Let him up

[Joe@trfc]

I know this must have been dealt with before but I can't find it

Defender runs back and falls on the ball just kicked by attacking team, attacking team member catches defender on the floor, steps over him (defender is between his legs) and tries to pick the ball up. Defender tries to get up but can't directly due to attacker straddling him.
So : no tackle, no ruck, no maul
I hear people shout you have to let him up
I say the attacker does not have to let him up but must not hold him to prevent him getting up, if he stays on the ground he must release the ball

Am I right?

 

[Adam]

You are correct. What the attacking player mustn't do is fall on him. A call of 'play the ball', 'stay your feet' or something familiar will help sell the decision.

 

[Simon Thomas]

is straddling the player, preventing him getting up ? it can be and you as refe have to judge.

as we all know it is an urban myth that the arriving player has to "let him up" re the fallen player, but as refs we must ensure he does not fall on him, bridge over him, or in any other way stop him getting to his feet (if the fallen player wishes to exercise that option), and encourage the fallen player to get up, or pass, place or release the ball (to a player on his feet).

 

[Dixie]

is straddling the player, preventing him getting up ? it can be and you as refe have to judge.

as we all know it is an urban myth that the arriving player has to "let him up" re the fallen player, but as refs we must ensure he does not fall on him, bridge over him, or in any other way stop him getting to his feet (if the fallen player wishes to exercise that option), and encourage the fallen player to get up, or pass, place or release the ball (to a player on his feet).

Before OB jumps in here, I'll point out that he has obtained senior-level official confirmation that you can drag the player into touch, which seems to conflict with ST's view. Chris Ashton of Northants was not penalised at all when dragging Leicester's Tuilagi by the hair in exactly this situation. The hair-pulling was missed; the dragging along was not. Suffice to say that the view you can't prevent the player getting up is controversial.

As mentioned, the key is that law 14 puts the onus on the player falling on the ball. He has three options, none of which are characterised as rights. If he's prevented from getting up or passing, he has to release. This last one is often the least desirable, but almost always possible. The opposition player, by contrast, is restrained in only one way - he may not fall on or over the grounded player. As long as he stays on his feet, The Man On His Feet is King. If he doesn't come away with the ball, the wise ref will be wondering what the grounded player did illegally to prevent that outcome.

 

[Davet]

Simon

loth as I am to disagree...

Why do you say the arriving player must not prevent the man on the floor from getting to his feet?

As far as I am aware, so long as he does not fall on or over the player, or make the ball unplayable then he is inside the law. If he puts hands on the ball the player on the ground must simply release his grasp on the ball.

 

[Simon Thomas]

It is all in the timing and sequence of events - and how referee sees it unfold and his judgement call.

Arriving player's hands on ball, thus immediate release expected.
Straddle and not go for the ball immediately, the arriving player could be reducing the fallen player's options.

 

[Dixie]

Straddle and not go for the ball immediately, the arriving player could be reducing the fallen player's options.

Equally, by standing between the fallen player and a team-mate within passing range, he may be reducing the fallen player's options. I assume you'd not PK for that, so reducing the fallen player's options does not seem to be a penalisable action. Indeed, by grabbing the ball and pulling, the Man on His Feet is reducing the fallen player's options so that he can only release; I'm pretty sure you wouldn't view that as a PK offence against the King!

 

[Davet]

Surely reducing opponents' options is part of the object of the game?

I am a little worried at what seems to be difference in approach between us.

If the arriving player puts hands on the player on the ground and isn't supporting his own weight then I can see that being treated as falling on top.

But simply standing straddled over him would not fall into that category. If the straddling player did not immediately try to take the ball then he is presumably set up to be the first man in a ruck.

 

[OB..]

Surely reducing opponents' options is part of the object of the game?

I am a little worried at what seems to be difference in approach between us.

If the arriving player puts hands on the player on the ground and isn't supporting his own weight then I can see that being treated as falling on top.

But simply standing straddled over him would not fall into that category. If the straddling player did not immediately try to take the ball then he is presumably set up to be the first man in a ruck.

I rather agree.

