Grounded Not grounded?

[ChuckieB]

It has been argued on these very forums that is a brave referee that is confident that a single hand beneath the ball has prevented any part of it touching a single blade of grass. That view has been made regarding a defender trying to prevent an attacker from scoring. I feel it inequitable not to consider the same for this defender's actions.

I am that brave referee.

This does have the twist that the fairly obvious intent of the defender was not to ground the ball. He was, in all probability, trying to set it back, his teammate looking to pick it up for some new phase of play. Poor decision making under pressure is a reasonable charge to be levelled against them.

Evidently, pressing down on the ball on the part of the attacker trumps holding down of the ball without the requirement for downward pressure. The referee being allowed some discretion to let some "either or" scenario play out.

........Rock, paper, scissors!

 

[The Fat]

It has been argued on these very forums that is a brave referee that is confident that a single hand beneath the ball has prevented any part of it touching a single blade of grass. That view has been made regarding a defender trying to prevent an attacker from scoring. I feel it inequitable not to consider the same for this defender's actions.

It's the old,
Defender: "But Sir! I had my hand under the ball!!!"
Ref: "You don't have a size 5 hand"

 

[ChuckieB]

It's the old,
Defender: "But Sir! I had my hand under the ball!!!"
Ref: "You don't have a size 5 hand"

The same size hand then that often lends itself to dropping the ball when going for the single handed grounding!

 

[Taff]

I am that brave referee. This does have the twist that the fairly obvious intent of the defender was not to ground the ball.

In this context, where does the lawbook mention "intent"?

 

[Pegleg]

Scrum 5 for me. defender minors the ball, whether he intended to or not.

 

[ChuckieB]

In this context, where does the lawbook mention "intent"?

In the same section as it mentions that to be a part of a ruck there has to be intent on the part of players to participate.:wink:

 

[ChrisR]

Player holds ball. Ball is in contact with in-goal ground. Ball has been grounded. That's all ther is to it. Intent is not a factor.

 

[chalksta]

Even if the gold player never intended to ground the ball, if he never relinquishes possession (legal or illegally) can red ever score? If red forced the ball we either assume gold has then forced it, or it comes back to law 22.15?

[LAWS]22.15 Doubt about grounding
If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal, play is re-started by a 5-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

Even if the gold player never intended to ground the ball, if he never relinquishes possession (legal or illegally) can red ever score? If red forced the ball we either assume gold has then forced it, or it comes back to law 22.15?

you're aware we're discussing Crusaders here or are you some sort of bolshy, trouble-making Kiwi?

 

[Ian_Cook]

In order to ground the ball in goal, a ball carrier must touch the ball on the ground while in holding the ball

[LAWS]Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and
touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in
the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
[/LAWS]
In order to ground the ball in goal, a player not carrying the ball must "press down on the ball".

[LAWS]Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the
in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of
the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.[/LAWS]

This is something that commentators (especially Justin Marshall) continually gets wrong; not understanding that there is a difference between the grounding of a loose ball and a ball that is being carried. I don't expect referees to get this wrong as well.

The Gold player handing the ball back does not ground, or attempt to ground the ball. He is holding the ball off the ground with a hand under the ball and a steadying hand on top; I'll bet he didn't even realise he was holding the over in-goal. I have absolutely no doubt that had RH immediately ruled 5m scrum on the basis that this player grounded the ball, Gold would have complained that their player had a hand under it.

The Gold player acting as halfback doesn't press down on the ball, he puts his hand on the ends of the ball and is about to pick it up when Red 4 pounces.

Bouqets to Red 4 for knowing the laws and realising that the ruck ends in-goal and the ball was available to be played, and brickbats to the Force for their ignorance of the Laws. The learnings for them here is that, when the ball is in-goal, don't faff about, ground it.

