[In-goal] player on the ground presents the ball over his own try line

[StroudBoy]

Hi i'm a newbie here and not a ref, but help with coaching a youth U14's team and find this site a useful source for understanding the 'Laws of the game.

Unfortunately for me at the weekend we did not have a ref available and as it was only a friendly youth game and with no-one else putting their hands up I ended up having to ref the game.

My question arises from a situation that occurred during the game.

A defending player close to his own try line legally turns over the ball at a ruck, that player is then taken/goes to ground, at this point an opposition attacking player again legal on his feet competes for and gets hands the ball. The player on the ground presents the ball back over his own try line to his team whilst the attacking player is still in contact with the ball.

1. Does presenting (pushing the ball along the ground not touching down) the ball over your own line whilst on the floor act as carrying the ball over the try line and grounding it? - 5m scrum attacking team

2. since the attacking player had contact with the ball could/should a try be awarded?

In this case I deemed the player on the ground to be holding in preventing the ball being turned over, and as they were virtually on the try line awarded a penalty try to the attacking team, but wanted to clarify what the correct decision should had been if he hadn't held in. i.e the ball is presented back over the try line by the defending team and then downwards pressure is applied by an attacking player.

Luckily the result of the game was not effected by my decision.

Thanks

 

[DocY]

I might not be picturing the situation correctly, but to try to answer:

1. No, if he didn't touch it down he didn't ground it (though it's a fine line and in practice I'd expect to see a defender ground the ball here for an attacking scrum)

2. That you're asking suggests that it wasn't clear and obvious, so no. It sounds like the defender was in possession, so he'd be the one who grounded it. Similarly if the attacking player was in possession and a defender still got his hands on the ball it would still be a try.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rushforth]

First of all, congratulations on putting your hand up. Even if you don't ref all that often (while primarily coaching) it will help your coaching. And welcome

You seem to have a good grip on the laws, but remember that "downward pressure" is not a requirement, and to confuse the issue rucks and mauls only exist in the "field of play", as opposed to the "playing area" (Law 1).

I personally would be inclined to have gone for the try, as you describe it, because that solution rewards the attacking player (the individual) without penalising the defender for something they'll see happen on tv elsewhere on the field.

My own rule of thumb is that if a player on the ground has support, I'll give benefit of the doubt for hands staying on the ball (not going back on, though), but not if they are isolated and a player from the opposition on his feet wants to play.

That said, a player on the ground only has three options - get up with it, pass it, release it - none of which are "ground it", particularly if the ball started in front of the goal line and ended up behind it. You can be lax on the "immediate" criterion, but not add an allowable action, IMO at least.

So in Law your PT was probably correct, it's just that I personally prefer to use those when there is no other option. Technically a PT should be accompanied by a YC, which I feel extremely harsh given the scenario you presented. And as you say, the attacking player had contact with the ball, so there is certainly a "could have" element.

 

[leaguerefaus]

The only point which I can comment on is that if a player is holding the ball, another team's player putting his hand on it is not sufficient to negate possession. So it's certainly not a try. I will leave the penalty try question to others

 

[Rushforth]

The only point which I can comment on is that if a player is holding the ball, another team's player putting his hand on it is not sufficient to negate possession. So it's certainly not a try. I will leave the penalty try question to others

A player on the ground in rugby UNION cannot be in possession of the ball. He (or she) may place the ball behind him - this would never ever happen in rugby LEAGUE to the best of my knowledge - after which the confusion of a "ruck-like thingy in-goal" becomes an issue.

Coincidentally a standing ball-carrier - my side's scrum-half last sunday, I was just spectating - was pushed over the line and the flanker grabbing him managed to score a try. There was a brief discussion after the match, and the player was happy with the referee's decision that the attacker actively bringing the ball to ground deserved to be rewarded. The case is not identical - no chance of a penalty try obviously - but the referee has been at or above that (mid) level for well over 10 years, and was right there to see what was going on.

