Reds vs Warrahta

[Greg Collins]

anyone watching/watched it.

blue player kicks ahead and chases, in fop just short of red goal line he tries to gather ball whilst diving for the line under contact/pressure from following red defender. it was a tough call but it was judged that he didn't touch the ball with his hands or knock it on (ref clearly repeated what the tmo said to him). he overshoots the ball which hits his knees and rolls into in goal ricochets off blue foot and cannons on its way to touch-in-goal.

Before it gets to the plane of touch it hits the red player's leg (no part of red is in touch/ touch in goal) and remains in goal. Blue player is on his back with his feet in touch in goal, red player is beyond him nearer the dead ball line, the ball is grounded by blue player's right hand / arm between his body and the goal line.

22 drop out. Why? I guess it turns on whether or not blue had possession 22.3 (b)

Baffled. Please unpack it for me.

 

[Dixie]

the ball is grounded by blue player and goal line.

Never seen a goal line do that before. Can you either re-describe please, or else call the Torchwood producer with an idea for a script?

 

[Greg Collins]

Never seen a goal line do that before. Can you either re-describe please, or else call the Torchwood producer with an idea for a script?

Edited.

 

[Ian_Cook]

anyone watching/watched it.

blue player kicks ahead and chases, in fop just short of red goal line he tries to gather ball whilst diving for the line under contact/pressure from following red defender. it was a tough call but it was judged that he didn't touch the ball with his hands or knock it on (ref clearly repeated what the tmo said to him). he overshoots the ball which hits his knees and rolls into in goal ricochets off blue foot and cannons on its way to touch-in-goal.

Before it gets to the plane of touch it hits the red player's leg (no part of red is in touch/ touch in goal) and remains in goal. Blue player is on his back with his feet in touch in goal, red player is beyond him nearer the dead ball line, the ball is grounded by blue player's right hand / arm between his body and the goal line.

22 drop out. Why? I guess it turns on whether or not blue had possession 22.3 (b)

Baffled. Please unpack it for me.

OK, so here is the piece of action you are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUHd2x4XuU0

The first thing to note, (especially OB) is that the TMO assessed what happened IN THE FIELD OF PLAY, i.e. did Lachlan Turner knock the ball on or not. This becomes important later.

Having decided that he did NOT knock the ball on, he then decided that the ball was not grounded, and was touch in goal, so;

Put into in-goal by attacking player but not by knocking forward +
Put into TiG by the attacking player =
22m drop out.

When I saw this at full speed I thought Blue 14 had grounded the ball first and, even though he had his feet in TiG, if there was no knock-forward, it was going to be a try.

However, Blue 14 did not ground the ball, he touched while it was still in the air, while his feet were in TiG. The sequence beginning here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUHd2x4XuU0#t=2m10s

...clearly shows Blue 14 with his feet in TiG, touching the ball while it is still off the ground.

Conclusion, the referee and TMO got this absolutely correct, and their correct decision was arrived at by the TMO correctly assessing what had happened, in the field of play. It the TMO had decided that Blue 14 had knocked-forward, the ruling would have been a scrum 5m with Red to feed.

 

[OB..]

The first thing to note, (especially OB) is that the TMO assessed what happened IN THE FIELD OF PLAY.

You really are over-egging the pudding here. I can't be bothered to look back for my exact quote but I said nobody is going to quibble about precise distances when a player was in the act of scoring right near the line.

 

[ddjamo]

Ian...I'm having a hard time seeing how the ball was considered TIG...please explain.

 

[Jacko]

For me if that's not a knock on it's a try.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian...I'm having a hard time seeing how the ball was considered TIG...please explain.

LAW 22.4
(g) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

This Law allows you to force the ball on the ground even if your feet are in touch, i.e. if the ball is already touching the ground when you force it, then it does not matter if some other part of your body is grounded in TiG

The same does not apply if the ball is in the air, i.e. not already touching the ground. A player who has some part of the body grounded in TiG, who touched a ball in the air, has immediately put the ball in touch. A player touching that ball and bringing it to ground is effectively carrying the ball.

The video here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUHd2x4XuU0#t=2m10s

clearly shows Blue 14, lying on his back, and bringing a moving ball in the air to ground with his hand. He has therefore put the ball into TiG BEFORE grounding the ball.

Attacking player puts ball into in-goal and subsequently puts it into TiG = 22m dropout.


PS: here is a frame capture that makes the point

Not 100% clear, but if you look at this icw the video, it is clear that Blue 14 drags the ball to ground.

 

[Greg Collins]

Thanks for engaging with the debate Ian.
LAW 22.4
(g) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

Can you really force 22.4 to exclude grounding an oval ball bobbling along which may from time to time leave the floor?

If a player was standing t-i-g and the ball bounced in in goal in front of him and was in the air on the up bounce and he dived on top of it and grounded it would we really not allow the try?

 

[Davet]

Carrying the ball is the crux.

If the ball is in the air and the player pushes it to the ground has he carried it?

I think this will excite lots of views - I can see the arguement for saying that simply forcing the ball downwards is not carrying it - the player never actually had hold of the ball; and never supported the ball in the air - which would seem like a fair definition of "carrying".

I would not have been surprised for it to be a try.

However, I can also see the point that if the ball is in the air and a player in TiG touches it, then the ball is surely in TiG - based on normal Laws of Touch TiG.

But the Exception is specific - "Not carrying"...


Pass me a fence someone, please; I need to rest my legs.

 

[FlipFlop]

SA refs have this on the video replay section.

They say it should have been a try.

 

[ddjamo]

I've watched 20 replays and see nothing but a try.

 

[Greg Collins]

SA refs have this on the video replay section.

They say it should have been a try.

had a look can't find it. can you post a link?

 

[Davet]

Now looked at the video.

1st view I thought that he had trapped the ball between hand and hip fractionally before grounding. Which would perhaps be a momentary "carry", ie supporting the ball off the floor.

This bit is missing from most the following replays, but a couple late in the sequence seem to show it is grounded simultaneously against hip and ground, and I think on balance I am in favour of awarding the try.

And fences do hurt one's arse after a while.

 

[Greg Collins]

I've watched 20 replays and see nothing but a try.

I thought it a try in real time if a knock on had not occurred. The TMO replays, of which there were several confirmed no knock on, and yet the try was not awarded. I watched it over and over again on my sky+ in super super slo-mo. was still baffled. Hence my post

 

[Rit Hinners]

Law 19...... A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.The plane of the touchline is the verticle space rising immediately above the touchline.

The ball is not held. It has not crossed the plane of touch. The player being in touch is of no consequence.

Try.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The thing for me is where you draw the line, and at what point do you consider the ball being carried?

There are two very important parts of the Law 19 definitions that relate to this:

LAW 19 DEFINITIONS
....The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline....

....A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.

IMO as soon as you allow the playing of a ball in the air to be grounded for a try by a player with feet in touch, you create a subjectivity problem; how far do you allow this to go?

► Can a ball can be carried in one hand using only the palm and fingers?

Apparently so!
....and that IS a full sized ball!!

► Would you allow a player standing in TiG to grab the ball with two hands and place it for a try?

► Would you allow a player standing in TiG to grab the ball with one "Colin Meads" type hand and place it for a try?

► Would you allow a player lying on their back with their feet in TiG to reach up and grab the ball with two hands and place it for a try?

Remember that we already make definite distinctions in Law when players standing in touch are putting the ball into touch, and the variables include a moving or stationary ball, the player picking up or forcing the ball, and the ball on the ground or in the air.

For me, that is, and always has been no try. That is how I read the Law

LAW 22.4
(g) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

I draw the line at the ball being in contact with the ground, and that removes my need to judge whether the player is "carrying" the ball and how far the carry is.

If the player is moving the ball from one place to another with one or both hands, he is carrying the ball. If he places one or both hands on a ball that is already in contact with the ground, he is not carrying the ball.

Simples

 

[Greg Collins]

Simples

that is LOL funny

 

[Ian_Cook]

that is LOL funny

Why?

I draw a line at a place where it is easy to make a decision.

Why would I want to make it harder for myself by creating unnecessary grey areas?

That is how I read this Law, and I'm not alone in that

 

[Greg Collins]

Why?

I draw a line at a place where it is easy to make a decision.

Why would I want to make it harder for myself by creating unnecessary grey areas?

That is how I read this Law, and I'm not alone in that

Sorry Ian I didn't mean to dis you. It just struck that the last thing it was was simple.

But two quotes direct from LotG; a Law 16 definition quote which actually contradicts and is overruled by Law 22.4 else a player in touch or t-i-g could never ever score a try unless he ensured he was airborne at the moment of touchdown, a couple of hundred words in the post, at a guess, a description of touchdown which requires a player to carry the ball when he could touch it down with his beer belly, and you describe it as

Simples