Player Diving On The Ball

[Deeps]

I didn't really expect to have to explain a simple concept in such detail

I'll tell you what, next time you are out training with your fellow referees, you get one of them to lie on the ground while you try to stop them getting up. You must to remain on your feet, you cannot kneel, or go off your feet in any way, and you cannot stand on him (all of which would draw a penalty under the LotG). I'll bet you wont be able to do it. The reason is simple physics... you have nothing to lever or push against, while the player on the ground has all the leverage he needs, and Planet Earth to push against.... so I repeat, with great emphasis on the point

In practice, no player is going to be able to prevent an opponent lying on the ground from getting up unless they go to ground themselves.


OB

Here is a nice example of one player dragging another into touch in a rugby league match.




I don't know about you OB, I would rather that type of play did not creep into our game. If this had happened in a Rugby Union match that I was refereeing, I would have penalised 11 Maroon for dangerous play, and given him a burst as well.

Ian, PaulDG makes a good case for your point of view in which case I misunderstood you and apologise. I think it probably better to understand what the general consensus is as to acceptable play in this situation rather than get into the weeds of defining who is on the ground.

Clearly, when there is no contest for the ball, which is what it is all about, then the man on the ground has time and space to choose his play. With an arriving player, the obligation options reduce to the ultimate position where the arriving opponent on his feet is astride the player on the ground and has his hands on the ball.

It is at this point that a) the player on the ground is unable to pass the ball and; b) is highly unlikely to be able to get to his feet while meeting anyone's definition of immediately without making the ball unplayable and; c) has no other option available but to release the ball.

What I believe is important from a refereeing perspective is firstly, to ensure the safety of the player on the ground by monitoring the actions of the opponent on his feet. This includes immediate penalty should the latter come off his feet deliberately and a general 'admonishment' that this is potential dangerous play that could well lead to a higher sanction at the next occasion.

Secondly, it is vital to champion the rights of the arriving player on his feet over and above any other perceived traditional rights of the player on the ground. This is a very important aspect of game play to the point that the white noise of any preventative call to the arriving player is not necessary where it is likely only to dissuade the arriving player from his legal rights and is therefore an unfair advantage to the opposition.

From my perspective I would not allow the arriving player to do anything other than play the ball and would consider a deliberate knee on the player on the ground to be unacceptable play.

In sum, I deplore the plethora of white noise preventative calls to arriving players as it effectively kills their potential advantage. If players do come off their feet then they should be dealt with severely and this should be a sufficient deterrent.

 

[Dickie E]

I didn't really expect to have to explain a simple concept in such detail

Sorry to have to drag a brainiac like you back into the world of us mere mortals.

A player is on his feet provided he can maintain his balance in the absence of any support. Bro, I can keep you on the ground no problem with this criteria.

 

[OB..]

OB
Please quote the whole paragraph, not just the bit you think is wrong.

I disagreed with the whole paragraph. I think Deeps put it very well:-

Clearly, when there is no contest for the ball, which is what it is all about, then the man on the ground has time and space to choose his play. With an arriving player, the obligation options reduce to the ultimate position where the arriving opponent on his feet is astride the player on the ground and has his hands on the ball.

It is at this point that a) the player on the ground is unable to pass the ball and; b) is highly unlikely to be able to get to his feet while meeting anyone's definition of immediately without making the ball unplayable and; c) has no other option available but to release the ball.

Curious that dragging a player into touch is considered OK, yet dragging them out of a maul is not.

Why? Pulling a player out of a maul is likely to cause an (illegal) collapse, and you are playing a man without the ball.

This is the type of play I see where I hear the call "let him up" coming from the referee. The player on the ground, in the circumstances I have outlined in this post, must not prevent the player from exercising any of their options under Law 14.1

If the arriving player goes off his feet, everybody agrees that he has broken Law 14.2. That is not in question.

Perhaps we are at cross-purposes: my experience is that I hear the "let him up" call before the player has arrived, and that many players at grass roots think they have to wait until the player on the ground has got up before they can do anything. They are wrong. They are allowed to go for the ball, and the player on the ground must then release it.

OB
Here is a nice example of one player dragging another into touch in a rugby league match.

