[Law] Posession After Stoppage in Play

[ChrisR]

This is only going to happen when you have to blow the whistle when the ball is in play. Usually it's not that urgent so a delay until the ball is dead so the restart is what would have restarted.
So, my guess is that this ain't gonna happen too often and there will be a clear team in possession.
Good question tho to expose the law change.

 

[crossref]

Good question tho to expose the law change.

Indeed. Was that actually the purpose of the question? Well done IdrisDragon

 

[crossref]

Ah no, panic over , here is the relevant 2017 Law
[LAWS]
6.A.9 THE REFEREE AND INJURY
If the referee stops play because a player has been injured, and there has been no
infringement and the ball has not been made dead, play restarts with a scrum. The team
last in possession throws in the ball. If neither team was in possession, the attacking team
throws in the ball.
[/LAWS]

The 2018 Law being

[LAWS]The team last in
possession.[/LAWS]

So different .. but not really significantly different

In the OP scenario I think
Blue were the last team in possession
Blue were also the attacking side

So blue scrum

 

[Marc Wakeham]

ChrisR I fail to see how the actions of the "face-blocker" can be deemed to be make his team the attacking team? Red, as per the OP, had fly hacked through and were chasing toward Blue goal-line. The Blue player was defender in my book. A "face-block" is not classed as possession

Either way; restart with "Scrum, Red ball" - easy sell and correct in Law.

The "attacking team is predetermined. It is the team in the opposition half so Blue is the attacking team.

In the scenario we have Two player chosing to play the ball, the initial Blue kicker and the red kicker. the guy getting kick did not chose to play the ball so I'm ruling that out.

Was red moving forward or was Blue? I'd say at the point of the injury red was and he was last in possession. I'm giving Red the scrum. But you could sell it either way. A reward of a scrum and a big gain in territory seems too much for getting in the way.

 

[Camquin]

The fly hack is certainly playing the ball.
Being hit in the face is not - as by definition "playing" requires intent.

Posession requires control, or an attmpt to take control.
From the description, the wild fly hack was neiher of those.
So scrum blue at the place of the fly hack.

 

[OB..]

Posession requires control, or an attmpt to take control.
From the description, the wild fly hack was neiher of those.

Surely fly hacking is attempting to determine where the ball goes? It is risky,but nonetheless deliberate ie the player is attempting to control the ball.

Blue did not deliberately play the ball so common sense suggests his team should get the scrum from that piece of action.
Fortunately this view appears to be acceptable in law.

 

[Camquin]

Interestingly the Global law Trial stated

Definition - Possession

This happens when a player is carrying the ball (or attempting to bring it under control) or the team has the ball in its control; for example the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.

 

[Pinky]

For me attempting to bring it under control is juggling. Kicking it is putting it out of control, so I would not be thinking that a fly hack would be control. As I said above, I owld need to see getting hit in the face to know whether that was played or not, but almost certainly not in control, so niether the last kicks were in possession. The last possession was, I think, the blue kicker.

 

[OB..]

For me attempting to bring it under control is juggling. Kicking it is putting it out of control, so I would not be thinking that a fly hack would be control.

Possession and control are different concepts. In cricket, a batsman controls (he hopes) where the ball goes, but he never attempts to take possession of it ("Handled the ball" is one way of getting out). Control can be instantaneous, whereas possession is longer term (and includes having control).

Fly-kicking is therefore not possession, but it is an attempt to control the ball.

 

[crossref]

Possession and control are different concepts..

In rugby they are pretty much the same

[LAWS]2018 Definition s
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it
under control[/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

Still, different concepts. Like driving and steering.

 

[didds]

[/I]Fly hack and playing with your face not considered control in my book. So, feed to Blue assuming Blue actually had control of the ball when he kicked it.

the OP merely says "from half way". So blue could have been just inside his own half. In whcih case RED was the attacking team so RED get the scum put in?

And who is attacking if the ball is actually dead ON the half way line ? (splitting hairs here! ;-) )

 

[didds]

by definition "playing" requires intent.

we've been here before with the "who played the ball in-goal" questions whereby a grubber by blue deflects off a red shin and ends up in-goal, touched down by red...

There was far from a consensus of opinion in this forum...

didds

 

[Camquin]

2018 laws require intent

Played: The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player.

 

[crossref]

the OP merely says "from half way". So blue could have been just inside his own half. In whcih case RED was the attacking team so RED get the scum put in?

And who is attacking if the ball is actually dead ON the half way line ? (splitting hairs here! ;-) )

Attacking isn't relevant

Stoppage for injury ..The Law gives the throw in to the team last in possession.

 

[didds]

yep - I was replying to ChrisR, with a general query etc.

So - who had possession? Its obvious that this august body cannot agree whether possession was

* the iniital kicker (blue)
* the fly hacker (red)
* the face blocker (blue)

So make a mental coin toss/go with whatever you feel is right and sell the decision.

Its really an example of where WR needs a quick turnaround laws decsion/interpretation and a website/somesuch that lists such decsions - and by turnaround I mean < 1 week.

Cricket in England (which probably meant the UK) had a system whereby people cold phone Lords (the MCC being the custodians of the laws back then - still now?) and get a ruling "quickly". The lack of internet back then meant there probably was no cascading.

didds

 

[crossref]

agree.

put in is about possession
- for me last team in possession was Blue for the initial kick. I don't think a fly hack is possession (and a ball in the face obviously isn't)

place of scrum is where it was last played.
- fly hack is definitely playing the ball (obv)
- ball in the face - is that playing the ball ? I think you have to see it : if it looked like a charge down, yes that's playing it. If it looks like a Tom & Jerry cartoon, that isn't playing it

 

[OB..]

In rugby they are pretty much the same

[LAWS]2018 Definition s
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it
under control[/LAWS]

But they are not identical nor are they synonymous.

 

[crossref]

But they are not identical nor are they synonymous.

In English I agree . In rugby ? Given that Definition I am struggling to think of examples where a team is in possession but not control, or has control but not possession ?

 

[OB..]

In English I agree . In rugby ? Given that Definition I am struggling to think of examples where a team is in possession but not control, or has control but not possession ?

If you kick the ball you are controlling it because you are determining where it goes (agreed, that might not be quite where you meant it to go, but that is irrelevant). You do not have possession, which implies holding the ball or trying to do so.

Fortunately players no longer dribble the ball ("Feet, Scotland, feet!"), which would be a grey area..