Jolly Roger
Referees in Scotland
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2010
- Messages
- 210
- Post Likes
- 66
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
I played rugby for 30 years; have coached for 10; have been refereeing for 12; and watched the game for 40 years - most of which concurrently: no I am not 92! This does not make me right, knowledgeable or necessarily competent but does provide some degree of understanding of the basic concept of the game which we all love.
In all that time I have never believed for one moment that it is fair and legal to play the ball whilst on the ground with the hands other than at the point of actually going to ground. Over that time the interpretation of the word 'immediately' has changed slightly. However, the basic concept of being out of the game whilst on the ground has been universal and continuous.
I read the first 18 pages of this thread in one go and it made very interesting reading. However, the game, as universally accepted by players and spectators alike, prohibits players on the ground from taking part in the game unless in the moment of going to ground.
I believe that if any of us asked 1000 players and supporters of rugby in the circles within which we referee for their immediate response to the original question (or any of the subsequent legal hypotheses) then they would agree that a penalty against the player on the ground was a fair and reasonable call. We have all seen international players and club players alike avoid the ball whilst off their feet in order to avoid the obvious penalty. I have certainly done so and God knows I used to get pinged for hands on the deck with frequent regularity. Why? Because the basic tenet of the game is deeply embedded.
Whilst the legal argument is genuinely interesting we have to remember that there are 30 other people the pitch, replacements, coaches and numerous supporters all of whom fully accept the basic premise that rugby is a game played by players on their feet and when you are off you feet then you are out the game.
To allow a player to control the ball and get to their feet in open play and not under pressure from the opposition would not be unreasonable (even if it might be legally dubious), but to allow any interference closed to the try line when on the ground and under pressure (except in the event of going to ground) would be greeted with justified outrage (and some satisfied sniggers of relief).
This is about the basic concept of the game and not detailed intellectual analysis.
In all that time I have never believed for one moment that it is fair and legal to play the ball whilst on the ground with the hands other than at the point of actually going to ground. Over that time the interpretation of the word 'immediately' has changed slightly. However, the basic concept of being out of the game whilst on the ground has been universal and continuous.
I read the first 18 pages of this thread in one go and it made very interesting reading. However, the game, as universally accepted by players and spectators alike, prohibits players on the ground from taking part in the game unless in the moment of going to ground.
I believe that if any of us asked 1000 players and supporters of rugby in the circles within which we referee for their immediate response to the original question (or any of the subsequent legal hypotheses) then they would agree that a penalty against the player on the ground was a fair and reasonable call. We have all seen international players and club players alike avoid the ball whilst off their feet in order to avoid the obvious penalty. I have certainly done so and God knows I used to get pinged for hands on the deck with frequent regularity. Why? Because the basic tenet of the game is deeply embedded.
Whilst the legal argument is genuinely interesting we have to remember that there are 30 other people the pitch, replacements, coaches and numerous supporters all of whom fully accept the basic premise that rugby is a game played by players on their feet and when you are off you feet then you are out the game.
To allow a player to control the ball and get to their feet in open play and not under pressure from the opposition would not be unreasonable (even if it might be legally dubious), but to allow any interference closed to the try line when on the ground and under pressure (except in the event of going to ground) would be greeted with justified outrage (and some satisfied sniggers of relief).
This is about the basic concept of the game and not detailed intellectual analysis.
