[Law] Scoring a try against the padding/post

[Volun-selected]

This question came up discussing scoring a try against the padding.

Law 8.2a has:
[LAWS]A try is scored when an attacking player:
a) Is first to ground the ball in the opponents' in-goal, against the opponents' goal post or its surrounding padding.
[/LAWS]
The scenario raised was this.

Red attack in front of posts and repeatedly attempts to pick and drive through to in-goal. Each attempt to break through is met by a wall of Blue forwards who legally rebuff the dive and keep the BC about a foot short of the goal line.

The ball is recycled by Red, Blue reset on the line and the process repeats. After several attempts, the attack has moved closer toward the posts. At this point a Red lock picks up the ball but instead of going low in to the waiting wall of Blue defenders, they then lunge forward over the top of the defenders and smack the ball into the top of the padding - but stay on their feet and avoid landing on any defenders (they anticipate Blue going low and so use their height and end up a 45 degree lean into the post until the oncoming Blue invariably hit).

Reading 8.2a this looks legitimate - contact made by ball carried by attacking player against the padding (nothing says it has to be near the base, which I have seen done) and they're not jumping over players which I seem to recall is treated as dangerous play.

I have made it clear that diving over the now-ended ruck is not allowed but as long as the lock stays on their feet I'd award the try. Would others disagree?

Regarding the situation where a player leaps over to reach the padding (or to land in-goal) is there a specific law to cite? Would it be the general "reckless or dangerous" penalty or "jumping on a ruck/maul" penalty?

 

[smeagol]

(nothing says it has to be near the base, which I have seen done)

Grounding the ball requires the ball being at the base. Also, look at the image accompanying 8.2.

 

[Phil E]

The ball has to be grounded against the post.

So it has to be touching the ground AND the post/padding.

 

[beckett50]

Law 8.2a has:
[LAWS]A try is scored when an attacking player:
a) Is first to ground the ball in the opponents' in-goal, against the opponents' goal post or its surrounding padding.
[/LAWS]

Regarding the situation where a player leaps over to reach the padding (or to land in-goal)

is there a specific law to cite

? Would it be the general "reckless or dangerous" penalty or "jumping on a ruck/maul" penalty?

The irony here is that you have actually quoted the relevant Law with the specific wording.

 

[thepercy]

If this was allowed, you'd likely see it more often. It could be fun to watch the pros/internationals flying through the air at the posts to score a try, but i don't think its a change they're going to bring in anytime soon.

 

[Decorily]

Slam Dunk!

 

[Volun-selected]

The irony here is that you have actually quoted the relevant Law with the specific wording.

:redface:
Yep, maybe not my finest moment. I think the comma between grounding in goal and then the post/padding clauses that had me thinking maybe I was missing something. But I guess when World Rugby used the word "ground" they actually meant "ground" like regular people use the word "ground". Who'd have thought...?

 

[L'irlandais]

Don’t let it worry you too much. We have all had moments like that. The bigger the mistake, the steeper the learning curve, that’s what I say. (Possibly because my mistakes tend to be on the big side.)

 

[tewdric]

No drama at all -- the only stupid question is the one that doesn't get asked.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Isn't it about time this was got rid of?

After the RWC I hope/predict.

It's a load of old cack and almost impossible to legally defend.

Anything that encourages fat blokes to just flop about 1m out is not a good idea IMO.

 

[Dickie E]

No drama at all -- the only stupid question is the one that doesn't get asked.

so "grounding" the ball ... is placing your foot on the ball in goal, grounding it? How about sitting on the ball? If not, law reference please.

 

[Arabcheif]

so "grounding" the ball ... is placing your foot on the ball in goal, grounding it? How about sitting on the ball? If not, law reference please.

Not convinced it's a serious question. However just in case Law 21.1 a and b-

• a) By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
• b) By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.

 

[didds]

Isn't it about time this was got rid of?

....

It's a load of old cack and almost impossible to legally defend.

I've a lot of sympathy with this idea. Its a hangover from the days when there was no post padding and the post was quite literally the part of the try line on which it rose from. Ground against THAT base and the ball would in effect have otherwise touched the whitewash.

Post protectors (very sensible etc obvs) are something like a foot wide into the pitch. In effect the try line is a foot further forward than the try line. Obvs removing this possibility means the attackers have lost four feet (width) -ish of try line but its a mutually exclusive scenario with no solution.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

The solution wou l d be to run the goal line so that it crosses the posts at the front edge of the padding. Or, more radically, place the posts on the dead-ball line.

 

[crossref]

Tuning fork posts are the obvious answer .. .but only at pro levels can't make every club in the country buy and install new posts

 

[didds]

.... and then again... how often do such tries actually get scored?

I cant honestly recall any match Ive ever been involved in ever having such a score. then again I may just have forgotten. I can only vaguely recall one instance - Mike Catt. I think it was against NZ in a RWC or maybe SA?

didds

 

[crossref]

i think we are starting to see it in the elite game as a tactic : work the goal-line stand increasingly close to the posts until the opportunity is there

 

[tewdric]

Its always been a thing but is easy to defend in practice.

 

[didds]

i think we are starting to see it in the elite game as a tactic : work the goal-line stand increasingly close to the posts until the opportunity is there

indeed. why wouldnt you ? assuming you have a squad capable of achieving it

didds

 

[beckett50]

Its always been a thing but is easy to defend in practice.

I beg to differ.

As Didds has alluded in an earlier post, the post protectors are generally between 6" - 8" (15 - 20cm) thick. The offside line for defenders is the goal line, and remember these days that you must have your hands off the floor (if they are infront of your foot).

If you have a ruck that is against the post - strictly speaking - no defenders can be in position directly behind or to the side, due to the position of the goal line relative the post protectors.