I like this as a rule of thumb - and I think it neatly differentiates the instances we've (at least mostly) agreed upon as being penalties or not.
Player on ground plays the ball
- Thread starter OB..
- Start date
I like this as a rule of thumb - and I think it neatly differentiates the instances we've (at least mostly) agreed upon as being penalties or not.
well I think every single example we have discussed (and lets face it probably every example we are ever likely to see), passes the 'same phase' test.
So if we adopt that rule of thumb, in practice we almost always going to play on - and we would have come a long way from the original entrenched position that it's always an offence
Last edited:
I should have quoted more of Chris' post - the bit about active and prone players, in particular.
I agree, 'phase of play' if given its usual meaning is a bit too broad and it would never be penalised.
What I understood Chris to mean was that if you're actively and positively involved in play at the time, you're probably okay. If you're being passive and not otherwise contributing, you're not.
I agree, 'phase of play' if given its usual meaning is a bit too broad and it would never be penalised.
What I understood Chris to mean was that if you're actively and positively involved in play at the time, you're probably okay. If you're being passive and not otherwise contributing, you're not.
I have the same understanding - and if we adopted that test then I think that in 100% of all the incidents we've seen so far (and probably 99% of all the incidents we're ever likely to see) we'd play on.
In that case I suggest the "same phase" test is inadequate.
I would still agree with the officials in my #1.
but you would disagree with the officials in #175 and #163 (?)
chbg
Referees in England
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,488
- Solutions
- 1
- Post Likes
- 447
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
Explain the referee's decision then.
15.5 and 15.6 contain multiple phrases that would cover it.
After a tackle isn't the issue we have been discussing, the issue is is a player on the ground other than a tackle, (when logic suggests Law 14 would apply)
After a tackle isn't the issue we have been discussing, the issue is is a player on the ground other than a tackle, (when logic suggests Law 14 would apply)
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,682
- Post Likes
- 1,768
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Rubbish. He was not tackled at all. He was the acting halfback at the breakdown. The ball was jarred loose from his grasp but not knocked on, and he was knocked to the ground. Law 15 cannot apply at all, because he was not grasped and brought to ground with the ball.
The player was on the ground without the ball; it rolled up tp him and he picked it up and passed it up to a team-mate. The referee said "playing the ball on the ground". So ONLY Law 14 can apply
OK, so let's say it wasn't a tackle situation -- in that case we might like to use the filter developed by Chris_j and DocY above --
adopting that rule of thumb, it was OK - PLAY ON!
NB - my position here is not that there is a right answer, but that the Law (outside of a tackle situation) is ambiguous, and that different referees ref it differently. I think this thread amply illustrates my point with several examples of players on the ground playing the ball, and some people on the forum judging particular incidents as play on, and others judging the the same incident as a PK.
Last edited:
I agree with Ian except that for me it is a knock-on first. The ball hits the ground before he plays it again while on the ground.
I agree it would be nice if WR clarified the law on this, but we have a lot of top referees giving the penalty. Wouldn't it be nice to know what they are being taught?
I agree it would be nice if WR clarified the law on this, but we have a lot of top referees giving the penalty. Wouldn't it be nice to know what they are being taught?
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,682
- Post Likes
- 1,768
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I'm sure that its not a knock on. As the opponent tries to tackle him, the ball is jarred loose, but the opponent makes no contact with the ball.
No basis in Law for any of that.
NZ referees are instructed that , in General Play, when a player already on the ground plays the ball before getting to his feet, he is to be PK under Law 14. That is what happened, and the referee acted according to those instructions.
hmm =so perhaps it WAS refereed as a tackle situation?
gosh, so please share these instructions with us!
(don't tell me they are secret)
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,682
- Post Likes
- 1,768
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Please don't tell me that you do not understand the difference between using the word "tackle" in common language as a verb, and using it as a noun to describe the phase of play governed by Law 15?
I already have...
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...plays-the-ball&p=317645&viewfull=1#post317645
Ah, so it wasn't an instruction to NZ referees it was Rod, replying to your email..
Did you ask Rod what he thought of the Folau incident? It was a great example of the sort of incident which almost no one would penalise. (also the try scorinf incident also discussed above)
Did you ask Rod what he thought of the Folau incident? It was a great example of the sort of incident which almost no one would penalise. (also the try scorinf incident also discussed above)
Since the opponent did not knock the ball free, that sounds to me like a knock-on. My only doubt was whether or not the ball actually went forward, since the player was knocked backwards, but to me, after several replays, it looks as if it hits the ground forward of where he was when contact took place.
If you thought I was suggesting that the opponent knocked on, I certainly agree that he didn't.
However it does not matter in this case, because I agree that the PK was correct for playing the ball on the ground.