[In-goal] Goal line DO vs Scrum 5

[Rich_NL]

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

It's hardly the fault of the law change that one team keeps kicking the DO straight to someone who can slot 50m drop goals. It's not much more a weakness than for the mark, if you're kicking like that. Kick shorter.

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

I'm sure I saw a clarification from WR that said it didn't matter, GLDO anyway... I can't find it at the moment, I'll look again later.

 

[crossref]

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

that's intriguing, I wonder whether it will be cascaded in any way (other than rugbyrefs.com ?
I have heard nothing from my society about that - anyone else ?

(There have been some facebook posts to the effect that RFU have asked WR to issue a clarification.. but that was a while ago and then went cold)


So it is tricky for us : absent any communication from our society / rfu / wr (which obviously we would follow), what should we do on Saturday if it happens ? I think I'd go with the GLD - in the bar after I'd just rather be quoting the law book, rather then 'there's a post on rugbyrefs that says that ..'

Luckily the scenario is pretty unusual.

 

[crossref]

Seems to be in line with the WRU.

is there anything public? WRU website or similar?

 

[Dave Elliott]

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

sending a ?

 

[chbg]

that's intriguing, I wonder whether it will be cascaded in any way (other than rugbyrefs.com ?
I have heard nothing from my society about that - anyone else ?

(There have been some facebook posts to the effect that RFU have asked WR to issue a clarification.. but that was a while ago and then went cold)


So it is tricky for us : absent any communication from our society / rfu / wr (which obviously we would follow), what should we do on Saturday if it happens ? I think I'd go with the GLD - in the bar after I'd just rather be quoting the law book, rather then 'there's a post on rugbyrefs that says that ..'

Luckily the scenario is pretty unusual.

? until WR (ha!) or RFU issue general direction.

 

[Phil E]

My understanding is that the RFU are discussing if a Society clarification is required.
There is always the possibility that they decide it's not a big deal and doesn't require clarification.
It's already been said here that it may never happen.

There may be bigger messages to get out in the world.

 

[Flish]

There may be bigger messages to get out in the world.

Tights ;-)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well yes, that broke this week.

 

[chbg]

Well yes, that made this week.

FTFY.

 

[crossref]

Tights ;-)

I so want a like button

 

[beckett50]

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.

Law says that if there is doubt about grounding then 5m Scrum, attacking ball.

 

[pombok]

Law says that if there is doubt about grounding then 5m Scrum, attacking ball.

The correct wording is "If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal..."
In this case the ball has not been grounded. It is held up.

So, GLD because of 21.16 or 5m attacking scrum because 12.12(a) says a GLD only for an attacking player taking the ball in?

 

[Phil E]

Law says that if there is doubt about grounding then 5m Scrum, attacking ball.

As mentioned that law applies if it's been grounded, but you're not sure who by.

My reference was when you're not sure if it was grounded or held up?

 

[bearandbu]

Another GLDO question if I may. The GLDO/22DO/5m scrum matrix doesn't seem to specifically address (unless I've missed it) what's to be done if the ball carrier throws a pass forward while in goal. 5m scrum to defenders or GLDO?

 

[crossref]

Another GLDO question if I may. The GLDO/22DO/5m scrum matrix doesn't seem to specifically address (unless I've missed it) what's to be done if the ball carrier throws a pass forward while in goal. 5m scrum to defenders or GLDO?

If the ball carrier is an attacker .. GLDO (same as knick on)
If the ball carrier is a defender .. 5m scrum

 

[Phil E]

Another GLDO question if I may. The GLDO/22DO/5m scrum matrix doesn't seem to specifically address (unless I've missed it) what's to be done if the ball carrier throws a pass forward while in goal. 5m scrum to defenders or GLDO?

I notice you are in the USA, they sometimes interpret things differently to the rest of the world.

The logical thing would be to treat it the same as a knock on, because this is what you would do anywhere else on the field of play, so in your scenario it would be a GLD (if done by an attacker).

The debate on USA referees on Facebook is that the GLD law specifically mentions a knock on, but not a forward pass, so it should be a scrum 5.
However the law is not written (as OB is fond of pointing out) by a lawyer. It is a framework from which the referee can attempt to get a game of rugby going. If we stuck to the legal definition of every law we wouldn't have a game of rugby, we would have a whistle fest, so common sense has to come into play sometimes.

Remember: Safety, then Equity, then Law.

Having said all that you would be mad to go against the status quo in your own country. So in your situation stick to the battles you can win and go with what USA Rugby tells you to do.

 

[OB..]

Phil E - eminently sensible advice.

 

[didds]

... so in your scenario it would be a GLD (if done by an attacker).

The debate on USA referees on Facebook is that the GLD law specifically mentions a knock on, but not a forward pass, so it should be a scrum 5.
...

though you'd seriously have to question the sanity of an attacker, in goal that made a forward pass rather than just scored ?

(caveat: assuming that he hadn't made the error of not knowing (s)he was in goal. Which I've never seen in 45+ years of playing, coaching, watching. But that said I will see it next weekend now!)

 

[crossref]

though you'd seriously have to question the sanity of an attacker, in goal that made a forward pass rather than just scored ?

(caveat: assuming that he hadn't made the error of not knowing (s)he was in goal. Which I've never seen in 45+ years of playing, coaching, watching. But that said I will see it next weekend now!)

There is a video of this somewhere , I can remember
Pro game on TV

The team is fifty point up, and he passes to a mate, so that the mate can have a try

Forwards !

 

[Phil E]

There is a video of this somewhere , I can remember
Pro game on TV

The team is fifty point up, and he passes to a mate, so that the mate can have a try

Forwards !

He turns to face his own goal line and then passes it backwards to a mate, which is of course actually forwards :biggrin: