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

[Nigib]

The defender does not have to exert downward pressure. If he is in possession/holding the ball and is pushing it along the ground, the instant it touches the goal line it has been made dead by way of a touch down. No further advantage available to the attacker so come bake to PK against the defender for not releasing.

Agreed again - doesn't need to be downward pressure. But why should the defender's action in this instance take priority over the attacker? From the OP, the attacking player, if the defender had released the ball, was likely to score (the OP rationale for the PT decision). Why should the defending team benefit from an illegal act, and get a 5m scrum rather than a score against them?

 

[didds]

I don;t think there is enough information/evidence in the OP to actually find that the player presenting did hold on, as opposed to pushing the ball away as the opponent was trying to get his hands on.

didds

 

[The Fat]

Agreed again - doesn't need to be downward pressure. But why should the defender's action in this instance take priority over the attacker? From the OP, the attacking player, if the defender had released the ball, was likely to score (the OP rationale for the PT decision). Why should the defending team benefit from an illegal act, and get a 5m scrum rather than a score against them?

But I wouldn't "reward" the defender by awarding an attacking 5m scrum. I would have penalised him for not releasing.

Attacking player over ball.
Defender fails to release.
Advantage attacking team.
Defender makes the ball dead by executing a touch down.
Ball is dead.
No further advantage can accrue.
Back to the PK for not releasing.

It is like when a red player, in general play knocks the ball forward.
Advantage blue.
Red player picks up the ball.
Ball is dead.
No advantage realised.
Scrum blue.

Or

Blue attacking.
Red player offside from ruck.
Advantage blue.
Blue grubber kicks into red in-goal.
Red FB grounds the ball for touch down.
Ball is dead.
No advantaged realised.
Back to Blue PK for Red offside.

 

[Nigib]

But I wouldn't "reward" the defender by awarding an attacking 5m scrum. I would have penalised him for not releasing.

I fully appreciate the argument, and agree on the principles completely. However, in this instance, both attacker and defender have hands on the ball (your examples don't have opposing players in contact), advantage to attacker - why prioritise the defender acting illegally over the attacker?

 

[L'irlandais]

As both players had hands on the ball, there must be a doubt over the grounding. None on here can with the benefit of hindsight say which of them grounded the ball.
Which takes us back to post #8, scrum 5, attackers put-in. The advantage is given to the attacking team, but NOT the score. (No way.) The awarding of a PT, we agreed required an act of foul play, not an infringement which even now (weeks later) is not clear and obvious.

 

[The Fat]

I'll throw this one up for discussion as there seems to be a line of thought that as long as the attacker has hands on the ball when the defender touches the ball down (i.e. pushes the ball onto or over the goal line) then there is doubt about who grounded the ball.
I would ask those who are thinking along these lines, when did the defender lose possession?

If an attacker picks and drives from close range and manages to ground the ball on or over the line, we award a try. We don't award an attacking 5m scrum if at the instant he grounds the ball, a defender happens to get a hand or hands on the ball. Why? because the player who originally had possession never lost it. He is still the ball carrier.

In the OP, if the tackled player had pushed the ball back and lost contact with it and the ball then rolled into the in-goal area, and if both the attacker who was standing over him and the defender on the ground then both managed to put a hand on the ball at the same time, there would be doubt about who grounded the ball and a 5m scrum to the attacking team would be the correct call.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree with that. The ball is in the pocession of the defender. I agree too that the OP doesn't provide us enough information to show that the ball carrier infringed. Perhaps he did, just that Stroudboy hasn't described it clearly. What I do dispute is that somehow we can award a try to the attacker simply because he simultaneously got his hands on the ball.

 

[Rushforth]

I agree with that. The ball is in the pocession of the defender. I agree too that the OP doesn't provide us enough information to show that the ball carrier infringed. Perhaps he did, just that Stroudboy hasn't described it clearly. What I do dispute is that somehow we can award a try to the attacker simply because he simultaneously got his hands on the ball.

