[Law] Question from World Rugby law quiz

[L'irlandais]

The rumbling row over the decision not to award a try to Wales’s Gareth Anscombe against England highlights another grey area in the game’s laws

Interestingly, the entire discussion did NOT center around the fact that both players were off their feet. So clearly your interpretation is not in line with current WR interpretation of the laws of the game.
The questions were (if memory serves me right) was the ball knocked on into the ingoal? And if not which player got a hand to the ball first?
[LAWS]World Rugby’s head of referees, Alain Rolland ruled that “in accordance with law 21.1b Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball”.[/LAWS]
WR head of referees sees that a player off their feet can ground the ball. You’d be lynched if you penalized either player for playing the ball on the ground. Lucky neither of us is an Elite referee.
Which carries more weight Alain Rolland said, or some bloke on a discussion forum said?

 

[OB..]

A player on the ground can't play the ball

There's fundamentalism for you.

If a player dives to ground the ball when it is in in-goal but hits the ground first, you would deny him a try?

 

[Phil E]

.

 

[crossref]

There's fundamentalism for you.

If a player dives to ground the ball when it is in in-goal but hits the ground first, you would deny him a try?

that's 13.1 - Player can go to ground to play the ball.
but a player on the ground is different - he cant play a ball

 

[crossref]

View attachment 3864.

what do you make of this, similar, scenario ?

https://www.facebook.com/advantageref/posts/236760043878076

another fish in the sea awarding a PK under 13.3

 

[Balones]

It’s on the World Rugby website, follow the link «*Laws of The Game*» at the top of RRF forum page
then you need to select the «*Passport site*» pulldown at the top of that page and select Laws of the Game again. Which will bring you to this log-in page

Give that the quiz has been updated to include new laws, and yet they have chosen not to delete this 21.15 surely shows us they didn’t consider (rightly or wrongly) it was affected by their changes. Clearly at some point in time the WR law makers believed it was okay to award a try if an attacker, off his feet, in touch-ingoal grounded the ball, providing he wasn’t holding the ball. Equally clear is that they haven’t sought to ammend that point in law, as yet.

Thanks, but I know how to access the exam etc but I cannot see the question anywhere once logged in etc. Hence the post.

 

[crossref]

Thanks, but I know how to access the exam etc but I cannot see the question anywhere once logged in etc. Hence the post.

I think the quiz has a database of questions, chosen at random, so each time you do it you'll see a sightly different selection of Qs

 

[Phil E]

Thanks, but I know how to access the exam etc but I cannot see the question anywhere once logged in etc. Hence the post.

I believe the questions change on a random basis each time you take the exam.

 

[L'irlandais]

Without repeating ad nauseum OB..’s point, it is worth bearing in mind that one should not read to much into the words used in the LoTG. It is not a legal document, with terms that have strictly defined meanings. In the context of the English used: the meaning of the word “ground” depends on the context used

an all-seater sports ground has seats for everyone and no areas where people stand

Ground here refers to the stadium, which includes the stands.
This is different from the definition in the Laws defining the “ground” in terms of the grass covered area which includes the playing surface. We can all agree on that.
But similarly “ground” as in the solid surface of the earth, informally deck (as in hit the deck) this is a separate word, the meaning of which is also different. This is easily verifiable, by looking at a French translation of the Laws of the Game. Both words are translated differently.

 

[crossref]

the law isn't written legalistically --- it's written in simple, plain english and very easy to understand: a player on the ground cannot play the ball.

its when people start saying 'depends what you mean by ground' and 'depends what you mean by play' that we are getting legalistic...


French Law

Le jeu se joue avec des joueurs qui sont sur leurs pieds (debout).

Un joueur au sol sans le ballon est hors du jeu et doit :
Permettre aux adversaires qui ne sont pas au sol de jouer ou de gagner la possession du ballon.
Ne pas jouer le ballon.
Ne pas plaquer ou tenter de plaquer un adversaire.
Sanction : Pénalité.


I don't speak French as well as you - but to me it seems to say exactly the same thing as the English Law - just as clearly and simply ?

 

[L'irlandais]

The ground as defined in Law 1 is called Le Terrain in french.
Law 13.3 Un joueur au sol sans le ballon est hors du jeu et doit :
These words are not the same, yet you are equating them, by saying touch in goal is part of the definition the terrain. This is not the same as a player on the sol. I am referring to your post #19

 

[Arabcheif]

One of the question in the Quiz that I did on WR was [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A defender carrying the ball is tackled near the goal-line. The ball is released and rolls back into in-goal. Another defender lying on the ground reaches out and grounds the ball. What should the referee rule?

Answer was Scrum 5.

[/FONT]So this suggests that in in-goal, a player off his feet can play the ball in-goal. The question then becomes was he in touch. 21.10 would seem to suggest he's not. Therefore Try???

 

[crossref]

The ground as defined in Law 1 is called Le Terrain in french.
Law 13.3 Un joueur au sol sans le ballon est hors du jeu et doit :
These words are not the same, yet you are equating them, by saying touch in goal is part of the definition the terrain. This is not the same as a player on the sol. I am referring to your post #19

but Law 13.3 has the same natural meaning in French as in English, right?

viz - player who is not on his feet, cannot play the ball

 

[L'irlandais]

Yes, quite. The laws in French are a reasonable translation of the English law book. Some words under scrum law have led to divergent interpretations this side of the channel, but nothing to write home about.

A player off their feet is out of the game. But there are exceptions to this also.

 

[crossref]

.

A player off their feet is out of the game. But there are exceptions to this also.

Well, it's good to agree what the Law means

There are some exceptions, but I don't see anything to suggest that being in touch-in-goal is one of them ?
I do note that the diagram of a player scoring a try from TIG , shows a player on his feet

 

[crossref]

Give that the quiz has been updated to include new laws, and yet they have chosen not to delete this 21.15 surely shows us they didn’t consider (rightly or wrongly) it was affected by their changes. Clearly at some point in time the WR law makers believed it was okay to award a try if an attacker, off his feet, in touch-ingoal grounded the ball, providing he wasn’t holding the ball. Equally clear is that they haven’t sought to ammend that point in law, as yet.

Interestingly, so far as I can tell by going in and out of the quiz, to see different questions each time .. none of the questions about Law 13 reference 13.3 ... So it does seem like 13.3 has been neglected.

But it's possible that there is a question on it , and the randomisation happens to hide it t from me. Anyone else want to have a look and see if there is one ?

 

[Rich_NL]

There are some exceptions, but I don't see anything to suggest that being in touch-in-goal is one of them ?

Besides common practice and the WR law quiz, you mean?

 

[Arabcheif]

The question in my post #52 through me when I did it. I couldn't find any reference to it the the 21 - In-goal Law. If re -read it again and still can't find it referenced in the Law 21 framework. I'm I just missing it?

 

[crossref]

Common practice prior to Law 13.3 doesn't count , as 13.3 changed things .

The quiz ... that quiz ,last time I looked, contains other errors from being out of date

 

[mcroker]

+1 for those arguing that the laws are not sufficiently well written to be taken literally in all scenarios (including this one). This is not the only area where two laws could be viewed to contradict, with no order of precedence set.

Common understanding, precedence etc. all have their place.