to be interpreted. If the ball is contact with the post but not the ground it is not in touch, but if it is touching the post(any part of the post) then grounded while still touching the post it is in touch.

It can be looked at two ways:

1 - "grounded against a flag post" means simultaneously grounded and touching the post
or
2 - touching the post and then grounded while still touching the post.

There are two planes being referenced here - the ground and the flag post. For it to be "grounded and against the flag post" it must be touching both planes in a specific order. First it must touch the post and then be grounded, or simultaneously touching both.

 

[KML1]

Suspect this is being discussed as by WR Law Clarification Committee as we speak!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Suspect this is being discussed as by WR Law Clarification Committee as we speak!

What? WR are discussing a clarification within just a couple of days of a dubious decision?

Who lit the fire under their arses?