I think the description was good enough, even though I missed a nuance - it wasn't clear if the ball carrier was held or not, I thought not.

As it happens a somewhat similar scenario happened early in the match my club 1st XV played last week, and the attacker actively taking the ball to ground was considered fair play by the SH who also had it in his hands (if not control).

My point is that the OP didn't make a bad decision, and neither are the other options bad. Post #40 (I think) clarified the situation, but nothing wrong with the OP #1 as such.

 

[ChrisR]

As both players had hands on the ball, there must be a doubt over the grounding. None on here can with the benefit of hindsight say which of them grounded the ball.
Which takes us back to post #8, scrum 5, attackers put-in. The advantage is given to the attacking team, but NOT the score. (No way.) The awarding of a PT, we agreed required an act of foul play, not an infringement which even now (weeks later) is not clear and obvious.

If you are of the opinion that a defender pushing the ball on/over his goal line has grounded it then it matters not that it is simultaneous grounding by the attacker. It's still an attacking 5m.

If you think that pushing the ball doesn't ground it then you could consider that the attacking player grounded it.

 

[L'irlandais]

Often on these forums we finish up divided over some poorly written piece of law.
However in this case it is black and white.
[laws]22.1
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(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[/laws]For **** sake the defender is holding the ball, the ball is touching the ground in goal.
Elsewhere we have seen that intent is NOT something the referee has to gauge. It is immaterial whether the defender intended to ground the ball or not. He is holding it in his hands, and the ball is on the ground in the in-goal area. If members can interpret 22.1 a differently from the conclusion of a scrum 5 attacking put-in, that goes a very long way to explaining the arguments we have over genuinely poorly written laws. :sad: very :sad:

 

[OB..]

Often on these forums we finish up divided over some poorly written piece of law.
However in this case it is black and white.
[laws]22.1
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(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[/laws]For **** sake the defender is holding the ball, the ball is touching the ground in goal.
Elsewhere we have seen that intent is NOT something the referee has to gauge. It is immaterial whether the defender intended to ground the ball or not. He is holding it in his hands, and the ball is on the ground in the in-goal area. If members can interpret 22.1 a differently from the conclusion of a scrum 5 attacking put-in, that goes a very long way to explaining the arguments we have over genuinely poorly written laws. :sad: very :sad:

The dispute is about whether or not pushing the ball is equivalent to holding it.

I see little point in arguing about the "real" meaning of words since (as I believe I have mentioned before) the laws are simply not written to that sort of standard.

In this case both players have a hand on the ball when it is grounded, so you cannot say who grounded it first. Scrum 5m.

 

[The Fat]

The dispute is about whether or not pushing the ball is equivalent to holding it.

I see little point in arguing about the "real" meaning of words since (as I believe I have mentioned before) the laws are simply not written to that sort of standard.

In this case both players have a hand on the ball when it is grounded, so you cannot say who grounded it first. Scrum 5m.

Not sure why we are still discussing the grounding with a view to restarting with a scrum.

"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."


Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

 

[Chris_j]

Not sure why we are still discussing the grounding with a view to restarting with a scrum.

"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."


Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

Surely if the attacking player who is legal and on his feet had hands on the ball, trying to play it, and does not himself go to ground, then he scores the try. Tackled player can't place it back once attacker has control.

 

[The Fat]

Surely if the attacking player who is legal and on his feet had hands on the ball, trying to play it, and does not himself go to ground, then he scores the try. Tackled player can't place it back once attacker has control.

I agree with you that the defender should not, in this situation, be allowed to place the ball back. It should have been a PK against defender for not releasing.

The defending player on the ground never releases/loses possession. For a try to be scored, the original ball carrier would need to lose/give up possession. See my post #66

 

[ChrisR]

Not sure why we are still discussing the grounding with a view to restarting with a scrum.

"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."


Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

TF, you raise a really good point here that is worth considering beyond the context of the OP.

