RRF Clarification request - Man on ground

[andyscott]

Does he have to let him up?

 

[crossref]

:clap:

he he! I like it.

 

[Phil E]

Does he have to let him up?

:chair:

 

[andyscott]

Does this not warrant a clarification, surely it does?

Or does it need more of an explanation to the question.

Ball kicked through by red, blue full back goes to ground and red chaser stands above him and goes for the ball, does he have to let him up?

 

[crossref]

yes it does need a better worded question.

the consensus on this board is that any fule knows.

Q. does he have to let him up?
A. No

but if I ask the question

Q. can he prevent the man on the floor from getting up?

then we all know th answer is 'no he cant' ... so we can see that in one sense at least, the answer is 'yes' he does have to let him get up..

better questions might be

1 can the standing player attempt to take the ball away from the player while he is still on the ground?

2 can the standing player attempt to take the ball away from the player while he is trying to get up?

3 can the standing player tackle the player while he is trying to get up with the ball?

 

[Phil E]

This reminds me of an old adage.

"You can lead the crossref to the law book, but you can't make him read it".

Just play the ball.

 

[crossref]

:biggrin: which bit haven't I read?

 

[chbg]

Inside the front cover?

 

[Davet]

The only thing you cannot do is fall on or over the player on the ground.

1 can the standing player attempt to take the ball away from the player while he is still on the ground?

2 can the standing player attempt to take the ball away from the player while he is trying to get up?

3 can the standing player tackle the player while he is trying to get up with the ball?

So the answer to all three is, "Yes". Assuming that in 3 the player has got to his feet and is supported solely on them.

 

[andyscott]

So would a preventative call of "let him up help" ?

 

[crossref]

The only thing you cannot do is fall on or over the player on the ground.
.

well in general what you CAN'T do is actively prevent the person from getting up. So in that sense you do, in fact, have to let him up.


The reason I would say that the Law does need clarifying, or rewording (and yes I have read it) is that at the moment it evidently isn't clear -- Why do I say that -- because EVERY time someone falls on the ball, what I hear cries of 'gotta let him up' . Often from the ref.
So I conclude that however clear it seems to readers of rugbyrefs.com -- it ain't clear to everyone else.


(The one time I tried to explain the Law to someone I said
- you know you don't in fact have to let him up
- what? I can stop him getting up?
- no, you can't stop him getting up
- so I do have to let him up?)

 

[OB..]

So would a preventative call of "let him up" help ?

(Slightly re-punctuated)

No it wouldn't, because it is wrongly implies you have to wait for the player to get up with the ball.

 

[andyscott]

(Slightly re-punctuated)

No it wouldn't, because it is wrongly implies you have to wait for the player to get up with the ball.

Of course

 

[crossref]

the thing is : you ar are not wrong, but if it was as clear as you make it out, we wouldn't have continual cries of 'gotta let him up'

 

[Taff]

..... I would say that the Law does need clarifying, or rewording ... is that at the moment it evidently isn't clear .... because EVERY time someone falls on the ball, what I hear cries of 'gotta let him up' . Often from the ref.

It happened in a game I was TJing last night. Full Back drops on a loose ball; opponent dives on him (can't complain - it was a PK) but the ref clearly said "You've got to let him up" - in fact he said it twice. The sanction was correct, but the explanation why he gave that sanction wasn't.

It was only last week I was explaining to the boys that you DON'T have to let him up; then this happens in the next game.

The fact that this myth has lasted for so many years suggests that it is badly worded. The good thing is that it could be quashed once and for all very easily - it only needs a line or 2 of explanation in the book.

 

[Dixie]

well in general what you CAN'T do is actively prevent the person from getting up. So in that sense you do, in fact, have to let him up.

Law reference or law clarification? OB has had confirmation that you can drag a player into touch, and Ashton was not penalised for this very act in the Leicester v Northants game last week.

And of course, "up" means both knees off the ground. But would we argue that a Ball Carrier who, sensing an imminent tackle, puts a knee to ground can no longer be tackled? If not, then surely we'd accept that impingeing on a prone BC must be OK?

 

[andyscott]

It was only last week I was explaining to the boys that you DON'T have to let him up; then this happens in the next game.

Why would you tell them that, surely that would just cause problems.

Isn't it better to get consistency and let the player up?

 

[crossref]

well in general what you CAN'T do is actively prevent the person from getting up. So in that sense you do, in fact, have to let him up

Law reference or law clarification?

If an opponent is on the ground and a player puts any weight on him to keep him on the ground he's likely to be penalised under..

[LAWS]14.2 PLAYERS ON THEIR FEET
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]

the player also has to be careful lest he goes onto one knee himself, becasue he is also then on the ground and

[LAWS](d) A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]

I reckon the player on his feet, encountering a ball carrier on the ground has to be pretty careful he clearly tries to grab the ball, and doesn't play the man.

 

[Taff]

Why would you tell them that, surely that would just cause problems. Isn't it better to get consistency and let the player up?

Then are you suggesting that we tell every player that "he has to let him up"?

The "best" thing would be for the lawbook to be clear.

 

[PaulDG]

Isn't it better to get consistency and let the player up?

Why? Why give the player on the ground an advantage that is not supported/required in Law?