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

[didds]

i suspect the attackers wouldn't even consider they might suffer a PK until a ref actually said so. By which time its been awarded.

I would suggest that if you awarded a scrum and said something like they'd prefer that than a PK you'd probably have 15 attackers all scratching their heads and thinking "PK? what for?"

that doesn't make you wrong (global "you" of course.

didds

 

[crossref]

One problem here is that we all have different pictures in our mind

Generally speaking i think that if a player on the ground were to kick the ball every player would notice and expect a PK

Similarly if player launched himself feet first at a loose ball , player would see that as dangerous and expect a PK or more

In this particular incident .... they would no doubt have different opinions about whether it was kicked or not , dangerous or not .. hair as we have

 

[thepercy]

What definition of possession are you using?

At what point would you consider a player to be "attempting to bring the ball under control"?

Any time I don't have the ball i'm trying to get it? So anytime not in physical possession?

If I go to ground near the ball?

As soon as I touch the ball? As soon as I touch the ball with hand or arms?

If both sides go to ground to gather the ball, neither have touched it yet, are they both in possession?

 

[tewdric]

For those arguing that it's not an intentional kick and not a knock on, has 10 "played" the ball? I.e. would you still award a try if the try scorer had been in front of 10 when it hit his shin?

 

[crossref]

Yes he definitely played it
He went to ground intending to touch it, and he touched it

 

[tewdric]

So sliding legs first towards the ball and playing it with the shin = intention = kick = PK?

 

[Flish]

So sliding legs first towards the ball and playing it with the shin = intention = kick = PK?

We can't answer that without seeing it, if he swings a leg at it then arguably a kick, but there's nothing in the OP to suggest that, I'm visualising it as player going to ground and the ball bouncing off his leg, so play on. Sliding legs first is not necessarily a kick (nor is it always dangerous play, but it could be)

 

[DocY]

At what point would you consider a player to be "attempting to bring the ball under control"?

I don't think a strict, legalistic description is going to be very useful as it's mostly a 'you know when you see it'

Any time I don't have the ball i'm trying to get it? So anytime not in physical possession?

No

If I go to ground near the ball?

No

As soon as I touch the ball? As soon as I touch the ball with hand or arms?

I'd say there certainly has to be contact, but it wouldn't have to be with the hand or arms. I'd always give a knock on against player trying to take an unsympathetic pass that comes off his chest or legs when he's clearly been trying to catch it, even if it hasn't touched his hands or arms.
Or (quite commonly) a player taking a high ball that goes straight through his arms and forward off his knees/thighs.

If both sides go to ground to gather the ball, neither have touched it yet, are they both in possession?

No.

 

[didds]

I'd always give a knock on against player trying to take an unsympathetic pass that comes off his chest or legs when he's clearly been trying to catch it, even if it hasn't touched his hands or arms.

I'd be very interested in any assessor's view of this interpretation.

I'd be amazed if 30 players plus subs and men with dogs wouldn't be totally bemused by such.

I have some sympathy with the full-back-non-catch scenario because at least its not C&O that the ballk did miss any contcat with arms/hands. But when the hands get nowhere near it? really?

If that isn't what that quote means then fair enough. But it sounds like it.

didds

 

[crossref]

'legalistic'
adj. (perjorative) "I disagree with your interpretation"

 

[DocY]

I'd be very interested in any assessor's view of this interpretation.

I'd be amazed if 30 players plus subs and men with dogs wouldn't be totally bemused by such.

I have some sympathy with the full-back-non-catch scenario because at least its not C&O that the ballk did miss any contcat with arms/hands. But when the hands get nowhere near it? really?

If that isn't what that quote means then fair enough. But it sounds like it.

didds

As I said, I don't think a strict definition is very useful and it'd have to be done on a case by case basis.

A player looking the other way with his arms by his sides while the ball bounces off him, I wouldn't give as a knock on.

But as a rule of thumb, if the player is clearly trying to catch the ball and it goes forward off him, I'd expect that to be given as a knock on whether he got a hand to it or not.

 

[tewdric]

FWIW I agree - applying the strict letter of the law, whichever way your opinion falls on that, doesn't make sense in thus scenario as presented. Giving a knock on seems to me to make sense.

 

[didds]

As I said, I don't think a strict definition is very useful and it'd have to be done on a case by case basis.

A player looking the other way with his arms by his sides while the ball bounces off him, I wouldn't give as a knock on.

But as a rule of thumb, if the player is clearly trying to catch the ball and it goes forward off him, I'd expect that to be given as a knock on whether he got a hand to it or not.

It has to be at least viable though surely. The OP description doesn't sound as if the arms and hands are anywhere near the ball/shin. giving a KO for that is just going to appear extremely odd.

didds

- - - Updated - - -

FWIW I agree - applying the strict letter of the law, whichever way your opinion falls on that, doesn't make sense in thus scenario as presented. Giving a knock on seems to me to make sense.

even though the OP description doesnt mention hands and arms anywhere near the ball?

didds

 

[tewdric]

Its a 50/50 call try for or penalty against if you are purist about it. The law doesn't seem to me to provide a satisfactory answer to this one, which is why its such an excellent question.

If you were asked by World Rugby to write a law revision specifically to deal with this "unintentional shinning", for want of a better phrase (other body parts are available), what would your sanction, if any, be?

 

[crossref]

I think the direction the Laws have moved are that he was trying to get possession and lost it forward. KO.
Strange as that might seem

 

[Phil E]

I think the direction the Laws have moved are that he was trying to get possession and lost it forward. KO.
Strange as that might seem

If anyone is going to call this a knock on (see OP quote below) they need serious retraining.

He contacts the ball with his shin and it thus goes forward into the Blue's in goal.

 

[DocY]

It has to be at least viable though surely. The OP description doesn't sound as if the arms and hands are anywhere near the ball/shin. giving a KO for that is just going to appear extremely odd.

Probably, yeah. I'd have to see the incident, but from the sounds of it I doubt I'd see anything C&O enough to blow up for - neither a penalty nor a scrum.

But where would we be if we didn't debate the minutiae of the laws?

 

[OB..]

But where would we be if we didn't debate the minutiae of the laws?

It makes sense to discuss tricky situations where the laws may be unclear (or on occasion make no sense). However believing that the wording of the laws can be construed to give THE right answer is a vain hope.