Player on ground plays the ball

[Not Kurt Weaver]

QUOTE=Thunderhorse1986;334247]Saw this one on the SA refs website... so who is right?

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/view/2831246/

- Wayne Barnes "on the floor, out of the game" which is using the "game is to be played by players on their feet" mantra
- SA Refs who say the player on the floor actually made the ball more playable by kicking it

Please don't comment on the aerial collision in reply - I am only interested in the player on the ground issue... thanks![/QUOTE]


Well I actually think this applies and the call was correct. The offside teammate for the law below is the blue "kicker" on the ground.

11.7 Offside after a knock-on
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Well, as it often the case with SA referees, they are wrong (and WB was right).



We've had this from several elite referees and from people who assess and train elite referee referees, but some people want to just hand-wave this away and apply their own interpretations. Good luck explaining you personal Law book to your assessors.

I think you would agree that "game is to be played by players on their feet" is not clear cut since it appears in Law 14 and not law 10. Maybe this will be specified when the law book gets reduces by 50%

No harm in challenging the trainers and top dogs. The argument is not hand wave as it is more prove to me that i am ignorant, but make that proof conclusive.

WB said "on the ground out of the game", I do believe he meant "game is to be played by players on their feet", but his use of shorthand is not conclusive enough for challengers, who are law purists.

Challengers should meant with stone cold facts, otherwise they will continue to challange.

I would certainly allow to slide feet first and kick the ball into touch(akin to a soccer slide tackle) Not a good tactic, but I think it is legal

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

This law also applies to thunderhorse video

8.5 More than one infringement
(a)
When there is more than one infringement by the same team:
If advantage cannot be played or does not accrue to the second offence, the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team.

IMO 2 other laws apply that do not make "game is to be played by players on their feet" the full proof call in this video example. WB words and game instruction do not set a law precedent in this case

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Well I actually think this applies and the call was correct. The offside teammate for the law below is the blue "kicker" on the ground.

There is no mention of offside by the referee - who is a world class referee - if he was penalizing for offside I am sure he would have said so.

Whether one likes it, or not - and I can see many example when this interpretation may even feel strande - it seems to be the case that top WR refs are handling this situation as: players who are off their feet when the ball comes to them must not play the ball. Whatever the legalistic interpretation of the law book, this alongside a lot of other examples highlighted in this thread, should be enough to get everyone on the same page?

 

[didds]

There is no mention of offside by the referee - who is a world class referee - if he was penalizing for offside I am sure he would have said so.

Whether one likes it, or not - and I can see many example when this interpretation may even feel strande - it seems to be the case that top WR refs are handling this situation as: players who are off their feet when the ball comes to them must not play the ball. Whatever the legalistic interpretation of the law book, this alongside a lot of other examples highlighted in this thread, should be enough to get everyone on the same page?

other than other stuff that elite refs do is not copied by grass roots referees and so are not on the same page eg flopping over rucks, squint feeds etc etc etc ?

I'm not really bothered either way with this player off feet argument. Personally I'm not convinced that the law 14 inclusion means a full extension across the rest of the laws, but I can see that it would at least tidy a lot of stuff up. Im certainly however (and WADR) not convinced by a "the elite refs do it so that should be good enough" claim. There is plenty the eleite refs do that is simply wrong, as evidenced in discussions here.

didds

 

[crossref]

No

can you explain? all through this thread you've consistently argued that
- a player who goes to ground to gather a ball (red) CAN play it
- but a player who finds himself on the ground (blue), in your view, CAN'T play it

but in that scenario it's different?

 

[crossref]

Whether one likes it, or not - and I can see many example when this interpretation may even feel strande - it seems to be the case that top WR refs are handling this situation as: players who are off their feet when the ball comes to them must not play the ball. Whatever the legalistic interpretation of the law book, this alongside a lot of other examples highlighted in this thread, should be enough to get everyone on the same page?

I think there are two questions
- what is the Law
- what do top refs normally do

We all know these can be different viz
- Law says put into the scrum must be straight
- top refs allow it to be squint

For the question of man on ground I think it's clear that
- the Law isn't clear.
(Although I incline to the SA Refs side of argument, I do concede that the other interpretation is also possible)

- decisions made by top refs differ (as per the various examples in the thread)
(which isn't surprising if the Law isn't clear)

 

[Pinky]

Just looked at the clip. As a general rule I would support WB's view that if you are off your feet you are out of the game and I try to apply a limited number of circumstances where I allow folk off feet to play the ball, but generally they have to have been the ball carrier, or gone to ground to gather the ball or part of a trm thingy that they are helping the ball out of once the contest for the ball is over.

In this particular instance I think WB got the right sanction, but probably not the right reason. The first offence was KO by blue 1 and blue 15 was in front of him when he kicked it back. The Scot in me says quick whistle on the clear and obvious KO, please Wayne. But realistically blue 15 did stop Australia taking advantage of the KO, so OK with a PK.

 

[crossref]

But realistically blue 15 did stop Australia taking advantage of the KO, so OK with a PK.

that's not a good reason!

- if he is allowed to play the ball, then he's perfectly entitled to play it to stop Australia taking advantage of the KO
- if he's not allowed to play the ball, then he's not allowed to play it and it's a clear PK

 

[crossref]

As a general rule I would support WB's view that if you are off your feet you are out of the game and I try to apply a limited number of circumstances where I allow folk off feet to play the ball, but generally they have to have been the ball carrier, or gone to ground to gather the ball or part of a trm thingy that they are helping the ball out of once the contest for the ball is over..

this ambiguous and inconsistent approach rather supports my view that the Law isn't completely clear

 

[Phil E]

It wouldn't be the first time SA Refs have been at odds with the rest of the world would it?

