Making the ball dead

loten10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
29
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Here is the scenario:

Red have a drop out from their 22 and kick the ball into Blues in-goal area. Blue defender running back then kicks the ball over the dead ball line or over the touch-in-goal line. Has this player legitimately made the ball 'dead' and therefore is awarded a scrum back or make Red drop out again?

If not, what does the law book mean by 'make the ball dead'? Is this the scenario of the defending player having one foot over the dead ball line and picking the ball up when it is in motion so that the ball is deemed to be dead already?

Any help would be great.
 

Simon Thomas


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
12,848
Post Likes
189
Good question - I have seen it catch out one or two experienced refs who awarded 22m drop outs. Law 22/.7 (c) states "ground or make dead immediately" - usually it is a pick up & grounding action, but kicking it touch-in-goal or over dead-ball line IMMEDIATELY counts the same in Law. So scrum back option applies.

defender foot on or over dead-ball or touch-in-goal and a moving ball is counted as dead so need to ground it or kick it out,
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,408
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Yes he has made the ball dead.
The only other question you need to ask yourself is, did he make it dead without delay?
 

Davet

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,731
Post Likes
4
If he did then he can have a scrum back middle of 22, or get the DO retaken.

If not then he gets his own 22DO
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,408
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Good question - I have seen it catch out one or two experienced refs who awarded 22m drop outs. Law 22/.7 (c) states "ground or make dead immediately" - usually it is a pick up & grounding action, but kicking it touch-in-goal or over dead-ball line IMMEDIATELY counts the same in Law. So scrum back option applies.

defender foot on or over dead-ball or touch-in-goal and a moving ball is counted as dead so need to ground it or kick it out,

Simon, law 13, referring specifically to the dropout going into in goal does not say immediately, it says without delay, which I would define as ever so slightly longer than immediately.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
... Red have a drop out from their 22 and kick the ball into Blues in-goal area. Blue defender running back then kicks the ball over the dead ball line or over the touch-in-goal line. Has this player legitimately made the ball 'dead' and therefore is awarded a scrum back or make Red drop out again?
Believe it or not I had this happen in an U12 game. It really threw me, but I gave the option of a Kick Again or Scrum anyway. I admit I wasn't 100% sure, but when I get home was relieved that it was correct.

As Phil E says, what you have to ask yourself is "Was it done immediately"? If the defender picked it up, pranced around in-goal for a while to waste time and draw in the attackers ... only to welly it over the DBL as soon as they got within a few metres, then he's lost the scrum back option.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,408
Current Referee grade:
Level 8

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
(Sigh) misquoted again.
Sorry Phil. What I should have said was "Was there a delay?"

Agree that "without delay" is slightly longer than "immediately". How much longer? Well, you'll recognise it when you see it. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

Simon Thomas


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
12,848
Post Likes
189
Simon, law 13, referring specifically to the dropout going into in goal does not say immediately, it says without delay, which I would define as ever so slightly longer than immediately.

pedant - in a match sitiuation my immediately is the same as without delay, but in law you are of course right :biggrin:
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Do we really think the IRB meant something significantly different when using “without delay” or “immediately”? A quick flip through the laws suggests that is feasible, but not that it is necessary.

Law 20.5 says the scrum half must throw the ball in “without delay”, but listening to Nigel Owens you would think that meant “immediately if not sooner”.

Sometimes they are definitely NOT alternatives: “The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.”
 

Davet

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,731
Post Likes
4
It may be that no-one is in a position to make the ball dead immediately it goes in goal, so a defender who does so as soon as it is possible to do so has done so without delay, even if that is not immediate.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
It may be that no-one is in a position to make the ball dead immediately it goes in goal, so a defender who does so as soon as it is possible to do so has done so without delay, even if that is not immediate.
That could be a useful distinction, but it does not apply to all cases where "without delay" is used.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,222
Post Likes
2,218
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I agree with Phil. "Without delay" is slightly longer than "immediately".

In this context "without delay" gives the player the option of picking up the ball, briefly assessing options then making the ball dead.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
I agree with Phil. "Without delay" is slightly longer than "immediately".

In this context "without delay" gives the player the option of picking up the ball, briefly assessing options then making the ball dead.
With my coaching hat on, I would say that view is sufficiently controversial that it should be coached out of any player. What assessment does he want to make? "Am I better off running this from 112m or having a scrum at 22m"? The answer to that is so obvious that I suggest he should do his thinking on the hoof.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,222
Post Likes
2,218
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
With my coaching hat on, I would say that view is sufficiently controversial that it should be coached out of any player. What assessment does he want to make? "Am I better off running this from 112m or having a scrum at 22m"? The answer to that is so obvious that I suggest he should do his thinking on the hoof.

If the obviousness was so obvious, why does the law specifically give the player the option to play on? The law may as well say "if the ball goes into in-goal then the option is scrum or kick again".
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
If the obviousness was so obvious, why does the law specifically give the player the option to play on? The law may as well say "if the ball goes into in-goal then the option is scrum or kick again".
What if time has expired and his team needs a score?
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
So if he needs to score rather than have the scrum, what is he thinking about standing under his posts? Shouldn't he be pinning his ears back and running ?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
So if he needs to score rather than have the scrum, what is he thinking about standing under his posts? Shouldn't he be pinning his ears back and running ?
He knows he needs a score, so he looks for his only chance - but then finds there is a rather large number of great hairy men in his way, and opts for safety.
 
Top