Player on ground plays the ball

[Ian_Cook]

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

To me, the phrase "The Game is to be played by players on their feet" is completely unambiguous. It means that you cannot play the game unless you are on your feet, and if you are not on your feet, you are out of the the game. I can see no wiggle room for other interpretations,

Some will try to confuse the issue (presumably to suit some personal agenda) by quoting other bits of the definition. That it goes on to describe other illegal actions does not change the meaning of that phrase.

Some also argue that just because elite referees rule things certain ways, they do not necessarily apply to grassroots referees (the "showbiz argument). That is all well and good, but when the top brass in refereeing in your country (in this case, Rod Hill, NZ Referee High Performance Manager) tells you that..."the simple answer is that there has been no change to Law 14 and a player is out of the game if they are on the ground", I think you have to take notice of that.

So, from my standpoint, the Law actually does say that...

 

[crossref]

You are so as hominem , Ian.
What do you imagine is SA Refs "personal agenda" ?
Can't you find it in yourself to imagine that your opponents in an argument are acting in good faith , and simply disagree

 

[ChrisR]

Some will try to confuse the issue (presumably to suit some personal agenda) by quoting other bits of the definition.

Ian, you are a practitioner of the current American rules of political debate: "First, discredit or diminish your opponent". You seem never to be satisfied to simple debate the argument. This is a tiresome trait of yours.

My "personal agenda" is to see the laws applied in a consistent and rational manner and to see rugby played as a game of "contest and continuity" as described under "Principles of the Game".

As for quoting "other bits of the definition" I have simply included the paragraph in which "The Game is to be played by players on their feet" is written. The paragraph is the context that gives it real meaning.

 

[OB..]

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.

If you are going to treat the laws like Stature Law, you need to be aware that the rules for interpretation insist that everything in a law must be given a meaning, so the law must be construed in such a way as to ensure that.

The problem is, of course, that we are not dealing with legalistic wording. The laws are intended to be understood by ordinary rugby players, not specialist lawyers. As a consequence, they need to be interpreted to make sense of the game of rugby, which may be at variance with a particular interpretation of the actual wording.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You are so as hominem , Ian.

Perhaps you should first understand what "ad Hominem" actually means. (apologies if you feel saying this is an ad Hominen attack on your good character.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

What do you imagine is SA Refs "personal agenda" ?

My comments about personal agendas would only be ad Hominem if that was all I did. However, since I also rebutted the argument, they were not. They are simply comments which go to what is, IMO, the associated "person's" (i.e. SA Referees) motivation.

Some will try to confuse the issue (presumably to suit some personal agenda) by quoting other bits of the definition.

Ian, you are a practitioner of the current American rules of political debate: "First, discredit or diminish your opponent". You seem never to be satisfied to simple debate the argument. This is a tiresome trait of yours.

My "personal agenda" is to see the laws applied in a consistent and rational manner and to see rugby played as a game of "contest and continuity" as described under "Principles of the Game".

As for quoting "other bits of the definition" I have simply included the paragraph in which "The Game is to be played by players on their feet" is written. The paragraph is the context that gives it real meaning.

I was talking about the SA Referees site. Compare how often they criticize the decisions of non South African Referees as compared with their own guys.

 

[SimonSmith]

Perhaps you should first understand what "ad Hominem" actually means. (apologies if you feel saying this is an ad Hominen attack on your good character.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.



My comments about personal agendas would only be ad Hominem if that was all I did. However, since I also rebutted the argument, they were not. They are simply comments which go to what is, IMO, the associated "person's" (i.e. SA Referees) motivation.



I was talking about the SA Referees site. Compare how often they criticize the decisions of non South African Referees as compared with their own guys.

Kaplan is still a bugger for that

 

[Paule23]

Well, moving away from the Latin (mainly as I went to a comprehensive so didn't study Classics) I generally agree with Ian. Subject to a few specific law exceptions, the game is to be played by people on their feet. If you are on the floor, you are out of the game and cannot play the ball, tackle etc until you are on your feet.

This is not just described in Law 14, but is how the game has been refereed for a long, long time. I know there are certain conventions adopted which in some cases contradict the exact letter of the law, but in this case the convention is supported by the law.

I do not see why any referee would interpret this differently, except in some very obtuse scenario.

Do we all agree that if a player is on the ground (say from a previous tackle, ruck etc.) and the ball comes their way they should not play it until they are on their feet? And if you don't agree, why not?

 

[crossref]

You should read the previous 246 posts in this thread !

 

[ChrisR]

No, I don't agree and as crossref pointed out the reason is clearly stated in somewhere in the previous 246 posts.

 

[Rich_NL]

It was the first major question I came across when reffing, my own society were divided on the matter, top refs seems to disagree, and it's not the first time this question has come up here. It's clearly not cut and dried.