 

[crossref]

A player on the ground in rugby UNION cannot be in possession of the ball..

that's clearly not correct.

a player who is tackled can reach out and ground the ball for a try. This is common place
so a player who is tackled can, equally, reach out and ground the ball behind own line for a 5m scrum

(in both cases would need to act immediately, of course)

I think the real question here whether a player can ground the ball 'accidentally' - ie if you place the ball behind you, intending simply to make it available for your own team in the standard way, but you happen to ground it behing your own try-line, without realising, is it still a touchdown and a 5m scrum? (I'd say yes)

 

[Pegleg]

For me the the player omn the ground must act immediately. If another player gets to play the ball and not the player before he has done so then he has not complied with the law.

So for me it is a penalty.

Now on the the Question of the PT:

Did the defender by failing to release prevent PROBABLE try?

Only you can answer that one.


If he did then we have a PT. There is then the possiblity of a yellow card if you feel the action of the defender was intentional offending.

If not it is just a PK

 

[OB..]

Basically I agree with Pegleg. Was the attacker a legitimate jackler? If so the tackled player failed to release the ball to him. However if the attacker merely got his hand on the ball as the tackled player placed it over the line, then it was not a try since you cannot decide which team "first grounded the ball" (22.15). 5m scrum.

A PT requires the defender to have done something illegal. If he has, you judge the seriousness of the offence (at our level anyway) when deciding if a card is also appropriate.

 

[The Fat]

Trying to picture your scenario but it sounds like things happened in the following order.
1) Defender wins turnover ball at ruck and is now the ball carrier (BC)
2) BC is tackled (taken to ground)
3) Attacking player takes up position over the tackled BC (assume he get there legally i.e. through his gate) and gets hands on the ball
*4) To avoid losing possession, BC pushes the ball along the ground, towards his support players, to a point where the ball is now in-goal with BC still with hand on or holding the ball and attacking player still with hands on the ball.

My decision is PK against tackled BC for not releasing.
The tackled player only has the option to pass, place or push the ball if there is no opposition player, who is on his feet and legally in position, with hands on the ball attempting to win possession. If there is an opponent in such a position, the tackled player MUST release the ball. That has now become his only option.

I don't believe the OP to be a PT situation.

* Incidentally, if the tackled player did not have an opposition player over him with hands on the ball, and the tackled player presented the ball back on or over the goal line and he still has possession (i.e. he still has ball in hand or hand on ball), the ball has been touched down. He does not need to press down on the ball.
See Law 22.1(a)

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required

 

[L'irlandais]

It is not clear in the OP if the ball carrier was tackled or if he went to ground.
It is not clear (to me anyway) if the attacking player was the would-be tackler or simply a.n. Other player.

I agree with OB [laws]If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal, play is re-started by a 5-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/laws]

 

[tim White]

FIRST offence appears to be failing to release the ball to a legal player on his feet-this appears to be a PK offence.. Did this prevent a 'probable try'? (would the attacker probably have picked up the ball and scored before another defender intervened?) .

 

[Rushforth]

It is not clear in the OP if the ball carrier was tackled or if he went to ground.
It is not clear (to me anyway) if the attacking player was the would-be tackler or simply a.n. Other player.

I agree with OB [laws]If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal, play is re-started by a 5-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/laws]

Crossref says that a defender can reach back over his own line, just as an attacking ball-carrier can forwards. He definitely is correct with the latter point, but does this clearly extend to a defender "pushing the ball along, not grounding" as per the OP?

I personally consider the scenarios as very different, but who am I?

 

[The Fat]

Crossref says that a defender can reach back over his own line, just as an attacking ball-carrier can forwards. He definitely is correct with the latter point, but does this clearly extend to a defender "pushing the ball along, not grounding" as per the OP?

I personally consider the scenarios as very different, but who am I?

If the defender "pushes" the ball along the ground without losing contact between ball and hand and the ball touches the goal line, he has grounded the ball. Alternatively, he can simply reach out and place the ball into his own in-goal for a touch down with subsequent attacking 5m scrum

 

[Nigib]

This is an U14 game. Keep it simple. Reward positive attacking play. Attacking player in contact with ball when grounded in-goal. No foul play. Try. No-one is going to argue, even in the bar.

