Reds vs Warrahta

[FlipFlop]

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.

That's an awful clip to show the point they are trying to show. The player catches the ball and has posession of it, and then touches it down normally. Nothing like what they want, and doesn't help the case (either way) here.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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?

If it rolls up to him and he presses down on it... Try!

If it bounces up to him and he reaches up and brings the ball to ground... TiG!

I do not understand why some of you cannot see that a player grabbing the ball with one hand and bringing it down to the ground, and a player placing a hand on top of the ball and bringing it down to the ground are exactly the same thing. In both cases, the player has possession of the ball and is holding it, not propelling it. They are willfully changing the position of the ball while maintaining contact with it. This is completely different from momentarily pressing down on a ball that it already on the ground, which is what

22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
(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.

and

22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY
(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.

are talking about

Greg_Collins

Your question is loaded to give you the answer you want. The likelihood of a player "chesting" or "bellying" the ball forward while running or standing in touch-in-goal are so remote as to be not worth considering. In 45+ years of watching rugby, I have never seen it happen.

However, to answer your question, I would rule that the ball touched the player rather than the player touched the ball, so....

22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL
(a) When the ball touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was played into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

I would rule the ball in-touch/TiG

 

[Greg Collins]

Your question is loaded to give you the answer you want. The likelihood of a player "chesting" or "bellying" the ball forward while running or standing in touch-in-goal are so remote as to be not worth considering. In 45+ years of watching rugby, I have never seen it happen.

However, to answer your question, I would rule that the ball touched the player rather than the player touched the ball, so....

I would rule the ball in-touch/TiG

My question is loaded in favour of logic and a reasonable interpretation of the LotG.

You can rule what you like in the scenario described. You would still be wrong.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You can rule what you like in the scenario described. You would still be wrong.

In YOUR opinion.

I have other opinions from other referees, including ANZC level referees, who agree with me!

You beleive you are right
I believe I am right
You are not going to change your opinion
I'm not going to change mine
Build a bridge, and get over it!!

 

[Greg Collins]

You are not going to change your opinion

Nope that is where we differ. Plenty of argument in here, including some of yours, has made me change my opinions on things since I took up the whistle.

Present me with a clean, logical, reasonable, argument that applies to a broad cross sections of the cases to which it may be applied and isn't so riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies such that it can barely support its own weight and then I'll agree with you.

I'm done. Are you?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Nope that is where we differ. Plenty of argument in here, including some of yours, has made me change my opinions on things since I took up the whistle.

Present me with a clean, logical, reasonable, argument that applies to a broad cross sections of the cases to which it may be applied and isn't so riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies such that it can barely support its own weight and then I'll agree with you.

To me it makes perfectly logical sense that this should only apply to a ball already in contact with the ground in the in-goal.

► A ball IN CONTACT with the ground, can ALWAYS be grounded for a try by a player with any part of his body in touch.

► A ball NOT IN CONTACT with the ground, can NEVER grounded for a try by a player with any part of his body in touch.

How much more clean, logical, reasonable, and applicable to ALL cases would you like it to be? It is in accord with ALL the touch laws and there are no anomalies. If the ball is in the air, then allowing a player in-touch to play the ball, control it and bring it to ground while still himself grounded beyond the touchline goes against the principle that if the ball touches anything or anyone beyond the touchline it is regarded as in touch.

It also makes far more logical sense to me to have a clear and obvious point at which I can decide "yes" or "no"; is the ball in contact with the ground or not. While this is also a judgement call, it is far easier to make than trying to to decide if the player is holding/carrying the ball, or merely "assisting gravity". I could easily create and show you a video of both, and even in slow motion, you will NOT be able to tell which is which.

I would far rather the touch Laws be absolute, and if I were to be allowed to rewrite the laws, it would go something like this;

1. If a player carrying, holding or in physical contact with the ball, grounds or touches any part of his body on or beyond the touchline then the ball is in touch. The Line-of_Touch is the point at which the player touches on or outside the touchline.

2. If the ball, touches anything or anyone on or beyond the plane of the touchline, whether it crosses the plane of touch or not, then the ball is in touch. The Line-of_Touch is the point at which the ball crosses the plane of the touchline, or where it touched the person or object that was in touch, whichever came first.

Therefore in the following scenarios, the ball is in touch if;

the ball touches a corner flag, (#2)
a player standing, running or jumping in touch, or into touch from the field of play, even if they are in the air, touches the ball, (#2)
a player grounding the ball while any part of their body was grounded on or over the touchline, (#1)

and in the following scenarios, the ball is NOT in touch if;

a ball-carrier touches the corner flag,
the ball crosses the touchline and is blown back,
a player with some part of their body grounded in the field of play, and with no part of their body grounded on or beyond the touchline reaches across the touchline and touches or catches the ball.

There are no anomalies (that I can see) and there would be NO exceptions to these Laws, then we would all know where we stood.

PS: I am interested if anyone can think of a reasonable scenario which could not be resolved by either #1 or #2 above. By reasonable, I mean realistic. A player whipping off his boot and using it to bat the ball back thereby avoiding actually touching the ball is NOT reasonable.

I'm done. Are you?

I think so

 

[OB..]

Therefore in the following scenarios, the ball is in touch if;

the ball touches a corner flag, (#2)

Law 22.12?

 

[DrSTU]

I agree with what Ian has been saying throughout this but having watched the clip, he knocks it on:wow:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Law 22.12?

