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

[RobLev]

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...

It can't be a try - if he grounded at all, the attacker didn't ground alone, therefore couldn't ground first.

 

[Nigib]

It can't be a try - if he grounded at all, the attacker didn't ground alone, therefore couldn't ground first.

Seriously? Attacker in possession of the ball falls over the goal line, defender tries to prevent try so has hands on, ball goes to ground in contact with both A+D and you don't award a try?

 

[Nigib]

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



???

didds

I did say 'my interpretation' - wouldn't have to be, I'm trying to imagine the movement needed for the defender to get it back while the attacker is competing for it, and has his hands on. If it doesn't work for you, fine.

 

[RobLev]

Seriously? Attacker in possession of the ball falls over the goal line, defender tries to prevent try so has hands on, ball goes to ground in contact with both A+D and you don't award a try?

*If* the attacker was in possession and the defender got hands on - of course. But that isn't this case, is it? Defender has possession of the ball.

 

[Nigib]

*If* the attacker was in possession and the defender got hands on - of course. But that isn't this case, is it? Defender has possession of the ball.

I don't think the defender at the point the ball is grounded is in possession - that's the point. We don't know from the OP if the push back by the defender is with both hands on the ball or one; I've inferred that the attacker is trying to take the ball that is being held on the ground illegally, and therefore does have two hands on, and is trying to play positively and score. In those circumstances, I can't see a justification for saying the defender is in possession.

As far as I can see, a grounding in-goal with both sides in contact with the ball is not covered specifically in law; I am then led to what is equitable, and what would look 'fair' to players (and everyone else) - for me, that's a try, Other views are obviously available

One of which would be to award a PT under 10.2(a) "A player must not... play unfairly" - which would justify the OP decision.

 

[L'irlandais]

This discussion is getting silly now.
Let's not read things into the OP that are not there. It is not even sure that a tackle took place, have another read. But even if it was a tackle the defender still has possession of the ball. That is beyond dispute.
[laws]Law 15: Tackle: Ball Carrier Brought to Ground
15.6 Other players
After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession.[/laws]The ball carrier goes to ground close to his own try line the OP tells us. It doesn't say he had to twist and turn to place the ball back over his own try line. If elements are missing ask the OP don't make it up.
The LoTG tell us any player on their feet may attempt to take possession from him. In this case the attacker has NOT taken the ball from him. The fact he is off his feet has not nullified his possession ; it will make that possession illegal after a few short seconds, but he is still in possession of the ball.
What is being argued is that he has not released and so is infringing. How many seconds before you penalise the tackled player?
How many seconds elapsed in the opening scenario? We do NOT know! So nobody can conclusively say if he infringed or not.

In the context of a newbie referee who asked a genuine question I suggest a simple answer was called for, not all this imagining what might have happened.
Question 1. yes
Question 2. No
ymmv!

 

[RobLev]

I don't think the defender at the point the ball is grounded is in possession - that's the point. We don't know from the OP if the push back by the defender is with both hands on the ball or one; I've inferred that the attacker is trying to take the ball that is being held on the ground illegally, and therefore does have two hands on, and is trying to play positively and score. In those circumstances, I can't see a justification for saying the defender is in possession.

As far as I can see, a grounding in-goal with both sides in contact with the ball is not covered specifically in law; I am then led to what is equitable, and what would look 'fair' to players (and everyone else) - for me, that's a try, Other views are obviously available

One of which would be to award a PT under 10.2(a) "A player must not... play unfairly" - which would justify the OP decision.

Your logic - ignoring possession if it's illegal - has no grounding in Law, surely?

A grounding in goal with opposing players in contact and neither having established possession (not this case) - ie doubt about who grounded first - is covered in Law. Attacking 5m scrum under Law 22.15.

 

[Nigib]

Your logic - ignoring possession if it's illegal - has no grounding in Law, surely?

A grounding in goal with opposing players in contact and neither having established possession (not this case) - ie doubt about who grounded first - is covered in Law. Attacking 5m scrum under Law 22.15.

We'll need to agree to disagree - 22.15 would just as well apply to my previous example with an attacker crashing over but with defenders in contact where you agreed it would be a try; there is nothing in Law 22 about who has 'established possession'.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Your logic - ignoring possession if it's illegal - has no grounding in Law, surely?

A grounding in goal with opposing players in contact and neither having established possession (not this case) - ie doubt about who grounded first - is covered in Law. Attacking 5m scrum under Law 22.15.

