Thoughts on ELV 13: The corner posts

[Pablo]

My first league match of the season on Saturday was a fast, physical contest between two early-season favourites for promotion and gave rise to an ELV-related incident towards the end of the game (which incidentally, didn't affect the result).

Black get quick ball from a line-out on the right hand side of the field at red's 22 and run it. Stand off makes a half break to get the move going, and black work ball through hands and leftwards to 11 who dives full stretch for the corner to evade the cover tackle from red 14. Corner post goes over as ball is grounded in in-goal, but bodies between me and the touchline prevent me from seeing whether black 11's feet hit the ground before the ball did. On gut feel, I gave the try. (The TJ on that side of the ground was being provided by black, so would hardly have been objective)

Was asked about it by the nice old blazer (not a day under 70) who brought me my tea in the dressing room and explained the ELV to him. Moment of realisation dawned on him, and I was amused to get into the bar to find him holding forth to a little audience of other alickadoos about the law changes and why the ref was right.

Anyway, it very clearly illustrated how difficult this can make life for us refs down in the grass. It's all very well tinkering with the status of the corner posts if you have appointed TJs/ARs and a TMO for back-up, but for the ref who's out their on his own, this ELV has removed an important reference point. I was fortunate that it wasn't match-deciding in my game, but on another day this could be a real cause of controversy. I am not a fan!

A far better approach would have been to make the post touch instead of touch-in-goal, so that a team playing positive attacking rugby who brushes the post would only suffer a 5m opposition throw, instead of a 22m drop-out. The reference point for the referee could have been kept, but the impact on the attackers significantly reduced.

 

[ex-lucy]

good point.

and good to hear you are up and about and reffing at last.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

A far better approach would have been to make the post touch instead of touch-in-goal, so that a team playing positive attacking rugby who brushes the post would only suffer a 5m opposition throw, instead of a 22m drop-out. The reference point for the referee could have been kept, but the impact on the attackers significantly reduced.

Good point. I have thought that for years :chin: - it's no less positive play than for held up which earns a 5m scrum for the attacking side compared to the "reward" of perhaps going back in your own half albeit with possession.

 

[ExHookah]

I was also debating this ELV with some of our senior folks, with my concern being in relation to a grubber kick (or bouncing ball in any situation) that hits the corner post.

Now by definition if it rolls into the base it is grounded and we're T.I.G. and off to the 22.

However what about the bouncing ball that hits the post about halfway up? The interpretation I was given was that if it hits the post and goes out of play, EITHER touch in goal OR touch, then we count it as touch in goal. If it hits the post and remains in the field of play, OR in goal then it's play on.

Not sure it's a situation we're likely to actually see more than once or twice in our entire refereeing careers, but I was comforted to have an interpretation in my pocket.

 

[ddjamo]

I was also debating this ELV with some of our senior folks, with my concern being in relation to a grubber kick (or bouncing ball in any situation) that hits the corner post.

Now by definition if it rolls into the base it is grounded and we're T.I.G. and off to the 22.

However what about the bouncing ball that hits the post about halfway up? The interpretation I was given was that if it hits the post and goes out of play, EITHER touch in goal OR touch, then we count it as touch in goal. If it hits the post and remains in the field of play, OR in goal then it's play on.

Not sure it's a situation we're likely to actually see more than once or twice in our entire refereeing careers, but I was comforted to have an interpretation in my pocket.

if I'm reading that correctly....then it's tig no matter what unless it remains in the field of play or in goal....touch or tig or grounded at the base is tig?

 

[OB..]

I was under the impression that if the ball hit the post above ground level, you played whatever happened next.

 

[ddjamo]

I was under the impression that if the ball hit the post above ground level, you played whatever happened next.

I think that's what hookah is saying...except - he's saying if the ball hits the flag and goes into touch or touch in goal - either one - it's treated as touch in goal...I think that's what he is saying...waiting for a response...

 

[Rawling]

Now by definition if it rolls into the base it is grounded and we're T.I.G. and off to the 22.

I was under the impression that "grounded" meant the same as when discussing the goal-post padding - i.e. the ball is only grounded on the flag if someone presses down on (or is holding etc.) it there.

 

[David J.]