Yep, I would change it

It makes no sense to me that a ball which JUST misses the corner flag post will go into touch/TiG, but one that strikes it could remain in play. I would have that ball touch in-goal to remain consistent with the goal line being in-goal.

22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST
If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal theball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

This is a complete mess. What if the ball is grounded short of the goal-line, right in the very corner of the field of play, without touching the touchline, but touching the padding on the post? Its in touch!!

Worse yet, what if it is grounded in the very corner (any of the four) of the in-goal, short of the DBL, and/or not touching the TiG, but touching a corner post padding. It would be no try, TiG/gone dead!!!

Also, I don't see the need for the reference to grounding against the post.

I would reword so that the ball touching a corner flag would be TiG, but if a ball-carrier touches the corner flag, he would not.

22.12 PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST
If the player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play.

I would let the scenario of the ball striking the corner (flag) post come under this part of the 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.

 

[OB..]

I would reword so that the ball touching a corner flag would be TiG, but if a ball-carrier touches the corner flag, he would not.

You then have the problem of a player diving for the line. Did the ball touch the corner post or just the player?

At least with the current law you simply ignore the contact with the post.

Still, this is all hypothetical. They are not going to ask us for advice.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You then have the problem of a player diving for the line. Did the ball touch the corner post or just the player?

At least with the current law you simply ignore the contact with the post.

Read the definitions again OB

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.

Since the player carrying the ball touches the corner post, its a try, regardless of whether the ball he was carrying touched the post or not.

Still, this is all hypothetical. They are not going to ask us for advice.

It is interesting nonetheless, and in another post here within the last couple of days, you were yourself bemoaning the inconsistencies and different interpretations in different countries, of the Laws regarding touch and touch-in-goal.

 

[OB..]

Read the definitions again OB

Your rewording did not exclude the case of the ball touching the corner post when being carried. That was all.

Still, this is all hypothetical. They are not going to ask us for advice.

It is interesting nonetheless, and in another post here within the last couple of days, you were yourself bemoaning the inconsistencies and different interpretations in different countries, of the Laws regarding touch and touch-in-goal.

Of course, and I have also posted some of my own suggested changes for people to critique. It was just a wry comment.

 

[Greg Collins]

To me it makes perfectly logical sense that this should only apply to a ball already in contact with the ground in the in-goal.

► A ball IN CONTACT with the ground, can ALWAYS be grounded for a try by a player with any part of his body in touch.

► A ball NOT IN CONTACT with the ground, can NEVER grounded for a try by a player with any part of his body in touch.

short logical rational - why didn't you put it this way in the first place?

How much more clean, logical, reasonable, and applicable to ALL cases would you like it to be? It is in accord with ALL the touch laws and there are no anomalies. If the ball is in the air, then allowing a player in-touch to play the ball, control it and bring it to ground while still himself grounded beyond the touchline goes against the principle that if the ball touches anything or anyone beyond the touchline it is regarded as in touch.

I spy strangers.... the Laws don't talk about control. If I flop on a ball that is 10mm above the ground, bouncing upwards, and land on it with any legal grounding part of my body but my hands so that it is grounded have I controlled it?

It also makes far more logical sense to me to have a clear and obvious point at which I can decide "yes" or "no"; is the ball in contact with the ground or not. While this is also a judgement call, it is far easier to make than trying to to decide if the player is holding/carrying the ball, or merely "assisting gravity". I could easily create and show you a video of both, and even in slow motion, you will NOT be able to tell which is which.

fair enough

carry on everyone!

 

[Greg Collins]

I agree with what Ian has been saying throughout this but having watched the clip, he knocks it on:wow:

typical yank, turns up late, jumps straight in, gets it wrong.

 

[DrSTU]

typical yank, turns up late, jumps straight in, gets it wrong.

40secs into the SA referees vivisection of the event. As Turner is about to go over the try line, the ball does not continue it's projected trajectory as you would expect if it were not touched. As the only things that are near the ball at this time are his hands I would argue that he touches it before it goes over the goal line.

2010 law:

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

He can't lose possession as he doesn't have possession but he does touch it with either his hand or arm and as he is traveling forward at a rate of knots then I'm saying the ball travels forward and touches the ground before anything else is worth worrying about (Ian's still correct though ).

As for calling me a Yank, I find that offensive:nono: I'm a Geordie:bday:

 

[ddjamo]

stu: email mark.

 

[DrSTU]

stu: email mark.

Suppose he has plenty of spare time at the mo. If I get chance I'll summarise what's on here and send it through.

 

[Greg Collins]

wor typical geordie, torns oop late, blethers reet in, sinks twelve pints and still gets it wrang. man alive.:nono:


Am gannin to tyek anuther luke.....

 

[Greg Collins]

Ian Cook - ball is in goal on ground and moving, never leaving contact with the ground. player with feet in tig grounds the ball with his hand. Has he not controlled/held it in the act of grounding it?

 

[Greg Collins]

So courtesy of DrStu's splendid interjection which is about what happened in the FoP...

If you touch a ball in flight that is already moving forwards does that constitute a knock on?

Ignore what the TMO said for now. The ball was moving towards the oppo goal line, he tries to catch it, misses the clean catch, touches end of the ball nearest the goal line. Physics says that action cannot move the ball towards the goal line, just not possible, but the touch does seem to change the flight of the ball, he may have slowed its forward motion. The ball then hits his thighs which then hits the ground and goes forward into in goal. (Where opinions are divided)

Where is the knock on?