When young I used to fall and get up in just about the same movement. It was much safer than trying to pick up a rolling ball up while on your feet.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I rather agree.

When young I used to fall and get up in just about the same movement. It was much safer than trying to pick up a rolling ball up while on your feet.

which is the technique used I see most Saturdays.

 

[scarletjack]

back to the original question

Defender runs back and falls on the ball just kicked by attacking team, attacking team member catches defender on the floor, steps over him (defender is between his legs) and tries to pick the ball up. Defender tries to get up but can't directly due to attacker straddling him.
So : no tackle, no ruck, no maul
I hear people shout you have to let him up
I say the attacker does not have to let him up but must not hold him to prevent him getting up, if he stays on the ground he must release the ball

Am I right?

i think spot on
attacker on his feet not holding down defender or preventing him from getting up quit entitled to go for ball, and if defender hasn't played passed or released PK for holding on

 

[Adam]

The man on feet is King in this scenario. A call of 'stay your feet', 'don't fall on him' or 'play the ball' can help. My view is they're options, not rights.

I would say you are right.

 

[scarletjack]

The man on feet is King in this scenario. A call of 'stay your feet', 'don't fall on him' or 'play the ball' can help. My view is they're options, not rights.

I would say you are right.

think the key phrase here is "options not rights"

 

[jynxy]

Defender runs back and falls on the ball just kicked by attacking team, attacking team member catches defender on the floor, steps over him (defender is between his legs) and tries to pick the ball up. Defender tries to get up but can't directly due to attacker straddling him.
So : no tackle, no ruck, no maul
I hear people shout you have to let him up
I say the attacker does not have to let him up but must not hold him to prevent him getting up, if he stays on the ground he must release the ball

Am I right?

i would say so, it is the player on the floors actions that set up the consequences, if he really wanted to stand up he would, as long as he is on the floor the opposition has every right to contest for the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Do any Australian Referees here know Anthony Moyes?

If so, watch (and listen) to the video....

.... then have a word in his shell-like!!

Mikkelson did everything exactly as required by Law 14, then Anthony Moyes penalised him incorrectly. Not only was this an error in Law, but his explanation was incorrect in Law too, and shows clearly that he does not understand Law 14. I expect better from a supposed Elite referee.

When Elite referees keep using the "he's got to let him up" phrase, it becomes very difficult to teach new referees that its wrong, not to mention teaching the players!!

 

[Dixie]

i would say so, it is the player on the floors actions that set up the consequences, if he really wanted to stand up he would, as long as he is on the floor the opposition has every right to contest for the ball.

And if he gets up the oppo also has every right. So the oppo has every right to contest for the ball, whatever the man on the ground does.

Do any Australian Referees here know Anthony Moyes?

If so, watch (and listen) to the video....

.... then have a word in his shell-like!!

We are sorry but we cannot display this content as it has been labelled Private by its author. Dailymotion

 

[Ian_Cook]

We are sorry but we cannot display this content as it has been labelled Private by its author. Dailymotion

try now

 

[The Fat]

try now

I think the reaction of the players on the NZ bench says it all.

 

[Taff]

... Defender runs back and falls on the ball just kicked by attacking team, attacking team member catches defender on the floor, steps over him (defender is between his legs) and tries to pick the ball up. ...

I sometimes struggle with this, but it's not just from a long kick back though Scarletjack. As I understand it, the same law applies any time a player goes to ground to collect a loose ball. Admittedly it usually applies to a long kick where the defender runs back to collect it, but doesn't just apply to that. I know I've been caught out by that a couple of times, so it's worth bearing in mind. The easiest way I found to think of it, is that the man on his feet is either going to get the ball or a PK.

I think the reaction of the players on the NZ bench says it all.

Priceless. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

the commentators aren't at all sure either --- one says 'but how much time does he have to give him to let him get to his feet?'
it seems the confusion isn't only confined to the northern hemisphere.


just to throw cat into pigeons - do you think that the very first touch the NZ player makes is not actually an attempt to get the ball, but is in fact a press downwards on the england player to prevent him getting up. That would be a PK to England and the referee might lazily explain it by saying you should let him up.