RRF Clarification request - Man on ground

[menace]

As it has been mentioned before in other threads, we don't have the problem with that myth here in oz. Perhaps that's because refs I've heard say (and I used it) " you can't/ must not fall on the player!". I've always been told to use the terminology in the law book and you can't go wrong. Here is a classic case where it's best to use it. The law book is clear. Just us the law wording and I suspect the myth will perhaps eventually die (maybe?)

 

[andyscott]

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

So he doesn't have to let him up then?

 

[Taff]

.... The law book is clear.

But Menace if the lawbook was clear, we wouldn't be getting these calls all the time - I reckon we hear it about once every 2 games. I don't know how long this law has been around (I assume it's donkeys years, as I have a vague recollection of being penalised for it once in a school game waaaay back in the 80s) but the fact that players, spectators, coaches, some refs and commentators still think "he has to let him up" before he can do anything suggests it isn't as clear as it should be. The IRB could quash this myth at a stroke - all it needs is a sentence or two added on to the relevant paragraph.

.... Just use the law wording and I suspect the myth will perhaps eventually die (maybe?)

Don't hold your breath though. :biggrin:

So he doesn't have to let him up then?

He has to let him up if he wants to play the man. He doesn't have to let him up if he wants to play the ball.

Though I suspect you're playing devils advocate ... and I've just been "owned". :redface:

 

[ianh5979]

So he doesn't have to let him up then?

Probably going to miss your windups for the next few months Andy!! Good luck overseas and remember to try and fit that international match in

 

[Rit Hinners]

The way I put it is that "Yes, you have to let him get up, but you do not have to let him keep the ball while doing so."

 

[menace]

But Menace if the lawbook was clear, we wouldn't be getting these calls all the time - I reckon we hear it about once every 2 games. I don't know how long this law has been around (I assume it's donkeys years, as I have a vague recollection of being penalised for it once in a school game waaaay back in the 80s) but the fact that players, spectators, coaches, some refs and commentators still think "he has to let him up" before he can do anything suggests it isn't as clear as it should be. The IRB could quash this myth at a stroke - all it needs is a sentence or two added on to the relevant paragraph.
:

But that's not because the law book is unclear - its because some, even refs, choose to use different shortened wording which has unintentionally changed the meaning and the myth was born. Adding more words to clarify what is clear seems unnecessary to me. Then again it's easy for me to say this when we don't have the problem this side of the world. :aus:

 

[TheBFG]

so what call would you all make 4.30 into this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMOMBNqxPA&feature=player_embedded

 

[crossref]

penalty against blue --

red ball carrier on the ground, starting to get up
blue falls on him = PK

So PK and make the secondary signal for "you've gotta let him up" :wink:

 

[menace]

I think PK to red ....but wait for it.... I think it's For offside at a ruck. I don't think the first blue, player (#5 ??) falls on him...I think he falls/trips over him and not material as Red 15 is able to release ball and get to feet. As red 15 attempts to gather ball then 2 blue players come into contact with him. A ruck is fomed. They then counter ruck and ball spews out back. At that same time the first blue #5 player starts to come round to join ruck but does not retreat to hind feet and then proceeds to falls on the ball but he has not got back on side!

 

[Adam]

"Don't fall on him" works wonders.

 

[Davet]

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



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.

Crossref

The law references you quote are quite clear - and do not support your contention that player on his feet cannot prevent the man on the ground from getting up.

14.2.a) tells us that you may not fall on over him

14.2.b) tells us that man on the ground cannot tackle anyone - since the player on his feet is the one under consideration then this is irrelevant.

The Law does not say you must allow a player on the ground to get up. You are quite at liberty to stradde him (though equally there is nothing to prevent him standing up anyway - so be careful), and if you atemt to take the ball from him then he must immediately let go of it.

 

[Phil E]

I had an U19 match a couple of weeks ago.

Two players chasing loose ball. Blue goes to ground to gather near the touchline. Spectators all shout "he's got to let him up", Red player dutifully stands over Blue, waits for him to get to his feet, then tackles him.

Bit later the same thing happens again, but this time the Red player dives on top of the Blue player, who is still lying on the ground, and just stays there. I give a PK and secondary signal for diving off feet.

