Even though I agreed with the outcome, I must admit I found the reasoning from the SARefs duty ref to be less than persuasive.
Penalty for playing the ball on the ground?
- Thread starter vidiego
- Start date
menace
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,657
- Post Likes
- 633
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Hi Fat
I understand what you mean and agree they are not uncommon events.
I posed those exact scenarios to someone in my association who has refereed at very high levels (think S12 and test), and even demonstrated them as it was after fitness training.
His opinion was:
In scenario 1, provided ball had rolled away from the tackle zone (ie "tabletop" area...aka 1m) then play on. If ball not away from tackle zone then PK for incorrect entry, even though he was lying on the floor.
Scenario2 - play on.
I tried to disagree with him on scenario 1 for being on the ground and playing the ball...(even suggesting in the same vain that you cant tackle a player after a tackle, why should you be allowed to playe the ball) but I got that look that if I PK that I'd be a jobsworth. Therefore from now on Ill fall into line with my association and 'play on'.
(You watch it will happen this week and before I know it the whistle will be pressing on my lips).
well, sigh, the whole point of this issue, is that the Law doesn't cover this problem.
Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it, so of course the Law references are unsatisfactory.
SARefs are not definitive, only the IRB can be that. but this answer is far and away the most authoritative answer we have:
- it's in writing, with reasons
- from a national union published on an official channel
- it was challenged, reconsidered and repeated.
this opinion clearly trumps any number of anecdotes along the lines of 'I asked a senior person in my society and what he told me was ..'
Last edited:
See, this is what I get for not reading my own posts properly. That post was mostly copied from earlier in this thread. When put to my association this week, in scenario 1, I added that the ball had rolled away from the tackle zone.
I can see now why crossref found it confusing. I couldn't see that it was confusing to my colleagues as I had added the detail re tackle zone.
Cheers.
IMO you have added too much (and irrelevant and distracting) detail! - you questions revolve around the specific details of specific scenarios, but what is at stake is a general principle : can a player on the ground play a ball that comes to him.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,381
- Post Likes
- 1,483
Given SARefs accuracy rate on other questions, I would hesitate to place any great reliance on their opinion.
agreed, but so far ---- it's the best we've got.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,381
- Post Likes
- 1,483
if the best is crap, it's no good. It's just slightly better crap
So what is your estimate of their accuracy rate?
Their accuracy rate is around 90%, but that is because 95% of the questions they get are trivial and could be answered by anyone with a cursory knowledge of the laws.
Here is the latest example (this week!) of where they haven't thought properly about an answer:
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830213/
I'm with them right up until the point where they say the correct sanction for taking the ball before it has gone 5m at a lineout is a scrum/lineout offer to the other team. This is simply incorrect. The throwin was not incorrect according to law 19.6 and so law 19.7 is not the correct one to apply. It was the person blocking the throw in that caused the infringement, not the thrower, so therefore the correct decision was a FK to the non throwing team. I have a suspicion that some of these answers are given by people that haven't refereed to any reasonable standard, because even a semi-experienced referee knows that this is a FK, and the scrum/lineout option is for when the throw goes bad.
So forgive me OB.. if I tend to not put too much credence on what they say, though that is not to say I don't find their website useful.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,381
- Post Likes
- 1,483
I don't have stats, OB, but their error rate, from that rank of referee, is enough to convince me that on controversial topics I don't hold them as the gold standard.
I also have disagreed with some of their answers - in which case I email the editor. Occasionally he agrees and has even made changes.
However the referees giving the answers are probably higher ranked than most of us, some of them internationals.. I think their views are too readily discarded.
I note (while refusing to hijack this thread further) that your view on the lineout question has been hotly debated on here.
However the referees giving the answers are probably higher ranked than most of us, some of them internationals.. I think their views are too readily discarded.
I note (while refusing to hijack this thread further) that your view on the lineout question has been hotly debated on here.
