[Law] Law 13.3 b

[RobinT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]13.3 A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
b. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Not play the ball.

In the recent USA vs Chile game at Fullerton, CA USA, at 20min 18 sec in 1st half USA attacking, USA no 15 is tackled 1 metre from Chile's goal line. He places the ball back and the USA no 4 picks the ball, gets hit immediately by Chilean player entering tackle/ruck, goes to ground and loses the ball backwards 2 metres. He crawls back at speed on hands and knees as no 8 Chile comes in to contest, and flips the ball up to the USA no 13 who goes over the line for a try. Should this try be awarded?[/FONT]

 

[Flish]

Would need to see it, but if all within one action then he’s played the ball so ok, if as described then looks to me like he’s preventing the opposition from playing the ball, whilst he’s on the ground, so a penalty. Should have got back in his feet.

 

[crossref]

As described, PK to Chile for playing ball while on ground

 

[Camquin]

But the referee is always right, especially if he was wrong.

So if he awarded the try then must have decided that the American player played the ball immediately.
If he awarded the penalty, he must have decided that the ball had been lost and then played while on the ground.

In either case his decision once made was correct and there is no appeal.
of course, he will have been assessed and debriefed and his assessor may take another view.
That might affect how the referee progresses, but not the outcome of the game.

 

[Flish]

But the referee is always right, especially if he was wrong.

Best rename this forum to 'It's always right' instead of 'Was it right' then

 

[Christy]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]13.3 A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
b. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Not play the ball.

In the recent USA vs Chile game at Fullerton, CA USA, at 20min 18 sec in 1st half USA attacking, USA no 15 is tackled 1 metre from Chile's goal line. He places the ball back and the USA no 4 picks the ball, gets hit immediately by Chilean player entering tackle/ruck, goes to ground and loses the ball backwards 2 metres. He crawls back at speed on hands and knees as no 8 Chile comes in to contest, and flips the ball up to the USA no 13 who goes over the line for a try. Should this try be awarded?[/FONT]

i have hi lighted above material offensive play by usa player
for me , i would say minimum penalty .
if the chile nr 8 was not near contest area , or any other chilian player was not close to contest area .
i would let try go as not really material .

but it is clearly very material by usa player on floor playing ball whilst the chille nr 8 is legally involved in play also , so i cant see how try could be awarded .

 

[Pinky]

By the sound of it, illegal play by the USA. However a pro level there still seems to be an acceptance that rolling forward or crawling forward once tackled is permissible.

 

[L'irlandais]

Hi Robin T,
Welcome to the RR forum.
Nice to have somebody from Vancouver Fraser Valley Rugby Referees society.

This was the game at Titan Stadium, Cal State, Fullerton, right?

35 and a half minutes in this clip, if the timestamp doesn't work.
Wasn’t that Chilean player in from the side? (If so advantage to the Eagles?) If you then disallow the try you have to come back for a penalty to the Eagles.
Judging by the match report, the decision wouldn't have changed the result (45-13) much.

 

[beckett50]

As I see it there were multiple infringements here.

The referee was already playing 2 PK advantages for high tackles from Chile (#12 & #13 if I heard correctly on the ref mike).

The USA #8 was tackled by the #15; but the #15 was did neither come through the gate nor use any arms in the tackle (another PK advantage). Yes he fell and lost the ball back, but his actions of immediately playing the ball to the #10 in no way stopped the Chile player from winning or contesting for the ball.

Had the referee felt inclined to blow for the USA player playing the ball from the ground, then there is a case that, but for the 'tackle' by the Chile #15 a try would have been scored and so a PK and YC would have been given. Chile got off rather lightly IMHO.

 

[Flish]

It's certainly less clear cut than originally described, you could argue that he played the ball in one action whilst on the ground, albeit needing two reaches to pop the ball up to his team mate, and agree, don't think he did anything to prevent the defenders contesting it, so think in terms of positive play it would be play on for me. (And yes there's at least one advantage being played there too)

 

[crossref]

We are heading right back to the 2017 arguments about what right does a player on the ground have to play the ball.
The 2017 Laws being ambiguous I and others argued that players had just the same rights as if they had gone to ground with the ball .
Ie to play it immediately .. or at least quickly

But the 2018 Law book makes it completely clear that is wrong ... A player on the ground cannot play a ball that comes near him . Not even if he does it quickly

 

[OB..]

I certainly do not see the player crawling. He is on the ground and lunges for the ball. I can't be sure if his knees were off the ground from that clip, but if they were, he had regained his feet and was thus a player falling on the ball, who is entitled to pass it.

 

[Treadmore]

I certainly do not see the player crawling. He is on the ground and lunges for the ball. I can't be sure if his knees were off the ground from that clip,

only off the ground one at a time...a bit like crawling :biggrin:

but if they were, he had regained his feet

even if his hands/arms are still on the ground?