There is no downside for players in knowing and understanding the LotG


On a side note, I thought RH had a shocker with regard to his scrum management. Many of the problems were of his making because he was not allowing the dominant scrum to dominate. Three times that I counted (two with Gold throw in and once with Red throw in) he told the SH to put the ball in when their scrum was already moving backwards. These should have been FK/PK for early shoves. two in favour of Gold and one in favour of Red.

 

[crossref]

Player holds ball. Ball is in contact with in-goal ground. Ball has been grounded. That's all ther is to it. Intent is not a factor.

So you would say it's impossible for a player to fall onto a loose ball inside his own in goal, in order to gather it and get up with it?

 

[Pegleg]

So you would say it's impossible for a player to fall onto a loose ball inside his own in goal, in order to gather it and get up with it?

Different horse, different jockey

22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL


There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and
touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in
the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the
in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of
the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.


22.2 PICKING UP THE BALL
Picking up the ball from the ground is not grounding it. A player may pick up the ball in the
in-goal and ground it elsewhere in the in-goal.

 

[crossref]

If you fall on a loose ball then technically 21.1(b) will happen. Of course we dont usually count it as a touchdown

 

[didds]

If an attacker runs into in-goal out wide, then turns to run towards the area under the posts... then slips such the ball being carried accidentally briefly touches the ground (blade of grass etc) but the player regains his feet and completes the run around and dots down between the posts, where do you award the try? Out wide or under the posts?

If its out wide because he inadvertently grounded it then what the difference with inadvertently touching down as a defender?

I don't see a C&O non grounding in the video. I accept that Ian does.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

So you would say it's impossible for a player to fall onto a loose ball inside his own in goal, in order to gather it and get up with it?

"Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the
in-goal and the player presses down on it with......................, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive."

So in that scenario, Yes.

If gathering is a must for him, he will have to look to go to ground to gather it in some other way.

 

[ChuckieB]

If an attacker runs into in-goal out wide, then turns to run towards the area under the posts... then slips such the ball being carried accidentally briefly touches the ground (blade of grass etc) but the player regains his feet and completes the run around and dots down between the posts, where do you award the try? Out wide or under the posts?

If its out wide because he inadvertently grounded it then what the difference with inadvertently touching down as a defender?

I don't see a C&O non grounding in the video. I accept that Ian does.

didds

But you have said "inadvertently grounded"......... The "grounded" s the key here, not the "inadvertently".

Our Crusaders Example is that there was no grounding by WF, be it either intentional or unintentional.

I am in the camp of accepting it as a non grounding by WF.


If....

"22.2 PICKING UP THE BALL
Picking up the ball from the ground is not grounding it. A player may pick up the ball in the
in-goal and ground it elsewhere in the in-goal."

....by my logic you can have your hand underneath it even if it is touching a blade of grass and it be considered not grounded.

 

[didds]

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

 

[ChuckieB]

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

....and if he slips and loses possession under the sticks. What is he going to claim then?

Ground the ball would be my coaching priority. If you have to keep it in play then you take your chances.

 

[The Fat]

The only problem I have with all of this is, can an attacking player ground the ball if it is in a defending player's possession and alternatively, can a defending player ground the ball if an attacking player has possession of the ball? Could you have the situation, as unlikely as it may be, where an attacking player is tackled short of the goal line and immediately reaches forward to attempt to ground the ball and just before the ball makes contact with the in-goal, a defender reaches out and puts his hand on the ball effectively grounding it before the attacker? I'm pretty sure the referee & TMO would only consider two possible decisions.
1. Try
2. Doubt over grounding so 5m attacking scrum

 

[Dickie E]

The Gold player handing the ball back does not ground, or attempt to ground the ball. He is holding the ball off the ground with a hand under the ball and a steadying hand on top;

Clearly winchesterref's photo in post #3 shows the ball touching the ground. As hard as I try I really can't see how anyone can see anything else.

But let's assume Gold does have a hand under it. How does Red diving on the ball remove the hand?

And if its illegal to dive on a player on the ground, doesn't that include all parts of his body ... including his hands?