Penalty for playing the ball on the ground?

[crossref]

So you would give a PK in my scenario then?

Would it be Clear, Obvious and Expected?

Remember we are looking or a reason "not" to blow the whistle. I would suggest my scenario is one of them. No one expects you to blow, there is no material advantage gained by the order in which he completes the two actions and all that will happen is that you will make everyone think you are a jobs worth.

Shrug, your seriously extreme example isn't very helpful, lots of rugby laws look silly in very extreme examples
Back to real life - would I give a pk for a player on the ground handling a ball that comes toward him .. Why yes. Been there done that.
Now perhaps that was wrong, but what we need to establish is what the law says in ordinary situations, before we test it in extreme examples

 

[Account Deleted]

Sorry to play words (not being a natural English speaker may drag my wrong here) but the law says:
[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.[/LAWS]
The law doesn't say:
[LAWS]The Game is to be played only by players who are on their feet.[/LAWS]

To me it is a statement of philosophy of the game and a guide line explaining why the law 14 is required. According the law, there isn't any infringement (leading to a sanction) if you play the ball on the ground while complying with law 14 (in open play again)...

Am I that wrong here?
Cheers,
Pierre.

If you try to say the lack of the word "only" means that it mean the game can be played by players wherever they are there would be no point in stating: [LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.[/LAWS]. So yes, for me you are clearly wrong.

 

[ChrisR]

" Toe-jabbing the ball into touch is NOT one of the listed options."

.....and if the ball had been grubbed down field and a defender, not able to reach it to pick it up, slides feet first (a la soccer) and toe-jabs the ball into touch you'd ping him also?

 

[Account Deleted]

Until Law 14 states "A player on the ground must not play the ball" then I see no offense.

Any player on the ground coming into possession of the ball must comply with 14.1 (a). It can not be simpler than that.

Other than the prohibition of diving on a ball emerging from ruck, tackle or scrum the law doesn't concern itself with how or the proximity of opponents. So neither should we.

Play on!

Then please explain why the law states "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." What is the reason for that clause? In your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct, and the next sentence says

[This situation] ..... also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.

This suggest, to me, a player who has gone to ground with the ball.

As asked of others; Why say the game is to be played by players on their feet, if the game can be played on or off your feet? give me a logical reason and I'll consider your argument but at the moment I just can't see your logic.

 

[Account Deleted]

Of course as with all PK offences we have "clear and obvious" and "material effect" to be considered. Foul play always being material.

 

[Ian_Cook]

" Toe-jabbing the ball into touch is NOT one of the listed options."

.....and if the ball had been grubbed down field and a defender, not able to reach it to pick it up, slides feet first (a la soccer) and toe-jabs the ball into touch you'd ping him also?

You are falling into the the trap of creating an angels on pinheads example. In nearly 50 years of variously watching, playing and refereeing rugby, I cannot recall never seeing a player do that; and why would they, when it would be a quicker, safer, simpler and higher percentage option to just speculate the ball into touch.


But to answer your question, I would probably allow it.

 

[Dickie E]

Then please explain why the law states "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." What is the reason for that clause? In your opinion.

It is a statement of philosophy about the sport and is an instruction that players should, wherever feasible, play the game on their feet. Likewise "soccer is a game for players on their feet" but there are plenty of opportunities for a player to be legally in the game whilst off their feet.

 

[menace]

I see Law 14 as setting one of the fundamental aspects of our game. It tells you that players must be on their feet to play the game, and provides instruction for what is expected of players when they find themselves in a situation where they are off their feet and wish to play the ball...

I get it and not to be controversial to dispute it.....but if it was the be all to end all of the game...why did they wait to Law 14 to say so??? You'd think it would be right up the front ( not to suggest the laws are sequentially applied etc). Just saying..:shrug:

 

[Ian_Cook]

I get it and not to be controversial to dispute it.....but if it was the be all to end all of the game...why did they wait to Law 14 to say so??? You'd think it would be right up the front ( not to suggest the laws are sequentially applied etc). Just saying..:shrug:

By the same token, why did they leave it until Law 13 to explain kick-offs and restarts, when you can't actually start the game without a kick-off?

Well in actual fact if you look at the Law book carefully you will see that it is divided into sections.

1. BEFORE THE MATCH (Laws 1 to 6)
2. DURING THE MATCH: Method of playing the match (Laws 7 to 12)
3. DURING THE MATCH: In the field of play (Laws 13 to 18)
4. DURING THE MATCH: Restarts (Laws 19 to 21)
5. DURING THE MATCH: In-goal (Law 22)

In the sense that Section 3 describes what happens in the field of play during the match, then Law 13 IS the first thing (it must be of course) and it is followed by Law 14, the very next thing to be considered after the game kicks off!!

 

[The Fat]

Sorry guys, but I agree with Ian on this topic. It has always been my understanding that a player lying on the ground is not entitled to attempt to take possession of or play the ball in the field of play from that position. That is the way I have seen it refereed and that is the way I referee it. It seems simple enough to me and is in line with the fundamental of our game that the game is to be played by players who are on their feet.

 

[Taff]

... This suggest, to me, a player who has gone to ground with the ball.

I'm sure it does ATTR and I have some sympathy with it, but it may mean something else to somebody else.

Then please explain why the law states "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." What is the reason for that clause? In your opinion.

Because these are laws not rules. Laws give a general principle and let the referee apply those principles. I'm sure we would all agree that in an ideal world all the players stayed on their feet all the time, but in the real world there will be times when the law realises that the ball or a player will end up on the floor at some time during the game. The laws allow for this by making that player recycle the ball (ie get up, pass, push, place or release the ball) "immediately".

