Held up/goal line drop out "gray area".

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,225
Post Likes
2,219
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Maybe I’m missing something? For me, the 5m s rum is for when I see the ball grounded but I’m not sure who grounded it, not if I’m unsure there was a grounding In the first place.

If I see a ball carrier diving to ground the ball then either they are successful and I see it grounded and deal with that, otherwise I consider it held up. I rarely (maybe one game a year) have an actual ref running touch so it’s all on me and this is how I quickly process this scenario.

Genuine question: Am I wrong in this interpretation of the law?
That is how I would do it too but it isn't backed up in law hence why we are discussing it.
Grounded = try. Held up = GLDO.
But law is silent on the fairly common occurrence of ref being unable to determine if grounded or held up. There is a reasonable & sound argument for "stoppage for any other occurrence" = scrum
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
That is how I would do it too but it isn't backed up in law hence why we are discussing it.
Grounded = try. Held up = GLDO.
But law is silent on the fairly common occurrence of ref being unable to determine if grounded or held up. There is a reasonable & sound argument for "stoppage for any other occurrence" = scrum
I think we are haveing to decide one of the fallowing:
1: Probably held up = GLDO
2: Probably a TRY = TRY
3: I have no idea either way = Scrum 5 Attacking ball

As the law stands we have to judge one of those. Give a clear a confident call which ever one you go for.

But, perhaps, Crossref is right. The Lawmakers maybe need to remove doubt. Should the Law makers ammend 21.7 to read:

DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING

If there is doubt about which team first grounded, or whether the ball was grounded at all, the ball in in-goal, play is
restarted with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,479
Post Likes
525
But, perhaps, Crossref is right. The Lawmakers maybe need to remove doubt. Should the Law makers ammend 21.7 to read:

DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING

If there is doubt about which team first grounded, or whether the ball was grounded at all, the ball in in-goal, play is
restarted with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.
Certainly agree with referee doubt about a decision being removed. Can support the amendment.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
I think we are haveing to decide one of the fallowing:
1: Probably held up = GLDO
2: Probably a TRY = TRY
3: I have no idea either way = Scrum 5 Attacking ball

As the law stands we have to judge one of those. Give a clear a confident call which ever one you go for.

But, perhaps, Crossref is right. The Lawmakers maybe need to remove doubt. Should the Law makers ammend 21.7 to read:

DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING

If there is doubt about which team first grounded, or whether the ball was grounded at all, the ball in in-goal, play is
restarted with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.
This is based on the notion that the lawmakers would want a scrum to be one of the options
I believe that the law makers basically don't want 5m scrums after pile ups (because it encourages pile ups) and the answer will be : guys, it's either a try or a gldo
(and they will tweak the law to make that clearer)
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,164
Post Likes
1,846
reasonable points from CR, and on reflection I think he is right regarding WRs view of 5m scrums. The latest law tweaks/tests show that WR want to move away from scrums and resets etc so Cr's points make sense.
Though yes indeed, a law clarification is in order so as to make that clear and universal.
 

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
2,012
Post Likes
272
Another instance of the TV people influencing the Laws to suit TV.

What about the grass-roots part of the game where a scrum is a chance to at least catch your breath. If we do not retain scrums in something like their previous/present form we have lost the game for "All shapes and sizes" (Don't get me started on not-straight and off-set feeds, I thought it was supposed to be a contested restart rather than a waste of time).
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
This is based on the notion that the lawmakers would want a scrum to be one of the options
I believe that the law makers basically don't want 5m scrums after pile ups (because it encourages pile ups) and the answer will be : guys, it's either a try or a gldo
(and they will tweak the law to make that clearer)
I would not disagree with you as to the Desires of WR. However, I feel tHere is something inherently wrong with a "guess" call. Credibility goes out of the window. But WR has "often" paid lip service to such matters.
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
202
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I would not disagree with you as to the Desires of WR. However, I feel tHere is something inherently wrong with a "guess" call. Credibility goes out of the window. But WR has "often" paid lip service to such matters.
common scenario (coincidentally same ref as opening post!) another game result swings because a C&O is impossible to call.

 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,409
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
common scenario (coincidentally same ref as opening post!) another game result swings because a C&O is impossible to call.


Rubbish article. Scotland were denied by their aimless kicking and failure to attack in the second half. If you leave it till the last minute you have to live with the consequences.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Rubbish article. Scotland were denied by their aimless kicking and failure to attack in the second half. If you leave it till the last minute you have to live with the consequences.
Two weeks in a row, Scotland held up over the line when the clock is red.

They need to take a leaf out of the Exeter book and shift from relying so heavily on 1m carries to attack the try line in a world where the defence is looking to hold the ball up... that old tactic is no longer reliable.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
773
Post Likes
270
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Two weeks in a row, Scotland held up over the line when the clock is red.

They need to take a leaf out of the Exeter book and shift from relying so heavily on 1m carries to attack the try line in a world where the defence is looking to hold the ball up... that old tactic is no longer reliable.
Tactical naivety?

Most heads are focussed in and space is out wide, but this is frequently negated by encroaching players. I would consider this an area for greater consideration for penalty tries, but the attacking team need to show some ambition to at least score a try.

Ben Earle carrying 4 defenders over the line from the base of the scrum for the likelihood of a try being scored?
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Tactical naivety?

Most heads are focussed in and space is out wide, but this is frequently negated by encroaching players. I would consider this an area for greater consideration for penalty tries, but the attacking team need to show some ambition to at least score a try.

Ben Earle carrying 4 defenders over the line from the base of the scrum for the likelihood of a try being scored?
Earl's try was amazing and arguably shouldn't have happened, but I think has a higher likelihood of scoring compared to some of the 1m pick and drives that we typically see.

I've learned from playing touch rugby that it is often easier to attack from 10m out than from the 5m line... defenders are more spread out, they are more concerned that you might pass the ball, and you have more space to move the defenders and find a gap. Very close to the line, there is no space for you to move laterally, the defence starts very close and in your face, and everyone knows what you are going to do.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,164
Post Likes
1,846
Earl's try was amazing and arguably shouldn't have happened, but I think has a higher likelihood of scoring compared to some of the 1m pick and drives that we typically see.

I've learned from playing touch rugby that it is often easier to attack from 10m out than from the 5m line... defenders are more spread out, they are more concerned that you might pass the ball, and you have more space to move the defenders and find a gap. Very close to the line, there is no space for you to move laterally, the defence starts very close and in your face, and everyone knows what you are going to do.


and Id add to that spot on analysius, more modern in goals arent very deep typically so the dribble and chase is less likely from 5m out now.
 
Top