Player on ground plays the ball

[crossref]

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

perhaps - but I'm not aware of any other national bodies publishing a view on this (?)
- and in practice if you asked 50 South African referees about it I have no doubt it would produce exactly the same debate as on this thread


I'm not going to re-enter the debate, as it's only four weeks since we last discussed it, and I don't have anything new to say -- but the SA referees post is an interesting intervention


Ian - your story is intriguing, and I'd like to understand that better - perhaps on a different thread. The Law clarification seems to suggest it was NOT a knock on, so it was the right decision to award the try. But probably I am misunderstanding the incident.
Also if WR had to issue a clarification then the Law by defintion wasn't previosuly wasn't clear, so it's hardly a big mistake to be on the losing side of the argument

 

[Dickie E]

"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.

There are too many examples where this isn't true for it to have any credence.

 

[ChuckieB]

Unequivocal yes.

Yet I am struggling with my opinion on one example that I picked up from this years Super rugby, can't remember the game.

A ball being distributed out wide through the back line from a breakdown and the player due to receive stumbled & went to his knees, yet he was then still able to subsequently take the ball and seamlessly offload a pass and keep continuity for his side. As such it was material to the ongoing passage of play that benefitted his side. As such it was material.

By my own interpretation of a clear and unequivocal law, it would have required the whistle to be blown.

Is that what I would have really wanted?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian - your story is intriguing, and I'd like to understand that better - perhaps on a different thread. The Law clarification seems to suggest it was NOT a knock on, so it was the right decision to award the try.

No

The Lions player was running toward the Blues goal-line
Piutau tackled him from behind and the ball was dislodged and went forward from the ball carrier into the in goal
Another Lions player was first to ground the ball in goal
Berry and the TMO concluded that because the ball was knocked out by Piutau, that there as no knock on by the ball carrier and the try was allowed

This was an incorrect decision.

[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.[/LAWS]

Regardless of whether the tackler makes contact with the ball in the course of the tackle, the ball carrier had possession so it was his responsibility to maintain possession. He lost posses in of the ball and it went forward, so its a knock on by the ball carrier.

This should have been a 5m scrum with Blue to throw in.

As for the player on the ground thing, we have seen enough examples of referees (the latest being WB) making the statement "on the ground you're out of the game" to be sure that this is the way WR want this refereed.

The situation outlined by Chuckie is completely different. In all the other cases we are talking about a loose ball under Law 14 (i.e. a ball that is not in either team's possession, and a player on the ground from a previous phase of play who has not yet got to his feet.

In the passing situation we are not talking about Law 14 at all, and the ball is in possession if the team passing the ball.

 

[crossref]

knock on thing -- got you. Yes.
From your initial description

it was knocked out of his hands by Charles Piutau in the course of a tackle

it sounded to me like a case of

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.

but your second post clarifies what happened, it wasn't deliberately knocked.
It is indeed a subtle one, requiring the referee to judge intent, and seeing as a clarification to the Law was needed to make it clear, it doesn't seem such a big deal to me, that the clarification didn't go SARU's way.

Chuckies example is relevant - it shows one specific situation where a player unintentionally on the ground can (we all agree?) play a ball that comes to him.

 

[Ian_Cook]

RSA v Australia. At 60:02, Gold 1 (Scott Sio) first man in, wins the ball at a ruck and pops it up (so its clear of the ruck) and Green 17 (Steven Kitsoff) lying on the ground, reaches up and taps the ball back to his SH. Referee pings him. Some willl argue that this was a ruck offence (hands in the ruck) but the ball wasn't in a ruck, and the referee is clearly heard to say "You've got to be up" and a few seconds later, he reinforces this with "playing the ball on the ground".

SA Referees won't be very happy will they, but the examples of "off your feet = out of the game" just keep coming. Even the South African commentator (Joel Stransky) shortly afterwards said "If you're on the ground, you are not allowed to play the ball". Looks like he understands this law better than SA Referees does :biggrin: :clap:

 

[Ian_Cook]

And here's yet another one from this morning's RSA v NZ match

Black 15 (McKenzie) knocks the ball on. It strikes a South African player on the legs and bounces forward towards Black's goalline. Black 8 following up, comes from an onside position and goes to ground to take possessions of the ball... so far so good. However he loses the ball to the side and maybe marginally forwards, It rolls a couple of feet away. Black 8, still on the ground, then reaches out and grabs the ball.

Garces PKs him for playing the ball on the ground... and quite rightly too. Garces is clearly hear to say

"You are on the ground."
"You are off feet, and you play the ball. You must be on feet"