 

[crossref]

Of course as with all PK offences we have "clear and obvious" and "material effect" to be considered. Foul play always being material.

i would say that (barring very extreme examples, OK ) actually playing the ball when you are not allowed to, is always going to be material.

the question is whether the player on the ground is allowed to handle the ball .... or not.

 

[Davet]

Law 14 definitions state that the game is to played by players on their feet. It then goes on to describe several ways that this general requirement is breached - and the principle is fairly clear: If you are off your feet then you must act immediately if you paly the ball. You clearly cannot either go to ground and make the ball unplayable, or be already on the ground and take advantage of that in order to make the ball unplayable.

The definition says that the Law 14 allowances apply to a player who goes to ground to gather the ball, or is already on the ground and in possession. Clearly the player on the ground who is not in possession is simply a player on the ground - Law 14 kicks in if and when he actually takes possession.

At that point The Law allows him to be briefly on the ground and in possession - but only for as long as it takes him to either pass, release or get up, and he must act to do one of these things immediately. He must not make the ball unplayable.

So in almost all of the scenarios posited the player on the ground is OK and can legally play the ball provided he does so immediately.

There is a slight issue with the player on the ground kicking the ball into touch - its not releasing - and could be construed as making the ball unplayable. It could well be penalisable.

There is also a single separate clause that seem to be placed here for convenience, in that it has nothing to do with the ball. It imparts a blanket prohibition against a player on the ground tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent.

 

[Dixie]

I get it and not to be controversial to dispute it.....but if it was the be all to end all of the game...why did they wait to Law 14 to say so??? You'd think it would be right up the front ( not to suggest the laws are sequentially applied etc). Just saying..:shrug:

True. But then Ian mentions some very good points, to which I would add - surely if the iRB were actually any good at codifying the Laws of the Game, the laws would also have dealt with the hand-off before the gap was actually noticed a few years ago, and would not have been so shoddily written throughout. So we can conclude from these failings that the iRB is useless at codifying the LoTG, and can't infer from any apparent lack within the laws that the iRB is happy with the situation as the laws seem to state it.

 

[Account Deleted]

It is a statement of philosophy about the sport and is an instruction that players should, wherever feasible, play the game on their feet. Likewise "soccer is a game for players on their feet" but there are plenty of opportunities for a player to be legally in the game whilst off their feet.

It's an instruction, and it certainly does not say "where feasible" in the law . Does association football have the same law? If not your reference is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

I get it and not to be controversial to dispute it.....but if it was the be all to end all of the game...why did they wait to Law 14 to say so??? You'd think it would be right up the front ( not to suggest the laws are sequentially applied etc). Just saying..:shrug:

Law 20 is towards the end of the laws. Not important? Sorry just can't see your logic here at all.

 

[Account Deleted]

I'm sure it does ATTR and I have some sympathy with it, but it may mean something else to somebody else.

Indeed it may. but what logic is there in not allowing a player on the floor to tackle but letting him play the ball? There is no sense to applying differing logic to the two situations.

Because these are laws not rules. Laws give a general principle and let the referee apply those principles. I'm sure we would all agree that in an ideal world all the players stayed on their feet all the time, but in the real world there will be times when the law realises that the ball or a player will end up on the floor at some time during the game. The laws allow for this by making that player recycle the ball (ie get up, pass, push, place or release the ball) "immediately".

The laws / rules things is a cop out. Is it a "general principle" that you don't stamp on a player? No it's a law; transgress and retribution (via the whistle) is liable to occur. The referee may chose to manage the situation but that management includes storing "managed" situations in the brain to bring to mind when the players repeat the offences.

- - - Updated - - -

i would say that (barring very extreme examples, OK ) actually playing the ball when you are not allowed to, is always going to be material.

the question is whether the player on the ground is allowed to handle the ball .... or not.

Indeed I'm not saying a particular incident is or is not material, indeed there are those who will argue that everything done during a game has an impact on the game and is therefore material. Rather, as a ref, you will consider materiality when making a call.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's an instruction, and it certainly does not say "where feasible" in the law . Does association football have the same law? If not your reference is irrelevant.

Association Football has no law about whether the game is for players on their feet. Footballers may play the ball when in any body position (standing, kneeling, sitting or lying etc) with any part of their anatomy except the hands or arms.

Dickie's comment is therefore irrelevant

 

[Davet]

If a player off his feet could not take any part in the game the whole of law 14 would not be couched in a way that says - actually, with these restrictions, a player off his feet can legally take part in the game.

The whole premise of Law 14 is that players on the ground may take part, PROVIDED..... basically that they don't make the ball unplayable.

 

[Taff]

Indeed it may. but what logic is there in not allowing a player on the floor to tackle but letting him play the ball? There is no sense to applying differing logic to the two situations.

It's a good point, and if I'm honest I don't know why a player on the ground is prevented from tackling a ball carrier. If a ball carrier can't get away from a potential tackler on the ground, then perhaps rugby isn't the sport for him.

Be honest, if that law was scrapped would the sky fall in? Would anybody even notice?

 

[Account Deleted]

Association Football has no law about whether the game is for players on their feet. Footballers may play the ball when in any body position (standing, kneeling, sitting or lying etc) with any part of their anatomy except the hands or arms.

Dickie's comment is therefore irrelevant

I thought so but my knowledgeof Footballs laws is very limited these days.

- - - Updated - - -

Be honest, if that law was scrapped would the sky fall in? Would anybody even notice?

Sorry not relevant. The question is: "What does the law require?" and not: "Should the law exist?".