 

[Rushforth]

If the defender "pushes" the ball along the ground without losing contact between ball and hand and the ball touches the goal line, he has grounded the ball. Alternatively, he can simply reach out and place the ball into his own in-goal for a touch down with subsequent attacking 5m scrum

[LAWS]14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.[/LAWS]

I have no problem whatsoever with the modern interpretation of allowing a player on the ground to push the ball back, in the sense that he is releasing the ball "immediately" somewhere more convenient for his team.

I think we can agree that law 14 - ball on the ground, no tackle - is not any MORE restrictive on the ball carrier than other cases, right?

The player is allowed to do three things. Get up with it. Pass it. Release it.

Law 22.9 clearly refers to players on their feet in-goal from (a) to (e) too, so we can't look there.

There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

 

[ChrisR]

There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

Rushforth, where on earth did you get this idea? If an attacking player, carrying the ball, slides into his opponent's goal and grounds the ball you disallow the try and then do what .....?

 

[The Fat]

[LAWS]14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.[/LAWS]

I have no problem whatsoever with the modern interpretation of allowing a player on the ground to push the ball back, in the sense that he is releasing the ball "immediately" somewhere more convenient for his team.

I think we can agree that law 14 - ball on the ground, no tackle - is not any MORE restrictive on the ball carrier than other cases, right?

The player is allowed to do three things. Get up with it. Pass it. Release it.

Law 22.9 clearly refers to players on their feet in-goal from (a) to (e) too, so we can't look there.

There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

You do realise that your last sentence would never allow a player who is tackled just short of the goal line to reach out and place the ball for a try don't you?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

As described, I would go for 5m scrum attack, both players for me are trying to do something legal and there is doubt over who is in possession.
Scrum attacking is a much easier sell to all around.

 

[Rushforth]

There is no grounding by a player on the ground himself, because rugby is played by players on their feet.

Rushforth, where on earth did you get this idea? If an attacking player, carrying the ball, slides into his opponent's goal and grounds the ball you disallow the try and then do what .....?

Marauder, I realise it is very much à la mode to not read what people have written. I refer you to post #12 of this thread in which I wrote "... just as an attacking ball-carrier can forwards. He definitely is correct with the latter point ...".

I must be extremely stupid, because I do not see any similarity whatsoever with an attacking ball-carrier diving and sliding into goal and a defending ball-carrier on the ground under either law 13 or 14.

Alternatively, one might hypothesize that where I got this idea is the fact that I've been interested in the laws of rugby for over 30 years before I became a referee, and thought it might be a good idea to know what those laws are, or at the very least to go back and check them by, you know, reading them.

Incidentally, when there is something that looks like a quotation, but without a name and a bright yellow background instead of a pale green one, that means that someone has used the LAWS tag. You can use it yourself if you click the blue and green rugby ball logo, just like I did. However, you will need to copy-paste from http://laws.worldrugby.org/ to make it convincing. Here is an example:

[LAWS]22.4 (d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.[/LAWS]

Note in particular how the wording looks nothing like "defensive push-back. If a defending player with the ball goes to ground in front of his own goal line, he is entitled to push the ball back in goal and touch it down because Marauder says it's just the same".

There is, instead, a specific exception in law for the momentum try, and it has been there for quite a long time.

Anyway, I should go to bed. You should learn the laws. Good night.

 

[Rushforth]

You do realise that your last sentence would never allow a player who is tackled just short of the goal line to reach out and place the ball for a try don't you?

My apologies, I scrolled back past your post when checking what Marauder had said without realising you were making almost the same comment.

Yes, I do realise that. I have no idea exactly how long 22.4(d) has been on the books, but I can't recall the momentum try being a recent change, or for that matter even in my lifetime, as opposed to the momentum pass which entered the book a few months ago (and that book technically not yet relevant for NH, in at least one case I know of).

My thanks for your politeness. If only because sometimes I don't realise! But more because I am getting a bit sick of "where on earth" and that kind of thing. And I am guilty of that myself at times, all the more so when I am sleeeeeepy.