[Law] Player on the ground - law reference

[Rich_NL]

So the Law is written with the expectation that a player has gone to ground to with the ball, or has gone to ground to get possession of the ball.

the question is : does this also apply when a player is on the ground for some other reason, and the ball happens to come to him.

I can't see why not, they're covered under "It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled".

 

[Camquin]

It also says "The game is played by players who are on their feet."
So you can read it either way.

Ambiguity found in RU Laws. Film at eleven.
In other news, something is wrong on the Internet.
We are also hearing rumours the the Pope so Catholic and ursines defocate in arboreal areas.

 

[Dickie E]

It also says "The game is played by players who are on their feet."

While that is a general principle there are so many instances where that isn't true to render it useless for specific cases.

 

[ChrisR]

The complete paragraph is:

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

Seems to me that this paragraph deals with players going to ground and killing the ball. I wouldn't take the first sentence out of the context of the paragraph.

The immediately preceding paragraph:

It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not
been tackled.

This would describe a player who is on the ground and receives the ball. He must act as if he went to ground to recovfer the ball.

 

[OB..]

It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not
been tackled.

This would describe a player who is on the ground and receives the ball. He must act as if he went to ground to recovfer the ball.

It could also merely be intended to cover the case of a ball carrier who has fallen over or been tap tackled.

It is simply not clear which law, if any, is supposed to cover a player who is lying on the ground and then gets a chance to play the ball.

 

[The Fat]

Well we all know the view of the SANZAR ref boss on this topic from his responses to Robbie's questions a couple of seasons back and I have seen a couple of top refs (Barnes and Owens) make decisions in line with Lyndon Bray's interpretation during this season's ERC.
Player who is on the ground (other than a ball carrier or a player who has specifically gone to ground to get possession) and has the ball come to him is out of the game.

 

[The Fat]

Well we all know the view of the SANZAR ref boss on this topic from his responses to Robbie's questions a couple of seasons back and I have seen a couple of top refs (Barnes and Owens) make decisions in line with Lyndon Bray's interpretation during this season's ERC.
Player who is on the ground (other than a ball carrier or a player who has specifically gone to ground to get possession) and has the ball come to him is out of the game.

Copy of Robbie's question to Lyndon Bray and LB's response.

Question 3:
Lyndon, Embedded in the Law 14 Definitions is the sentence
“The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.”

However the previous sentence is
“It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.”

Some people interpret this as allowing a player to play the ball when he is already on the ground and the ball subsequently comes to him. Others argue that Law 14 only permits two exceptions to the general principle:
(1) a player who falls on a loose ball to recover possession;
(2) a player who falls over when in possession of the ball eg tap tackled, or merely slipped. Which is correct?

LB:
I think the law is quite clear in this case. There are two instances whereby a player can legitimately be on the ground with the ball in his possession:

- a player is already carrying the ball and goes to ground (tackled or falls over), or
- a player dives onto the ball which is on the ground, in order to gain possession.

It is clear to me that if a player is already on the ground, he cannot then "play the ball" without first getting to his feet.

 

[Dickie E]

The BS meter started going haywire at this one:

I think the law is quite clear in this case.

 

[Blackberry]

This pretty well works every time;
How did the player get to the ground?
a) Tackled; gotta play, place or pass if she has the ball, cannot get involved in anyway if she doesn't have it
b) Fell, dived, tripped; has all the same rights as a player on her feet except if she has possession she must relinquish it to a challenging player on her feet.

 

[ChrisR]

It could also merely be intended to cover the case of a ball carrier who has fallen over or been tap tackled.

It is simply not clear which law, if any, is supposed to cover a player who is lying on the ground and then gets a chance to play the ball.

Yes, I agree on all points.

There is no specific law that covers a ball carrier who slips and falls. We know that he can regain his feet with the ball, or play the ball.

I think the absence of law speaks (OK, mutters).

A player who receives the ball on the ground must act immediately to play the ball, get up with it or relinquish it to an opponent who challenges.

 

[OB..]

A player who receives the ball on the ground must act immediately to play the ball, get up with it or relinquish it to an opponent who challenges.

It could also be that he is out of the game - according to Lyndon Bray.

 

[ChrisR]

...... and how would Lyndon Bray rule on this:

The ball is passed toward a player who has slipped and fallen to one knee. The receiver catches the ball with one knee on the ground and ......?

Was the receiving player "out of the game"? Or do we play on? Or, does Lyndon Bray make it up as he goes along?

 

[Treadmore]

Nigel Owens allowed one today: breakdown, ruck, ball comes out to (Saracens) player on the ground who swiftly pops it up to a team-mate. No-one batted an eye-lid.

 

[ChrisR]

Or, does Lyndon Bray make it up as he goes along?

My point being that we need some consistency.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, does Lyndon Bray make it up as he goes along?

My point being that we need some consistency.

 

[The Fat]

Nigel Owens allowed one today: breakdown, ruck, ball comes out to (Saracens) player on the ground who swiftly pops it up to a team-mate. No-one batted an eye-lid.

In that case, Nigel is being inconsistent. I have seen him ping a player for the same thing

 

[The Fat]

Here is Jaco Peyper applying the law correctly IMO with the commentators agreeing with him. However, SA refs are having a bet each way.
[video]http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830459/[/video]

 

[MrQeu]

In that case, Nigel is being inconsistent. I have seen him ping a player for the same thing

I don't recall the incident Treadmore is recalling from yestereday, but he pinged Camara for baticng back a ball that had came out of a ruck.

He made the handling the ball in the ruck signal, but... the ball had already been out. For a second I'd say.

 

[crossref]

Here is Jaco Peyper applying the law correctly IMO with the commentators agreeing with him. However, SA refs are having a bet each way.
[video]http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830459/[/video]

great clip. I wouldhave played on

 

[Rushforth]

great clip. I wouldhave played on

I wouldn't have spotted it myself probably ("wtf?") but great example as you say.

 

[crossref]

I guess with those clips and events the thread has come full circle.. The Laws is ambiguous and even top refs don't agree how this scenario should be reffed.