Spectators all applaud me........"told you he has to let him up" [sigh]

 

[crossref]

Crossref

The law references you quote are quite clear - and do not support your contention that player on his feet cannot prevent the man on the ground from getting up.

14.2.a) tells us that you may not fall on over him

14.2.b) tells us that man on the ground cannot tackle anyone - since the player on his feet is the one under consideration then this is irrelevant.

The Law does not say you must allow a player on the ground to get up. You are quite at liberty to stradde him (though equally there is nothing to prevent him standing up anyway - so be careful), and if you atemt to take the ball from him then he must immediately let go of it.

I agree technically you are probably right, but in practice if one player is preventing the other from getting up, the way he's most likely doing it is with his weight -- so he has fallen on him.

If you visualise a player on the floor, and another trying to keep him on the floor, it's hard not visualise a PK one way or another - indeed it's probably a fight - he certainly doesn't sound like he's going for ball anyway...

 

[OB..]

I agree technically you are probably right

Definitely right.

but in practice if one player is preventing the other from getting up, the way he's most likely doing it is with his weight

Or perhaps by trying to take the ball away from him while staying on his feet.

It is important for you to understand the difference.
[LAWS]A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down[/LAWS]

If you visualise a player on the floor, and another trying to keep him on the floor, it's hard not visualise a PK one way or another - indeed it's probably a fight - he certainly doesn't sound like he's going for ball anyway...

10 years or so ago there was a case where a player fell on the ball near the touchline. An opponent dragged him into touch. I asked my RDO about this and he said it was perfectly legal, though it made more sense to go for the ball: you either get the ball or a penalty.

Perhaps I should ask him again to see if he still agrees with that.

 

[crossref]

Definitely right. Or perhaps by trying to take the ball away from him while staying on his feet.

It is important for you to understand the difference..

I do understand the difference.
* try to take the ball off the player on the ground = Good. = either you get the ball or the penalty

* try to prevent the player on the ground from getting up (why?) = in practice, 99% of the time, this is using your weight (otherwise you can't) and likely means you have fallen on him = PK against you.

but let's look at an example OB --- what did you make of the clip @4.30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMOMBNqxPA&feature=player_embedded

I see
- Red falls on ball, and twists and is getting up, he gets as far as hand and his knees (ie he's not yet up)
- blue arrives, blue DOESN'T go for the ball, but uses his weight pressing down on red's shoulders, preventing him from getting up, and in doing this blue goes off his feet to ground . That's a PK against blue isn't it for falling the player on the ground?
- more blue players arrive, and because red hasn't been able to get to his feet he has to release the ball, as blue intended.


menace said

I don't think the first blue, player (#5 ??) falls on him...I think he falls/trips over him

I say nothing accidental happens at this level

not material as Red 15 is able to release ball and get to feet

I say he had to release the ball as he was unable to get to his feet, cos of blue falling on him (or over him, makes no difference)

 

[OB..]

what did you make of the clip @4.30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMOMBNqxPA&feature=player_embedded

Penalise Blue for falling on him. He made no attempt to stay on his feet and go for the ball.

 

[Robert Burns]

so what call would you all make 4.30 into this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMOMBNqxPA&feature=player_embedded

Play on, he didn't fall on him, fell around him. Well Referee'd Chris White, he's still got it.

That's the first highlights I've seen, some cracking rugby, that try from the SH where they just all supported each other was brilliant.

 

[Adam]

Is it just me or does it look like Chris White is unfit? It's surprising how quickly you lose it.

 

[OB..]

Play on, he didn't fall on him, fell around him.

He made contact with him.


He kept contact with him.


He held him down.


At no stage did he attempt to go for the ball (which I agree the other player was carefuly keeping away from him).

 

[menace]

It's quite compelling evidence when you put it with still photographs, but when it's at live speed surely you need to consider the speed and momentum of players and give some compensation for that??. Im still not convinced that first blue player fell on him. His momentum and the red players stopping his legs is what causes him to go off his feet and over/round the player on the ground. It didnt prevent red being able to use his option?

Edit: static shots don't tell the full story and unfair if this ref decision is judged by them.