In a nutshell. The key factor in this is that the ball is over the goal-line. This means it doesn't matter how the player got to ground, there is NO tackle, therefore no gate therefore players can play the ball from any direction.

However, the player with the ball still has the ball, therefore he is still in possession of the ball and has not released it. If the attacker presses down on the ball in these circumstances and the ball is grounded, its the same situation as two players chasing a loose ball in-goal and grounding the ball at the same time..

[LAWS]22.15 DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING
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]

 

[RobLev]

We'll need to agree to disagree - 22.15 would just as well apply to my previous example with an attacker crashing over but with defenders in contact where you agreed it would be a try;

Because attacker was in possession at the outset, defenders just got hands on the ball.

there is nothing in Law 22 about who has 'established possession'.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Something similar to this happened tonight at the end of the Rebels v Hurricanes match. Rebels defending their goal-line and in trying to make an exit play, the ball is passed to a player in goal who is caught but manages to roll himself into the FoP. The result is a ruck like thing right on the goal line with the ball just in the FoP.

The Rebels player then presents the ball back over his own goal-line, and lets go of it. The ball is still within bodies (and would still be in the ruck if it was in the FoP), however, Ardie Savea knows the law, pounces on the ball and grounds it.

The Hoff awards the try.

 

[crossref]

The Rebels player then presents the ball back over his own goal-line, and lets go of it. .

isn't that a touchdown, 5m scrum (even though he didn't mean to)

 

[didds]

sounds like it to me.

didds

 

[OB..]

isn't that a touchdown, 5m scrum (even though he didn't mean to)

Not if he presents the ball in the air.

 

[Phil E]

Not if he presents the ball in the air.

The description said he "lets go of it" (the ball).

 

[crossref]

OK so
- he could reach back and drop the ball over the line -- play on
- he could reach back and place the ball over the line -- that's a touch down even though he didn't intend it to be (?)

I'm still not really sure about this, doesn't a touchdown require some intention?

Pursing the theme further, if a player carrying the ball in the in goal slips and falls over (regaining hold on the ball) and the ball touches the ground, is that really a touchdown?

 

[didds]

OK so
- he could reach back and drop the ball over the line -- play on
- he could reach back and place the ball over the line -- that's a touch down even though he didn't intend it to be (?)

I'm still not really sure about this, doesn't a touchdown require some intention?

red attacking winger run into blue in goal, 5m in field from touch, T-G etc - but is tackled as he enters.

In going down the winger twists his body and offloads to supporting red 7 who runs under the posts and dots down securely etc

But in the act of twisting and landing and offloading you notice that the end of the ball grazes the grass in-goal where the winger lands 5m from touch and T-G etc [i.e. its not where near touch, deadball line, reed never touch it etc etc etc etc and all obvious caveats ;-) ]


Where do you award the try?

didds

 

[crossref]

red attacking winger run into blue in goal, 5m in field from touch, T-G etc - but is tackled as he enters.

In going down the winger twists his body and offloads to supporting red 7 who runs under the posts and dots down securely etc

But in the act of twisting and landing and offloading you notice that the end of the ball grazes the grass in-goal where the winger lands 5m from touch and T-G etc [i.e. its not where near touch, deadball line, reed never touch it etc etc etc etc and all obvious caveats ;-) ]


Where do you award the try?

More straightforwardly, red is last-ditch tackled as he crosses the tryline but it's not a good tackle, the tackler loses his grip as they hit the ground (in goal) and the ball carrier is able to escape the grasp and bounce back to his feet and scurry under the posts to score (we have all seen this). it's quite likely - sometimes pretty much certain - that the ball actually hit the ground in the initial tackle, but we always ignore that and award the try under the posts. Which is what I would do.

I tend to think intention is required.

 

[OB..]

More straightforwardly, red is last-ditch tackled as he crosses the tryline but it's not a good tackle, the tackler loses his grip as they hit the ground (in goal) and the ball carrier is able to escape the grasp and bounce back to his feet and scurry under the posts to score (we have all seen this). it's quite likely - sometimes pretty much certain - that the ball actually hit the ground in the initial tackle, but we always ignore that and award the try under the posts. Which is what I would do.

I would ask you if you thought the ball had been grounded when he first hit the ground. If you said you had awarded the try where you did because you thought the initial grounding was unintentional, I would mark your decision as a law error. I see no justification for that view and it adds an unnecessary element of judgement.

 

[crossref]

I would say I wasn't certain that the ball had touched the ground and gave the ball carrier benefit of doubt.