Grounding against a corner flag?

[MiniRef]

Winger runs through, is tackled just before the try line but manages to ground the ball on the try line and against the corner flag simultaneously. The winger's body was well away from touch.

Ref says "grounded against corner flag and on try line at the same time, so that's a try"

Law 22.12 says
If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at theintersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

I think it shouldn't have been a try. Would you agree?

 

[dave_clark]

i would say this is touch in goal, so no try.

 

[FlipFlop]

If grounded against the flagpost it is touch in goal.

If it hit the try line first, and then rolled against the flag post, it is a try. These are always close calls.

Players should not let the oppo get that close, so can't complain if they see it differently to the ref.

If the ref told you that grounded against the post is a try, then he is wrong.

 

[Robert Burns]

If there is doubt about what the call should be the benefit of doubt should be with the attacking team.

Think about it, you are TMO and referee asks if there any reason I cannot award the try, you review the video and it shows 1 frame ball in air, next frame ball grounded online and touching flag pole.

Your answer should be, you may award the try.

I am with your referee, don't bottle out on rewarding the attacking side because you might be wrong in split second replays, reward the positive play.

Please note my emphasis on the law:

Law 22.12
If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at theintersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

 

[Davet]

Grounded against flagpost = Touch in goal.

Grounded against a goal-post = try.

In both cases the phrase "grounded against" means the ball is on the ground and touching the post (or post padding).

 

[Dixie]

If there is doubt about what the call should be the benefit of doubt should be with the attacking team.

Really? So if I can't see it grounded, but a grounding is certainly possible, as is a "held up", I should award a try?

 

[Taff]

If there is doubt about what the call should be the benefit of doubt should be with the attacking team.

This makes sense to me. The ref is going to have to make a split second decision, and to be blunt it could go either way. In that case, giving the benefit of the doubt to the attackers makes more sense than thinking "I'm not 100% sure, so I won't give it".

 

[Davet]

So guessing is good? You don't know what has happened, you have not seen a try - yet you will award it?

I hope not.

Refer to the law on "Doubt about grounding", then come back and tell us what it says.

 

[Dixie]

Refer to the law on "Doubt about grounding", then come back and tell us what it says.

Sadly, it says it applies only when you can't tell which side grounded it first. It's not applicable when only one team might, or might not, have grounded it. I suspect the iRB might be surprised to know how badly they've draft ed it though. No-one else would be.

 

[Davet]

But I can't tell which side grounded it first if I can't tell if it has been grounded or not....

 

[Robert Burns]

Dave,

We are looking at the ball being grounded on the tryline and the pole at the same time. It's not a doubt about grounding.

The law specifically says that it's touch in-goal if the ball is grounded against the pole first, this isn't first (not as far as a human eye can tell anyway) so it's a try.

Dixie,

There is a specific law about doubting 'if' the ball has been grounded, which is not this.

Are you both really saying you will er to the defensive team and give a 22m instead of rewarding the play of the attacker that has got there because you cannot tell if the post was grounded against first?

You can't give an attacking 5m scrum and say doubt about grounding! You have 2 choices, Try or 22DO. IMHO, if you cannot tell, it should be try.

 

[OB..]

If you are a TMO, then the question might matter. Otherwise, it is a question of how you as a referee saw it. Being certain it hit both line and post at the same time seems unlikely.

 

[Davet]

Ball grounded against the flagpost by an attacker is 22DO, on goal line first is Try, on touch line first is in touch.

The law specifically says that it's touch in-goal if the ball is grounded against the pole first, this isn't first (not as far as a human eye can tell anyway) so it's a try.

I'm not concerned with microsecond nonsense, but with a case where perhaps the ref is unsighted and there is a sufficient doubt in his mind that he cannot make the call; why would you simply award 5 points?

You can't give an attacking 5m scrum and say doubt about grounding!

That is precisely what I would award.

 

[Taff]

I must be thick or something because I still don't get this. If there's any doubt who grounded it first (not whether it was grounded) according to 22.15 its a 5m attacking scrum.

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.

Now, if I'm in doubt whether the ball has even been grounded eg lets say I was unsighted, what happens then?

Personally I would have thought it was still a 5m attacking scrum.

And TBH I don't understand why they even mention the flagpost - its irrelevant. All we need to concern ourselves with is the goal line and the touch / TIG line. I think it was Dixie that said it first, but grounding the ball on the goal line is fine; grounding on the touch line isn't, so the intersection of the touch line and the goal line must be Touch In Goal. Who needs to complicate matters by mentioning flag posts? If you just think about the lines and forget the post, its far easier to understand.

 

[Ian_Cook]

When this was first mooted as an ELV, the wording was different from what ended up in the Law book.

The original wording of the ELV was...

1. Posts and flags around the field.

a. Corner posts will be positioned at the outside junction of the goal line and the touch line.

i. If a player is in possession of the ball and touches a corner post he will not be in touch unless he touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

ii. If the ball is not being carried by a player and it touches the corner post the ball will be deemed to be touch in goal.

This was perfect, because you ended up with the flag post positioned like this...

and here is an example of it in use during the ELV trial in NZ.

Positioning the flag post like this meant that if the ball was grounded against it, there would be no chance of it NOT being grounded on the touch line as well.

Unfortunately, as is typical of the iRB, they don't think past the end of their noses, and create a problem where there wasn't one before. Some unknown 12 year old proof reader changed it to the "intersection" of the touch-line and goal-line (probably not having the vision to realise that it changed the intent of the ELV to take the corner flag out of play) and thereby creating the anomaly that we now have, where the padding of the flag post can actually intrude onto the try line.

It now means that a ball could be grounded entirely on the goal-line, and touch the padding on the corner post and be ruled TiG simply because the padding is too thick.

Bloody idiots!!!

 

[Davet]

Bloody idiots!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[OB..]

The first proposal was to put the corner post out 2m in line with the other posts, but that was dropped because players and referees found having it actually in the corner was an invaluable reference point.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The first proposal was to put the corner post out 2m in line with the other posts, but that was dropped because players and referees found having it actually in the corner was an invaluable reference point.

True, but once the documentation was circulated to rugby clubs and referees here, it definitely said "outside junction". Not only have I seen this in various rugby websites, it was also in the documentation I received by snail mail from NBRU.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3943_2942686,00.html

http://www.crusaders.co.nz/blog/the-word-from-robbie/1/blog-entry.aspx




It was changed some time after the end of the Super 14 trial in 2008 because the next documentation I received was the IRB Guideline, which talks about the "intersection" not the "outside junction".

 

[Robert Burns]

Taff/Davet,

You cannot give a 5m scrum here because you are not in doubt of who grounded it, you are in doubt over what occurred first.

The referee in the top post has stated that the try line and post were grounded against together, and as such has awarded the try. I believe this is correct in law, as the it wasn't grounded against the pole first.

Regarding your point stating why give 5 points when I'm not sure, can easily be turned around.

Why not give the 5 points unless you are sure it wasn't scored first (for all this is not saying give 5 points when you can't see the ball being grounded).

I am sure there is a directive somewhere that states we should be rewarding the attackers where doubt exists?

 

[Robert Burns]

Ian,

You're point is 100% correct and would if implemented be the solution for such an event occurring.