It certainly illustrates the differences between the two games. When the player's knees hit the ground, he had been tackled, so the tackler should have released. The tackled player should also have released the ball, in which case it would have been illegal to continue dragging him. The horse collar tackle is generally regarded as dangerous.

 

[David J.]

Seems to me the issue is that for a tackle, there is 15.5(e): If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.

But there is no equivalent provision for Law 14 (Ball on the Ground, No Tackle).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Sorry to have to drag a brainiac like you back into the world of us mere mortals.

A player is on his feet provided he can maintain his balance in the absence of any support. Bro, I can keep you on the ground no problem with this criteria.

I'll bet you can't without leaning on the player .i.e. putting your weight on him, and as soon as you do that, you are at least partially supporting yourself with your hands so you are no longer supported only by your feet as the LoTG requires. As a practitioner of the art of Tai Chi, I am very familiar with standing in balance, especially in the "pushing hands" exercise, and I can say positively that it is impossible to prevent a player from getting to his feet while remaining fully supported by only on your own feet. Picking up a ball or stripping a ball out of the hands of a prone player is possible because the upward lift of this action places additional weight on your feet, but ANY action pushing down takes weight off your feet. If you don't believe me, try placing a set of bathroom scales next to the sink unit in your bathroom. Stand on the scales and lean on the sink unit; the reading on the scales drops. Where does the weight go? It goes to you hands, which are now supporting some of your body weight.

Perhaps we are at cross-purposes: my experience is that I hear the "let him up" call before the player has arrived, and that many players at grass roots think they have to wait until the player on the ground has got up before they can do anything. They are wrong. They are allowed to go for the ball, and the player on the ground must then release it.

Then they would be wrong. A quick telephone survey of eight players from my local team tells me that is not the case here. Hardly a scientific poll I know, but I will bring it up using a show of hands when the team meets next week next Saturday (Golf day). I personally do not recall ever hearing a referee say "let him up" to a player standing up trying to prevent another player from getting to his feet. Dickie's earlier comment leads me to beleive this does not happen in Australia either. I have heard it plenty of times said to players on the ground trying to prevent a player getting up. I have also heard it said when a tackler is trying to get to his feet and is being prevented from doing so by opponents.

 

[OB..]

Ian - we clearly are at cross purposes, trying to deal with different problems.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I don't know if I'd be brave enough to penalise Tallis never mind give a burst!

 

[Davet]

Ian, if a player straddles an opponent who is on the ground - ie one foot in front of that players body one behind it, while remaining stricltly on his feet, and bending at the waist and knees to grasp the ball, then he will make it diffcult for that layer regain his feet.

But, you are correct, it is not impossible, the player on the floor can force himself upwards and in the process dislodge the straddler.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I had several cries of 'Let him up' in my own game today which prompted a 20 second lecture at an appropriate moment.

In true Monty Python style, they didn't elect for the full half hour then ?

 

[OB..]

If you are pulling a player into touch, you are preventing him from regaining his feet.

 

[Rawling]

What if he's just been tackled and is still holding the ball?
I do wonder about dragging opponents; I remember watching a Wasps game where they tackled an opponent and dragged him into his own in-goal, so earning a 5m scrum, and it wasn't penalised, but I can understand how it might be illegal

 

[Adam]

I thought we were reserving judgement on 'Let Him Up' until 2nd February?

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

Hello there.

Sorry to arrive as a newbie and immediately drag up an old thread, but this is something I feel needs discussion.

As a flanker I am obviously concerned with clearing up loose ball more than once in a game, and was always taught in the past to dive on the ball and IMMEDIATELY get to my feet. Any delay in getting to my feet would rightly result in a penalty. But also, I was always allowed to at least half get up otherwise the opposition would be penalized. It seems that in the last couple of years referees have at best been inconsistent with this, and looking at earlier posts it seems that the old idea of ‘let him get up’ may indeed be a myth.

However, let me explain why I dive on the ball. You have a loose ball, often bobbing about, and several opponents running at it; if you stand and pick it up you’re likely to get a big impact either against your head and neck if you’re facing the opposition or against the back of your knees if you have your back turned or are sideways on (remember, you're watching the ball and not seeing who's about to hit you); diving on the ball then rising to your feet is a safe way to pick it up which will usually slow the opponent and result in a maul, which will likely be to the advantage of the attacking team as they have forward momentum. Standing in the middle of a pitch with a load of guys running at you and bending over to pick up the ball is not a fun thing to do. In fact, I'm not proud of it but I have more than once injured opponents who tried to bend over and pick the ball up, simply by going at the ball aggressively while they can't see me, so I don't want to end up in the same position as them.