If the flag marks the goal line, then when the ball hits it, by definition it's crossing the plane of touch while in "touch-in-goal". Saw this happen last week and the referee correctly awarded a 22m/scrum option.

 

[chopper15]

The corner posts are no longer considered to be in touch-in-goal except when the ball is grounded against the post.

That's what ELVs states!

 

[PaulDG]

If the flag marks the goal line, then when the ball hits it, by definition it's crossing the plane of touch while in "touch-in-goal". Saw this happen last week and the referee correctly awarded a 22m/scrum option.

If we're getting pedantic, the flag has never been part of touch or touch-in-goal. The post was. (The ball crossing the plane has never mattered either..)

But now, under the ELVs even the post isn't any more.

Which is giving rise to some new issues as identified here.

What does it mean if the ball bounces from the post and lands in field or in-goal? - easy, play on.

What does it mean if the ball bounces into touch but lands "up field"? Touch or touch-in-goal?

How do we tell (if indeed we need to) in marginal cases as the goal line isn't pained on the grass beyond the touch lines?

 

[tim White]

Where is the IRONIC emoticon???? Chopper correcting refs on points of law!:chin:

 

[Simon Thomas]

Indeed it does Chopper - that is the ELV 'descriptor'.

But the actual Law 22.12 says ;
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 line and the goal line or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal line and dead ball line without otherwise being in touch or touch-ingoal, the ball is not out of play, unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

And IRB says in "what it means for the Game" :

"A try will no longer be disallowed if the ball carrier touches the corner post before grounding the ball as long as that player has not otherwise been in
touch. A try will still be disallowed if the ball is grounded against the corner post.

If the ball hits the corner post and bounces back into the playing area, the game continues.

This Experimental Law Variation is designed to avoid tries being disallowed simply because a player has taken out the corner post. It will also serve to
simplify the role of the Television Match Official who will no longer need to discern whether the player made contact with the corner post before grounding the ball."

Corner posts are no longer considered to be in touch-in-goal except when the ball is grounded against the post.

To add to these as we did at RFU Workshops - if ball hits flag/pole and
a) bounces off flag/pole and into touch then line out 5m (not what our USA cousins said)
b) bounces off flag/pole into FOP play on (as above) & await next action
c) bounces off flag/pole into in-goal area, then play on & await next action
d) bounces off flag/pole into touch in goal of flag/pole then 22m / scrum back options

 

[Will.Q]

The corner posts are no longer considered to be in touch-in-goal except when the ball is grounded against the post.

That's what ELVs states!

If the posts are no longer touch-in-goal, then if the ball hits the post and then bounces into touch, then surely it's a line out on the 5m?

 

[OB..]

I think that is what I said: unless the ball is grounded against the post, play on and take what comes as if the post had not been involved.

At least that has the merit of simplicity.

 

[David J.]

If the posts are no longer touch-in-goal, then if the ball hits the post and then bounces into touch, then surely it's a line out on the 5m?

If the ball has hit the post whilst travelling from the FOP, and then goes directly into touch...I'd say 22m. The posts aren't tig, but the space above them is the plane of tig, no?

Ball crossed the plane of tig, then never came back into the FOP. Doesn't matter where it landed. Right?

 

[OB..]

David J. - that is not my understanding. Is there an official position this?

 

[chopper15]

David J. - that is not my understanding. Is there an official position this?

Commonsense is with you, OB, bugger the official position. You lot are i/c!

 

[Dixie]

David J. - that is not my understanding. Is there an official position this?

Commonsense is with you, OB, bugger the official position. You lot are i/c!

But we lot are disagreeing. In particular, it seems that the US official position differs from the English official position - and there may be differences of opinion within each geography.

David J - for what it is worth, I think the English position is predicated on the fact that the post, an implement that is expressly given neutral properties, prevented the ball crossing the TIG line. After it was prevented from doing so, the ball then crossed the touchline - so 5m lineout.

 

[QE2wgc]

Getting back to Pablo's very good point;
If the flag(s) which are basically redundant were moved back 2mts for a point of reference then we would not have the problems - present and future that we are facing.:wait:

By the way pablo the home side were very happy to have had a decent (and in their oppinion an unexpected) win.

Good that your back up and running, after the few pre season niggles you had , catch up soon:wink: