Reds vs Warrahta

[Rit Hinners]

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?

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.

Simples

You don't think that determining if the ball is in the air is a subjectivity problem? At what point is it in the air? When it touches the 2" high grass? When it's 1/4" below the top of the grass? 1"? Does it need to be nestled 2" deep in the grass?

What if the grass is laying flat?

Making a call that the ball is on the ground from 5 or 10 yards away is subjective when it's bouncing anyway. How would you tell if it was 1' high when touched from that distance?

The law says that you can knock the ball. It doesn't say you can't knock it down.

Subjectivity is a part of reffing. Denying subjectivity is a cop out. It's a way to avoid any responsibility for your actions.

The ability of a ref to provide a joyful competitive experience to the participants is an art and without subjectivity there is no art.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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

Of course, you mean Law 19 definitions

I do not find the Law 19 Definition and Law 22.4 (g) contradictory at all. They only become so if you allow a ball in the air to be held, carried or pushed down by a player with his feet in touch.

If you restrict the player in Law 22.4 (g) to only scoring a try by pressing down on a ball in-goal that is ALREADY in contact with the ground (stationary or rolling) then there is no contradiction at all. This is a very simple distinction to make, and it is made very well in this Law....

LAW 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL

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.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive

I argue that a player bringing the ball to ground is in control of the ball, and is therefore holding it, so the exception in 22.4 (g) does not apply, to 22.1 (a) and can only apply to 22.1 (b), and there is even a little picture in the Law book showing it...

SO....
► If the ball was already lying on the ground in goal and that player pushed down on it, iaw Law 22.1 (b), resulting in that picture.... TRY!

► If the ball was in the air, and that player held, carried or pushed the ball down onto the ground, iaw Law 22.1 (a), and resulting in that picture.... TiG!

If you strip all the other BS away, then it IS simple. It comes down to whether the ball was on the ground or not, and that's all.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You don't think that determining if the ball is in the air is a subjectivity problem? At what point is it in the air? When it touches the 2" high grass? When it's 1/4" below the top of the grass? 1"? Does it need to be nestled 2" deep in the grass?

What if the grass is laying flat?

Making a call that the ball is on the ground from 5 or 10 yards away is subjective when it's bouncing anyway. How would you tell if it was 1' high when touched from that distance?

The law says that you can knock the ball. It doesn't say you can't knock it down.

Subjectivity is a part of reffing. Denying subjectivity is a cop out. It's a way to avoid any responsibility for your actions.

The ability of a ref to provide a joyful competitive experience to the participants is an art and without subjectivity there is no art.

Keep in mind two words Rit

CLEAR and OBVIOUS

I would like to think that I can judge whether a ball is rolling or bouncing from at least 50m away even at my age!!

Its is MUCH easier for you to decide that the ball is clearly and obviously in contact with the ground than deciding whether the player was clearly or obviously holding the ball. What if the players has hands the size of a dinner plate? How are you going to decide if he was merely pushing the ball downwards, or whether he actually had a grip in the ball?

So answer these questions. Since you obviously think that Lachlan Turner did score that try...

1. If the ball had been higher, and he had reached up with ONE hand, grabbed the ball and grounded it, would you still have awarded the try?

2. If the ball had been higher, and he had reached up with TWO hands, grabbed the ball and grounded it, would you still have awarded the try?

3. If he had been running in touch and grabbed the ball at head height (2m) with two hands, then reached down and grounded the ball, would you have awarded the try?

4. If he had been running in touch and, using one hand, dragged the ball down and grounded it, would you have awarded the try?

 

[ddjamo]

try...

 

[Greg Collins]

► If the ball was in the air, and that player held, carried or pushed the ball down onto the ground, iaw Law 22.1 (a), and resulting in that picture.... TiG!

You've dodged my question...

The ball is in the air and a player with feet on ground in t-i-g dives on it and without ever touching it with his hands grounds it without knocking it forwards with

a) chest
b) belly
c) forearm
d) elbow
e) upper arm
f) collar bone
g) any other part of his arm or arms, not including his hands, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive

On your logic a ball is held a hand. You cannot hold a ball with your elbow, you cannot hold a ball with your forearm.

So in the situations above try or no? If no why not in LAW if yes how do you justify the distinction between touching ball with hand vs other try scoring bits of body?

 

[Ian_Cook]

You've dodged my question...

The ball is in the air and a player with feet on ground in t-i-g dives on it and without ever touching it with his hands grounds it without knocking it forwards with

a) chest
b) belly
c) forearm
d) elbow
e) upper arm
f) collar bone
g) any other part of his arm or arms, not including his hands, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive

On your logic a ball is held a hand. You cannot hold a ball with your elbow, you cannot hold a ball with your forearm.

So in the situations above try or no? If no why not in LAW if yes how do you justify the distinction between touching ball with hand vs other try scoring bits of body?

Turner didn't force the ball with;

a) his chest
b) his belly
c) his forearm
d) his elbow
e) his upper arm
f) his collar bone
g) any other part of his arm or arms, not including his hands, or the front of his body from waist to neck inclusive...

He forced it with his right hand having dragged the ball down while his feet were in touch.

The TMO rules no try - TiG, and I happen to concur.

You can award a try in those circumstances if you like, I wouldn't!

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

SA refs has provided us with there understanding of " the Game is to be played by players who are on their feet" in several of the Duty Ref Q and A.

The Blue player (Lurner) is off his feet. 22.4(g) (following the SA philosophy of "on their feet") can not apply.

Hows a bout 22.11(a) Ball dead in in-goal

(a) When the ball touches the tiG or the DBL, or touches anything or anyone (Blue player Lurner) beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If it was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. etc., etc.

The SA refs remain firm on their philosophy or principle of "players on their feet". Follow that and it is TiG

If you do not adhere as strictly to philos, it is a try.


IMHO TiG, he would have to be on his feet to score from TiG or ground it immediately as he went to ground in TiG

Edit: So, for clarity, it isn't even TiG. It is just Dead in in-goal.

 

[Mat 04]

SA refs has provided us with there understanding of " the Game is to be played by players who are on their feet" in several of the Duty Ref Q and A.

The Blue player (Lurner) is off his feet. 22.4(g) (following the SA philosophy of "on their feet") can not apply.

Hows a bout 22.11(a) Ball dead in in-goal

(a) When the ball touches the tiG or the DBL, or touches anything or anyone (Blue player Lurner) beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If it was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. etc., etc.

The SA refs remain firm on their philosophy or principle of "players on their feet". Follow that and it is TiG

If you do not adhere as strictly to philos, it is a try.


IMHO TiG, he would have to be on his feet to score from TiG or ground it immediately as he went to ground in TiG

Kurt, the first part of your argument (22.111) is concerned with people who are over the plane of touch - laws in the touch and try sections clearly allow players who are in touch to knock/slap the ball back into the f.o.p aswell as score a try by exerting downward pressure on the ball.

As for players on their feet. Two examples -

a) A player is tackeld 1m short of the tryline, he reachjes out his arm and grounds ball

b) The ball has been kicked ahead into in-gcoal and an attacking player dives from 5m out and slides along the floor to ground the ball.

Bot of these scenarios can surely be nothing but a try?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2234726.htm

Here is the Duty ref answer. I guess.

Around here (Ohio) we call that "Tressel Speak". Coach of the Ohio State Football team, Jim Tressel gives great answers that at the time seem fantastic. After you think about it a while, he really didn't say anything afterall.

Good job, by the duty ref. He cannot and should not correct his peers publically.

 

[FlipFlop]

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2231340.htm

Says it should be a try!

Not sure who is doing the video analysis, but given normal answers, it appears to be a ref.

 

[Greg Collins]

Turner didn't force the ball with;

a) his chest
b) his belly
c) his forearm
d) his elbow
e) his upper arm
f) his collar bone
g) any other part of his arm or arms, not including his hands, or the front of his body from waist to neck inclusive...

He forced it with his right hand having dragged the ball down while his feet were in touch.

The TMO rules no try - TiG, and I happen to concur.

You can award a try in those circumstances if you like, I wouldn't!

stop dodging the issue and answer the question. What would you give in the scenario(s) I've outlined above...

Why? because at 2:21 in this clip he grounds the ball with his forearm with scarely any contact with his hand let alone 'holding' or 'carrying' the ball

 

[Mat 04]

IRB Laws Website -http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/6/22/217/ingoal/ingoal/options-available-in-a-lineout/#clause_217

22.1 (b) "Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive."

Watch the clip for this option and the similarity between this video and the try in question is clear.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Kurt, the first part of your argument (22.111) is concerned with people who are over the plane of touch (Turner is over the plane of touch. Do you mean completely past? That may be what the law means also. I do not know. I do think he is beyond TiG line by merely have his feet past it.)- laws in the touch and try sections clearly allow players who are in touch to knock/slap the ball back into the f.o.p ( this is true for touch, but he is in TiG) as well as score a try by exerting downward pressure. ( Yep, but the SA refs are stricter on "must be on your feet" based on their answers of previous questions. He is on the ground after his first attempt to ground the ball )

As for players on their feet. Two examples -

a) A player is tackeld 1m short of the tryline, he reachjes out his arm and grounds ball Yep 15.5(g) allows this

b) The ball has been kicked ahead into in-gcoal and an attacking player dives from 5m out and slides along the floor to ground the ball. Yep, he has gone to ground to gather the ball, allowed. Perhaps this is also what Turner did, but the SA refs are steadfast on the "must be on their feet", I am not

Bot of these scenarios can surely be nothing but a try? Agree

The ball is in in-goal. We must look at Law22 first for our solution. I do not think the grounding was immediate and he was on the ground playing the ball.
He was beyond, IMO, the TiG when it touched him. Ball dead in in-goal.

My Edit: Watched it again. This was his first attempt at grounding in in-goal. It wasn't grounded properly, according to TMO. Then by virtue of 22.11 it was dead and was awarded accordingly. Had it been clear, try awarded. On feet or not.

 

[ddjamo]

nkw: attacking player lying prone with upper half of body in opponent's goal, lower half TIG. ball rolls up to him (legally in some fashion - he's not offside). he crooks his arm and applies downward pressure on the ball with his forearm/elbow/bicep/wrist area. try or tig?

 

[Phil E]

nkw: attacking player lying prone with upper half of body in opponent's goal, lower half TIG. ball rolls up to him (legally in some fashion - he's not offside). he crooks his arm and applies downward pressure on the ball with his forearm/elbow/bicep/wrist area. try or tig?

It's a try......unless he picks up the bal first, in which case tig.

(g) Player in touch or touch-ingoal.
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.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

nkw: attacking player lying prone with upper half of body in opponent's goal, lower half TIG. ball rolls up to him (legally in some fashion - he's not offside). he crooks his arm and applies downward pressure on the ball with his forearm/elbow/bicep/wrist area. try or tig?

Lying prone implies "off his feet" and on the ground, so dead by 22.11 as he is TiG. This is not completely my opinion, I would allow a player wholly in in-goal and lying prone to score a try.

BUT done immediately as in this video (I changed my opinion) and properly grounded, try.

 

[Phil E]

Lying prone implies "off his feet" and on the ground, so dead by 22.11 as he is TiG. This is not completely my opinion, I would allow a player wholly in in-goal and lying prone to score a try.

BUT done immediately as in this video (I changed my opinion) and properly grounded, try.

The law does not differentiate between a player standing or lying in TIG.

 

[ddjamo]

sounds good to me....:biggrin:

 

[TheBFG]

Sorry guys but am i missing somthing here?

to me it looks as though RED were the last to play the ball in FOP (red knocks it into in goal, off knee), if they (TMO) then say that it's TIG why is it not a scrum 5:chin:

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The law does not differentiate between a player standing or lying in TIG.

Except for that general principle thing in Law 14.