Now, you could argue that I should pick up the ball while running, or pick it up side on with my head up; all well and good, but the nature of a rugby ball is that it’s wobbling about unpredictably so you don't have the time or chance to get it right every time and you’re likely to be smashed into the ground while trying.

So as a player I would support the older interpretation that a player may dive on the ball, but must immediately get up and must be allowed to do so. I know there’s a modern obsession with keeping us all on our feet so maybe my view is unfashionable, but I’m thinking in terms of safety here; something that must be considered when you look at the injury statistics of recent years.

 

[Davet]

You are right - it is easier to dive on a ball than to try to pick it up when it's bobbling around.

You are perfectly free to do so, and would be advised to do so - so long as, as you write, you then immediately get to your feet (or pass the ball off the ground).

But no one needs to let you get up.

Approaching players cannot go to ground on top of you, or fall on you. That would be a penalty against them.

But if you are on the ground and they stand over you and put hands on the ball you have to give it up.

If you think that the timing is such that this is likely, then find an alternative defensive strategy - perhaps kick the ball into touch?

But no one is obliged to give you the time you need to act as you wish - it's part of the competition for the ball.

 

[Toby Warren]

Welcome -
What Davet says

But in addition think of it as a positive - when you are faced with an opponent who has beaten you to the ball and dived on it - you don't have to let him up!

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

You are right - it is easier to dive on a ball than to try to pick it up when it's bobbling around.

You are perfectly free to do so, and would be advised to do so - so long as, as you write, you then immediately get to your feet (or pass the ball off the ground).

But no one needs to let you get up.

Approaching players cannot go to ground on top of you, or fall on you. That would be a penalty against them.

But if you are on the ground and they stand over you and put hands on the ball you have to give it up.

If you think that the timing is such that this is likely, then find an alternative defensive strategy - perhaps kick the ball into touch?

But no one is obliged to give you the time you need to act as you wish - it's part of the competition for the ball.

OK, but in practice you’re not often held down by someone on his feet, but generally by someone just dropping his large frame on top of you; in that situation as I understand it, he should then be penalized?

Also, as for 'alternative defensive strategy', a kick at a loose ball in midfield generally results in the sort of thing I'd call 'stoopid rugby' with players just chaotically kicking it about instead of taking real action to clear things up and set up an attack.

I can live with the idea that someone can take the ball of me on the ground, but I feel it needs to be made clear to refs that there's a big difference between competing for the ball and just lying on top of someone.

Thanks for your help anyway.

 

[Adam]

I can live with the idea that someone can take the ball of me on the ground, but I feel it needs to be made clear to refs that there's a big difference between competing for the ball and just lying on top of someone.

Absolutely, and that was where I think the 'let him up' myth arose. Too many people just falling on the player on the ground, and the referee penalised it along with some mumblings of, 'you've got to let him get to his feet'.

Let me just reiterate, they can compete for the ball (as in a 'jackler' situation), however they cannot lie on top of the player with the ball and thereby kill the contest.

 

[tim White]

I can live with the idea that someone can take the ball of me on the ground, but I feel it needs to be made clear to refs that there's a big difference between competing for the ball and just lying on top of someone.

Thanks for your help anyway.

Do you view the difference noted above in the same way when you are gathering the ball or competing as second player arriving? :chin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Mitch

For the record

LAW 14: BALL ON THE GROUND - NO TACKLE
14.2 Players on their Feet
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

LAW 15: TACKLE
15.7 Forbidden Practices
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Rit Hinners]

I know there’s a modern obsession with keeping us all on our feet so maybe my view is unfashionable, but I’m thinking in terms of safety here; something that must be considered when you look at the injury statistics of recent years.

I would argue the point that staying on your feet is not a "modern concept". It is a very old concept that is being unearthed again.

Going off your feet used to be a very disadvantagous thing to do. If you were off your feet anywhere near the ball you used to pay the price in skin ripped off you by the boots of opposition and allies alike. The modern prohibition against rucking is probably the major cause of bodies on the ground around the ball in today's game.