After a quick search I see that it has been mildly debated, although for the life of me I cannot see how it is even remotely ambiguous. The second part of the third sentence in 19.6 is simply defining what the "thrown straight" in the first part of that sentence means.
But alas, wrong thread.
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
If you subscribe to the published opinion [which I don't] then yes, it does trump the non responses of others. Didn't Hitler hold propaganda advantages over those that didn't have access to his media outlets, & I contend that some of his 'authoritative' views were misguided also. :wink:
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
Godwin's law!
epper:
twas deliberate me ol mucker !
I agree 100% with you that the simple, "can a player on the ground play a ball that comes to him?" question is the bottom line and is indeed the one that we need clarification for.
However, the first thing that people will do when discussing it at a society/association meeting or on-line forum etc, as is common place on this site, is to try to match the law with a common or likely/possible on-field situation in order to fully understand the intention/application of the law.
The purpose of my 2 scenarios, with as much detail as possible, was to give 2 possible instances that each referee had encountered or may be likely to encounter in a game situation. the 1st may not be game changing whereas the 2nd could well be.
When I put the question to my association members, I asked them to mark their answers as they would currently deal with those scenarios and not to discuss with each other. This was so I could get an indication of current practice. We then discussed the scenarios by applying Law 14 (which I had printed above the scenarios for them), to see if some would change their way of thinking.
The results were interesting and some who were originally in the "OB" camp conceeded they would have to change to comply with our state URM's interpretation. One more senior ref was not swayed and said that he would take it further up the ladder for me. A good result as far as the exercise went.
You will notice that when Unions are requesting a clarification from the IRB, they will quite often include one or more game situation scenarios.
Last edited:
I suspected as much. Still, if after 15 pages no-one mentions Hitler then it can't be much of an internet discussion.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,682
- Post Likes
- 1,768
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
If a player is on the ground, the ball rolls up to him and there is no-one else near enough to pick up the ball, then he has time to get to his feet to pick the ball up. If he toe-pokes it into touch, then you might well decide that it was immaterial, since if he had got to his feet and kicked or run it into touch, the same outcome would have been likely.
However, if another an opponent is nearby and he toe-pokes it into touch, or bats it away to a team-mate, he has illegally denied his opponent the opportunity to pick up the ball legally.
People can come up with all the scenarios they like regarding the ball and a player on the ground, but the fact is that there is one statement that basically sums up how the Law should be applied...
"The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." Law 14 Definitions
Its simple and its completely unambiguous; if you ain't on your feet, you ain't playing The Game, so leave the effing ball alone!!!
The ONLY times that this does not apply is when the Laws SPECIFICALLY permit a player to play the ball when that player is off their feet....
Law 14 Definitions - para 1
Law 14.1 (a)
Law 15.5 (b), (c), (d) and (g)
Law 15.6 (a) Exception
Law 22.4 (e) - as per 15.5 (g)
However, if another an opponent is nearby and he toe-pokes it into touch, or bats it away to a team-mate, he has illegally denied his opponent the opportunity to pick up the ball legally.
People can come up with all the scenarios they like regarding the ball and a player on the ground, but the fact is that there is one statement that basically sums up how the Law should be applied...
"The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." Law 14 Definitions
Its simple and its completely unambiguous; if you ain't on your feet, you ain't playing The Game, so leave the effing ball alone!!!
The ONLY times that this does not apply is when the Laws SPECIFICALLY permit a player to play the ball when that player is off their feet....
Law 14 Definitions - para 1
Law 14.1 (a)
Law 15.5 (b), (c), (d) and (g)
Law 15.6 (a) Exception
Law 22.4 (e) - as per 15.5 (g)
Last edited:
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
It is indeed a "jobsworth" penalty. But a penalty nonetheless. The full-back knocking on when there's no-one around is also a jobsworth ping, as is pulling a penalty taker back when he bounces the ball off his knee or taps it against his foot. Will your association also ask you not to ping those? There are many others that we could agree to ignore - but isn't that the iRB's job?