[In-goal] Goal line DO vs Scrum 5

[DocY]

The new law around the goal line drop out for the ball being held up got me wondering how people are refereeing it.

When I was refereeing, I'd want to see the ball being grounded in goal. If I couldn't see the ball I'd almost always go with a scrum five (except on a few occasions when I was confident enough that it was actually grounded, even if I didn't see).

It didn't make much difference then - held up in goal and play stopped for any other reason would both be a scrum five.

So do referees now have to actually see the ball being held up (or be confident it was) to give the goal line drop out? And would you ever say "I couldn't see if it was held up or not, scrum five"?

I suspect I know the answer.

 

[Phil E]

If you see it grounded its a Try.
If you see it held up its a GLD.

If your not sure, or can't see it has to be a GLD.

There is no basis in law for a scrum 5 in these circumstances, unless the ball is grounded, but there is doubt over which team grounded the ball first.

 

[Flish]

It's made no difference to my decision making, just different outcomes for the teams. In my game on Saturday I had both the usual 'held up' appeals, the boot under the ball (leaning to one side touching the try line), and the mysterious hand that wasn't there when the ball was grounded, yet somehow was there when the bodies stood up (yet the ball was still touching the grass) - both tries.

Only had two held ups. one was going back for a penalty anyway, and the other was a maul anywhere else on the pitch except it had gone in goal - anyone want to guess what happened the mili-second I blew and called it held up ? ;-)

 

[Zebra1922]

(Only had two held ups. one was going back for a penalty anyway, and the other was a maul anywhere else on the pitch except it had gone in goal - anyone want to guess what happened the mili-second I blew and called it held up ? ;-)

I’ve no idea what happened when you blew, but what is the decision on an unsuccessful maul which started in the field of play and ends up in goal? I had one at the weekend and gave a scrum to the defending team (on the grounds it was a maul). I’m now thinking it should have been GLO as effectively held up in goal. Anyone know the right answer?

 

[Flish]

I’ve no idea what happened when you blew, but what is the decision on an unsuccessful maul which started in the field of play and ends up in goal? I had one at the weekend and gave a scrum to the defending team (on the grounds it was a maul). I’m now thinking it should have been GLO as effectively held up in goal. Anyone know the right answer?

I blew 1 milisecond before the attacking team wriggled free and grounded it! They'd had a good chunk of time though, I gave GLDO as held up over the try line and took in by attackers

 

[crossref]

I blew 1 milisecond before the attacking team wriggled free and grounded it! They'd had a good chunk of time though, I gave GLDO as held up over the try line and took in by attackers

If it's held up it doesn't matter who took it in .. GLD

 

[chbg]

I’ve no idea what happened when you blew, but what is the decision on an unsuccessful maul which started in the field of play and ends up in goal? I had one at the weekend and gave a scrum to the defending team (on the grounds it was a maul). I’m now thinking it should have been GLO as effectively held up in goal. Anyone know the right answer?

The maul has ended successfully by going into In Goal and ceasing to be a maul. So the judgement moves onto when it is successfully 'held up'.

 

[Decorily]

If it's held up it doesn't matter who took it in .. GLD

Really?

 

[Flish]

Really?

Seems so, and if I’m honest I think I would have got that wrong, not that I can recall a defender taking it back and getting held up, normally they manage to get it down or hoof it badly;

[LAWS]When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground or play the ball, the ball is dead. Play restarts with a goal line drop-out.[/LAWS]

 

[Decorily]

My understanding is that the ball must be taken in to the ingoal by the attacking team.
Law 12 specifies so![ATTA

 

[chbg]

My understanding is that the ball must be taken in to the ingoal by the attacking team.
Law 12 specifies so!View attachment 4249[ATTA

Congratulations World Rugby! Laws 12.12a and 21.16 are not consistent.

Given that 12.12a as written can be considered as a sub-set of 21.16, and does not state 'an attacking player only', and moreover Law 21 has used "a player" since (at least) 2018, we should remain consistent ourselves and follow 21.16.

 

[Flish]

FFS ��* I only looked at law 21 when I commented above, I thought I had a nice clear answer to the question posed above, silly me!

 

[crossref]

Congratulations World Rugby! Laws 12.12a and 21.16 are not consistent.

Given that 12.12a as written can be considered as a sub-set of 21.16, and does not state 'an attacking player only', and moreover Law 21 has used "a player" since (at least) 2018, we should remain consistent ourselves and follow 21.16.

they are not really inconsistent

21.16 says: when it is held up it's a goal line dropout

12.12a is redundant, of course, but is not inconsistent.

 

[chbg]

they are not really inconsistent

21.16 says: when it is held up it's a goal line dropout

12.12a is redundant, of course, but is not inconsistent.

If that is your definition of consistency ...

It is certainly not wholly consistent, and thus can lead, as so amply shown by Decorily, to an incorrect conclusion and possibly decision.

 

[Flish]

Agree, if you're looking for 'what if attacking player takes it in and his held up' it's not inconsistent, if you're looking for a defending player as the thread suggested, then about as much use as a chocolate fireguard

 

[crossref]

if you're looking for a defending player as the thread suggested, then about as much use as a chocolate fireguard

well, you might find 12.12 and that's doesn't help as it's a different scenario so keep looking and find 21.16 which would tell you it's a GLD.

but it's not ideal, I agree.

 

[Dickie E]

https://www.rugbydump.com/news/watc...exposes-potential-weakness-in-new-law-change/

 

[crossref]

https://www.rugbydump.com/news/watc...exposes-potential-weakness-in-new-law-change/

It's interesting, isn't it? They trialled this Law didn't they ? I guess they didn't see many drop goals in the trial.

So teams need to do shorter GLD, so as to be able to chase them down closely ?

 

[Phil E]

So as a Society we wrote to laws@rfu.com for clarification on Held Up.

(some of you will accept this some of you wont, but I'm just telling you what we have been told)

The answer, backed up by our resident PRL Referee was this.

It depends on who took the ball into in-goal.

Taken in by an attacker and held up = GLD
This is regardless of who is held up with the ball (attacker or defender).
Taken in by a defender and held up = 5m attacking scrum

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So as a Society we wrote to laws@rfu.com for clarification on Held Up.

(some of you will accept this some of you wont, but I'm just telling you what we have been told)

The answer, backed up by our resident PRL Referee was this.

It depends on who took the ball into in-goal.

Taken in by an attacker and held up = GLD
This is regardless of who is held up with the ball (attacker or defender).
Taken in by a defender and held up = 5m attacking scrum

Seems to be in line with the WRU.