[Law] Player goes to ground. Can you award a try ?

[Rich_NL]

I'm arguing from first principles, rather than common practice: the definition of possession as attempting to bring the ball under control (allowing a tackle on a juggling player, for example), combined with a knock on being "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward[/FONT]". A kick is intentional.

 

[beckett50]

There are a number of questions that have arisen from this.

On the face of it, the ball legally emerged from the Ruck and the Red #10 was the first to arrive. As described, he kicked the ball (as defined in Law) legally and as a result the #12 scored a try. All fine and dandy.

I am thinking here, due to body mechanics, that in order to have kicked the ball forward the Red#10 may have gone at the ball feet first. This being the case, and bearing in mind the proximity of defending players also looking to contest/win the ball, this is dangerous play and should be penalised.

 

[didds]

I'm arguing from first principles, rather than common practice: the definition of possession as attempting to bring the ball under control (allowing a tackle on a juggling player, for example), combined with a knock on being "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward[/FONT]". A kick is intentional.

Good luck selling a knock on call when its obvious to 30 players, 6 subs/substitutes, and a man with his dog that there were no arms anywhere near the ball. Credibility left?

didds

 

[DocY]

but only of the ball hit an arm/hand though surely? you cant have a knock on off only the shin surely? Otherwise eg fly hacking or kicking on in a chase would be a knock on ?

didds

Not necessarily - losing possession of the ball and it going forwards is a knock on. In a more common example, if a player clearly failed to catch a pass, then got a toe to it before it hit the ground I'm giving a knock on.

It's where you draw the line at 'intentional'. For me, the player has to have intended a kick before screwing up, not deciding to kick to resolve the situation.

In the OP's case, I don't think it's possible to say one way or the other without seeing it.

 

[Rich_NL]

On the face of it, the ball legally emerged from the Ruck and the Red #10 was the first to arrive. As described, he kicked the ball (as defined in Law) legally and as a result the #12 scored a try. All fine and dandy.

I'd say not, he went to ground to play it. If it's a kick, it's intentional (which I'd assumed) - that's a PK (13.1) presumably precisely to discourage players sliding in boots-first to challenge for the ball.

 

[didds]

Not necessarily - losing possession of the ball and it going forwards is a knock on. In a more common example, if a player clearly failed to catch a pass, then got a toe to it before it hit the ground I'm giving a knock on.

but that isn't what is described in the OP though.

The ball has spilled side-ways from a ruck. Multiple players see that the ball is clearly out of the ruck and is on the ground. They all move towards the ball. Red 10 is first there.

Red 10 has never had possession to lose it.

???

didds

 

[crossref]

There are a number of questions that have arisen from this.

On the face of it, the ball legally emerged from the Ruck and the Red #10 was the first to arrive. As described, he kicked the ball (as defined in Law) lo

.

No!
Because a kick is defined specifically as being intentional.
All ball hitting your foot is not a kick

 

[Rich_NL]

Red 10 has never had possession to lose it.

"Attempting to bring a ball under control" - he's gone to ground specifically to play the ball, he makes contact with it.

 

[crossref]

This is quite an interesting thread !

 

[didds]

"Attempting to bring a ball under control" - he's gone to ground specifically to play the ball, he makes contact with it.

WADR, I refuse to accept that a accidental or otherwise sole contact with the knee or lower on a ball in these circumstances constitutes a knock on. And neither would any player, blazer, etc watching.

there. I said it.

didds

 

[Phil E]

Red 10 is first there. He anticipates that there are several defenders closing onto the ball and he so he goes to groudn first and slides along the ground towards the ball. He contacts the ball with his shin and it thus goes forward into the Blue's in goal.
Red 12 ( who was never in front of Red 10 ) now chases onto the kicked ball and grounds it in-goal.

In real time and in real life its play on and Try.

He slid in to try and secure the ball.
It was knocked forward (but not a knock on as not from hands or arms) so play on.
Onside player then grounds the ball. Try.

If this happened in the middle of the field you would just play on, loose ball.

Anyone trying to sell a penalty around it being (or not being) a kick is clutching at straws.

I would suggest the try was clear, obvious and expected.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

This is quite an interesting thread !

Yeah. Sorry about that ;-)
The vision in my head is that he definitely goes to ground first ( his body and legs are parallel and close to the ground ). As he slides towards the ball, he realises he doesnt want to gather it with hands so intentionally lets his shin connect with the ball and propel it forward. This is very similar to that of soccer footballer who makes a "sliding tackle".
The law 13.1 (b) mentions "..must immediately play(but not kick) the ball" .
It looks like we'd be required to make a judgement call at the time as to whether a "kick" ( intentional ) has taken place or not.
Not likely to produce consistent law interpretations from week to week, ref to ref. And we dont like these.

 

[crossref]

For me if he's intentionally hit the ball with his shin I'd give a PK
If the ball hit him in the legs play on

If I am not sure, knock on might be best ...

 

[Decorily]

For me if he's intentionally hit the ball with his shin I'd give a PK
If the ball hit him in the legs play on

If I am not sure, knock on might be best ...

Back to my earlier post.... why make something up if you are not sure?

Clear and Obvious! !

 

[crossref]

Back to my earlier post.... why make something up if you are not sure?

Clear and Obvious! !

It's not obvious to me what you would do if not sure ?

 

[nhughes]

My first impresdion was try too, intent seems to be the key. Eg if the player slipped and the ball hit his foot/knee then the try would stand too imo.

 

[Arabcheif]

Scrum for a knock on?? Yeah that's definitely not right. I think you'd have a job explaining that decision if you needed to. I saw Beckett's dangerous play shout. I had considered this before my comment yesterday too. Yes you're right I didn't put it in my original comment as there was no mention of Dangerous play.

Reading that the vision in CrouchTPEngage's that he's intended to let it hit his leg might sway me to award a penalty for kicking on the ground. But it would sometimes be difficult to tell intent in real time, so benefit of the doubt may come into play and unless there was a clear and obv kick then I'd prob allow play on and a try, unless the defenders were close by (ei within a meter or so). In which case I'd award the PK.

 

[crossref]

Sc

Reading that the vision in CrouchTPEngage's that he's intended to let it hit his leg might sway me to award a penalty for kicking on the ground. But it would sometimes be difficult to tell intent in real time, so benefit of the doubt may come into play and unless there was a clear and obv kick then I'd prob allow play on and a try, unless the defenders were close by (ei within a meter or so). In which case I'd award the PK.

You are not selling that decision well to me !

 

[Arabcheif]

Ah CR, that's because I'm not a ref and i'm just on a forum expressing a viewpoint from the perspective of a non-ref. As a player if I'd done this and the ref pinged me for it, I'd accept that's his opinion. He won't know what's going on in my head but at the end of the day I've either intentionally allowed the ball to hit my foot/leg so it might be a stretch for a kick but there is intent or I've slid in feet first in proximity to the defending player(s). Which is dangerous play, so I'd hold my hands up and learn for next time.

 

[crossref]

In this thread
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21369-another-indadvertant-touchdown
A few people concluded .. no one can really tell what happened , 5m scrum seems good outcome

So in this thread if the incident was such that no one was really sure what happened , I can imagine circumstances where everyone would settle for a scrum, in the grounds that it's better than the try or PK they feared