 

[didds]

- decisions made by top refs differ (as per the various examples in the thread)
(which isn't surprising if the Law isn't clear)

well they differ when the law is totally clear as well!

didds

 

[crossref]

Red and blue are chasing a loose ball on ground
Red dives for the ball (missing it) , and blue trips over him
Both players are on the ground and the ball is within reach of both

The game is to be played by players on their feet

Is anyone really proposing that Red (who went to ground deliberately ) has the right to play the ball while Blue (tried to stay on his feet, got tripped) does not have the exactly same rights

I did think this scenario would pose quite a challenge , so I am not sure whether to be disappointed or pleased that no one has had a go at answering it ��

 

[Ian_Cook]

can you explain? all through this thread you've consistently argued that
- a player who goes to ground to gather a ball (red) CAN play it
- but a player who finds himself on the ground (blue), in your view, CAN'T play it

but in that scenario it's different?

No, it isn't

The player who goes to ground to gather the ball is allowed to play it because the Law expressly allows him to so

[LAWS]"This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to
ground to gather the ball"[/LAWS]

The player who is already on the ground is not allowed to play the ball because the Law expressly forbids him to do so

[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. [/LAWS]

There are other examples in the LotG where one player who is apparently in the same situation as an opponent, can do what the opponent is not allowed to do and vice verse.

- offsides for SHs are different
- if a restart is short of the 10m, if a defending player plays the ball and its play on, if an attacking player plays it, its not
- at tackle the first arriving player (on his feet) can play the ball, but the next arriving player, also on his feet, cannot.

 

[Pinky]

that's not a good reason!

- if he is allowed to play the ball, then he's perfectly entitled to play it to stop Australia taking advantage of the KO
- if he's not allowed to play the ball, then he's not allowed to play it and it's a clear PK

Blue 15 was offside (in front of blue 1 who knocked on) so whether he was off his feet or not it was a PK to Australia.

 

[Pinky]

this ambiguous and inconsistent approach rather supports my view that the Law isn't completely clear

Sorry, I don't see this as inconsistent or ambiguous. I think I was trying to say (Like Ian Cook) that there are time where a player off their feet is permitted by law to play the ball, eg tackled player or player who goes off his feet to gather the ball, and there are times where by long custom we have allowed players to do something that the law may strictly forbid, but which are part of keeping the game going, eg handling the ball back in a trm even a collapsed one once the contest for the ball if over to make the ball available. Other than that, if you are off your feet you are out of the game, so don't play the ball or play another player

 

[crossref]

No, it isn't

The player who goes to ground to gather the ball is allowed to play it because the Law expressly allows him to so

[LAWS]"This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to
ground to gather the ball"[/LAWS]

The player who is already on the ground is not allowed to play the ball because the Law expressly forbids him to do so

[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. [/LAWS]

the the Game is to be played by players on their feet, and the guy who is on the ground deliberately has more rights that the player he knocked over, (who was trying to stay on his feet). That's a tough call.

 

[Ian_Cook]

the the Game is to be played by players on their feet, and the guy who is on the ground deliberately has more rights that the player he knocked over, (who was trying to stay on his feet). That's a tough call.

As Michael Palin would say..."Harsh, but fair"

The player already on the ground who kicks the ball out prevents his opponents from getting possession of the ball (lineout notwithstanding)

Here is another scenario.

Gold 10 kicks a clearance towards touch but the ball lands short of touch and as oddshaped balls often do, it bounces back infield into the path of Gold 7 who is offside but retiring. There are opponents (Blue) within 10m, Gold 7 toe pokes the ball into touch.

Would you penalise Gold 7 for offside? Of course you would - both the Blue opponents and Gold 7 were on their feet, but the difference was that the Blue opponents were entitled to play the ball from where they were, Gold 7 was not.

 

[ChrisR]

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not makethe ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not
immediately available to either team so that play may continue.


A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by
falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be
penalised.

Every time I read this part of the definitions to Law 14 I ask "Why?", what action(s) is this law prohibiting? In the context of the Law as a whole ("Ball on the ground") it must be diving on the ball to make it unplayable.

The key word of both paragraphs is "unplayable". Remove "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." from the first paragraph and it doesn't change in any way the meaning of the definitions.

That sentence is totally superfluous yet it is the kernel of all the arguments against a player being on the ground and having a ball come to him and then playing it to a teammate.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not makethe ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not
immediately available to either team so that play may continue.


A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by
falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be
penalised.

Every time I read this part of the definitions to Law 14 I ask "Why?", .

Notwithstanding Advantage law...

In Law 12 it says that when a player knocks the ball forward , its a scrum to his opponents... Why?

In Law 12 it says that when a player throws the ball forward , its a scrum to his opponents... Why?

In Law 11 it says that when a player plays the ball when he is in an offside position, its a PK to his opponents... why?

The answer to all three of these questions is, because its a Law of the Game! That's why!

So, next time you are wondering why a player on the ground who has not been tackled, or who did not go to ground for the purpose of gathering the ball, is PK when he plays the ball to a team mate, you will have your answer.

 

[ChrisR]

. . . . and when the Law actually says that I will. Until then . . . . .