If nothing else, let's hope that the lawbook rewrite is clear on the matter.

 

[didds]

I'm not holding my breath.

didds

 

[Paule23]

I'm confused though, as I thought this was fairly cut and dried. I know there is some debate on this thread, but there does appears to be agreement at the top of the game through elite referees, and from Societies (maybe not all but certainly my own) that if you are on the ground you are out of the game.

Maybe I should rephrase, are there any official bodies (i.e. referee societies, national guidelines etc.) which state if you are on the ground you can play the ball?

 

[Phil E]

Maybe I should rephrase, are there any official bodies (i.e. referee societies, national guidelines etc.) which state if you are on the ground you can play the ball?

I think the crux of the argument revolves around player contacts ball versus ball contacts player.

 

[Camquin]

If the law was consistent ball accidentally contacting a player on the ground to the disadvantage of the other team would be a scrum and player on ground deliberately playing ball would be a penalty - just as with an offside player. But the law committee is only a finite number of monkeys.

Infinite monkeys would produce the one perfect set of laws as well as an infinite set of imperfect laws - as well as the works of Shakespeare.

 

[didds]

but they wold at least create one set of laws that work and are unequivocal.

Which is more than we have at the moment.

didds

 

[OB..]

one set of laws that work and are unequivocal.

Your aims conflict.

 

[crossref]

Perhaps it's worth resurrecting this incident , which we discussed earlier in the thread where a Craig Joubert allowed a player on the ground to flip up the ball when it came within reach..
I can't find the video any more , but perhaps someone can dig it up

Excellent here is our exact scenario in a real game.

Australia v England just now 57'30 on game clock

Watson and Folau jump for a high ball and both miss it, and both end up on the ground

Folau is on the ground and the ball rolls into his reach

Folau, on the ground, grabs the ball and pops it up to a team mate

no one raises and eyebrow and Joubert plays on.

I think that if he had blown for a PK against Folau there would have been 70,00 astonished people in the stadium

 

[crossref]

SA Referees double down on their opinion on this long running question --

Question: Hi Duty Ref - do you agree with the analysis in the Laws section, regarding Law 14 Ball on the Ground http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/view/2831246/

Marius van der Westhuizen: Hi Steve, unfortunately, we are having copyright issues with our videos on the website at the moment. Supersport are in the process of dealing with this on our behalf. However, what I can say, a lot of time and research goes into those law discussions and after reading that it makes total sense to me We can address this again once the video section is up and running.

.

Duty Ref -- http://www.sareferees.co.za/ref-replies/duty-ref-538--marius-van-der-westhuizen/2829677/

What did the Law discussion say ? It's here http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/view/2831246/
the key point is -

There is nothing there which embraces the referees "on the ground, out of the game" verdict.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

So basically we are saying SA referees are doign it one way, and most other national bodies (NZ, RFU) the other?

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is nothing there which embraces the referees "on the ground, out of the game" verdict.

Yes there is

"The Game is to be played by players on their feet" therefore, if you're on the ground (i.e. off your feet) then you are out of the game. Its plain English, its unambiguous, is clear and there is no wiggle room for interpreatation.

It would be a mistake to think that because it appears on SA Referees it must be right and/or reflect the thinking of World Rugby. SA Referees have been shown to be completely wrong on several occasions and have had to print retractions when their Duty Ref has given advice and answers that were incorrect in Law to people who have written in with questions.

I was involved in one of those instances back in 2014 when I wrote to them about a try that was awarded in the Lions v Blues match. The referee Stu Berry and TMO Johan Greef awarded a try (incorrectly IMO) to the Lions when the scorer lost the ball forward after it was knocked out of his hands by Charles Piutau in the course of a tackle. Their Duty Ref told me the decision was correct. At almost the same time, a spat erupted between SARU and the SANZAR Referees Manager, Lyndon Bray who told them they had it wrong (published on the official SANZAR website). SA Referees backed up their man and told everyone that it was the correct call. An argument ensued and in the end, SARU consulted the IRB who told them they were wrong and then issued a clarification that resulted in a change in the Law Book. You can see that change in the 2016 Laws where the following was added to the knock on Definitions;

[LAWS]If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes
forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.
If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent’s hands
and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is not a knock-on.[/LAWS]

SA Referees had to publish a retraction, but then, some time later, my question (and the subsequent answer by the Duty Ref) was edited out of the relevant Duty Ref page, and the original article supporting Stu Berry, and the retraction, suddenly vanished off both SA Referees and its partner website Rugby365. It was all like it never happened.

I no longer write to SA Referees because I lost confidence in them and their ability to give advice that its unbiased.