What, exactly, is a 'release'? Without thinking too much about it I have always told tackled players that they have three options: Pass, place or release and release is just letting go. However, after taking a closer look at the laws below I'm thinking that even if a defender gets their mitts on the ball I can still release it by placing/pushing the ball back toward my teammates so long as I act immediately. What I can't do is just hold onto the ball to deny the opponent a fair play for the ball.

Law 15.5 c,d & e (duties of the tackled player)

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.

(e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.

This makes sense to me and applies to all tackles. So, back to the OP, if the player places/pushes the ball back immediately then he is within the law even tho the op has his hands on it.

 

[OB..]

TF, you raise a really good point here that is worth considering beyond the context of the OP.

What, exactly, is a 'release'? Without thinking too much about it I have always told tackled players that they have three options: Pass, place or release and release is just letting go. However, after taking a closer look at the laws below I'm thinking that even if a defender gets their mitts on the ball I can still release it by placing/pushing the ball back toward my teammates so long as I act immediately. What I can't do is just hold onto the ball to deny the opponent a fair play for the ball.

Law 15.5 c,d & e (duties of the tackled player)

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.

(e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.

This makes sense to me and applies to all tackles. So, back to the OP, if the player places/pushes the ball back immediately then he is within the law even tho the op has his hands on it.

But there's more
[LAWS]15.6
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](b)[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession.
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular](h)[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]After a tackle, any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.
[/FONT]15.7 (b) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.[/FONT][/LAWS]
"Release" has become ambiguous. In one case it seems to mean simply "let go" and in another it allows a further action.

As usual there is little to be gained from studying the wording too closely. What makes rugby sense?
Suppose the defender had simply fallen on the ball and the opponent tried to take it from him. If the defender merely held on tight, we would penalise him. If he was stretching out to ground the ball as the attacker grabbed at it, surely a 5m scrum - both payers are legal.

 

[ChrisR]

This is what I think "makes rugby sense":

Immediately after a tackle both attacker (read ball carrier) and defender have legal options, one to play the ball and the other to take possession, and that creates the contest.

If the defender can get a grasp of the ball and either take it or prevent the attacker from playing it he wins the contest.

If the attacker can force the ball back and make it available to his teammates then he wins the contest.

What is not legal? The defender holding the attacker (not releasing the player) to prevent him playing the ball.
Also, the attacker smothering the ball so it's not available or hanging on to it after he's not been able to play it back.

The attacker has a time limit. He must succeed immediately or cede the ball to the defender otherwise he is liable for penalty. The defender has no time limit but must be on his feet in a legal position and have hands on the ball before a ruck forms.

 

[Nigib]

So my interpretation of the OP:
Defender on ground, holding onto ball while attacker attempts to take ball from him - advantage attacking side
Defender rolls over and pushes ball towards goal line, attacker still has hands on - advantage continues
Ball is grounded - defender pushes, but also push by attacker who has both hands on ball so weight is forwards and down - try

In this instance, attacker becomes the 'player in possession' as the ball goes backwards from the defender and the attacker keeps hands on the ball and moves it the same way.

And does it look right? If it does, it probably is - this was the mantra of my ref course tutor. Imagining all this happening in real-time, I can only see the try award as looking 'right'. Anything else surely doesn't meet the 'equity' bit of our motto.

Other posters seem to be interpreting things differently, and I can see and agree with what is being argued for both scrum and penalty award scenarios. I contend that this particular instance is different from both of those.

 

[didds]

Surely the OP's description of the sequence of events requires a PK to be awarded for the defending player not releasing.

well, there are those here - inclusing me - who don;t beleive there is sufficient in the OP to judge whether that is the case or not.

didds

 

[didds]

So my interpretation of the OP:
Defender on ground, holding onto ball while attacker attempts to take ball from him - advantage attacking side
Defender rolls over and pushes ball towards goal line, attacker still has hands on - advantage continues.

The OP doesn't mention anything about rolling over? where did you get that from?

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.

???

didds