Grounded Not grounded?

[TheBFG]

I'm with the grounded by gold crowd on this.

If that gold player was an attacker (and a kiwi) you'd all give a try, so why the hell it's that classed as grounding?

 

[Rich_NL]

I added inadvertaently ONLY becauise we do see times when a try scorerr slips and the ball touches the ground but he is clearly wanting to run underneath the posts.

I agree its grounded out wide . My point then being that as any grounding counts as a grounding (so the try is awarded out wide in my example) then by the same logic the defender in trying to keep the ball off the ground has nonetheless still grounded it if any part of it touches the ground (blade of grass etc).

In other words it cannot be considered in anyway that his preference/intention is of any importance.

didds

So would you count it as grounding if a defender slipped while not under significant pressure? Or would the picking up immediately overrule it?

At the time the ball is touched down by red, it's off the ground, isn't it?

Watching it full speed, I thought it was a good spot by red and a try (I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a kiwi ). My gut feeling - which I completely accept may be a sign of inexperience and unfamiliarity - is that we let the defenders play on if they clearly want to, in the name of *continuity*, and call the touchdown if it's clearly made.

 

[didds]

So would you count it as grounding if a defender slipped while not under significant pressure?.

If he is carrying it, and it touched the ground then yes. I see no point in ignoring this law as writ because of a mistake, and particularly to benefit a defender over an attacker (or vice versa!).


didds

 

[Phil E]

So would you count it as grounding if a defender slipped while not under significant pressure? Or would the picking up immediately overrule it?

Yes of course. It's not a slice of toast...there's no 5 second rule.


I agree with BFG, if that was an attacker we would give the try, so why don't we give the touch down for it being a defender.

 

[ChuckieB]

Yes of course. It's not a slice of toast...there's no 5 second rule.


I agree with BFG, if that was an attacker we would give the try, so why don't we give the touch down for it being a defender.

I very much doubt the attacker would have ever looked to have his hand under the ball. He'd be reaching out with his left hand and wrist wrapped across the top of the ball, right hand no where to be seen.

....It's hypothetical, as if it was such a case, additional gold attacker would have been on it before red defender. If he wasn't there, I'd like to think I'd be still be seeing red defender as the one who grounded it, i.e. no clear and obvious grounding by gold

That's the way I see it......and consistent in both instances.

 

[Rich_NL]

Thank you for the clarification! So if the ball touches in-goal and a player at the same time (excepting picking up a loose ball), it's a touch down.

 

[didds]

its difficult to see what else it could be

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

Play on, if it's not a C&O deliberate act.

 

[Pedro]

Why would it need to be C&O? Or Deliberate come to that? The law doesn't mention that requirement anywhere....?

 

[didds]

Play on, if it's not a C&O deliberate act.

so defender falls on the ball, gets up and then drops it and an attacker falls on it and you award a try? correct?

or an attacker out wide slips, the ball touches the grounhd, he gets up and runs towareds the posts and you allow it... but then he drops it forwards and you award a 5m defending scrum. correct?

didds