Thoughts on ELV 13: The corner posts

[chopper15]

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.

The goal posts 'redirects' the ball quite frequently, that has neutral properties aswell. No probs there?

 

[PaulDG]

The goal posts 'redirects' the ball quite frequently, that has neutral properties aswell. No probs there?

The goal posts aren't in touch.

 

[OB..]

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.

That was the original version of the ELV.

It was changed because both players and referees found it better to have a good reference point for the corner.

 

[David J.]

I'm not representing an official position of any sort. Just trying to use logic to come to a conclusion.

 

[QE2wgc]

STOP

Get back to Pablos point of annoyance, not nit-picking the law

 

[Toby Warren]

I understand the point of the change - but down in the weeds the old law was easier - flags move someone is in touch - Just got to work out who now!

ELVs now make it tougher to make that call.

 

[Dickie E]

I agree with Chop ... Chop ... Chop ... (sorry, got something stuck in my throat) :biggrin:

 

[ddjamo]

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.

this is different than hookah's explanation...but the simplest so far....are we agreed on OB's or is it hookah's? I'm confused now....

 

[ddjamo]

this is from the england rfu:

13. The corner posts are no longer considered to be touch-in-goal except when the ball is grounded (applies to all 4 around in-goal)
Q. What happens if the ball hits a corner post and goes into touch?
A. It is in touch
Q. What happens if the ball hits a corner post and goes into touch-in-goal?
A. It is touch-in-goal
Q. What happens if the ball grounded on a post?
A. No try

 

[Simon Thomas]

what I said in post #13 !

 

[Deeps]

What happens if the potential try scorer steps on the base of the flag post such that it is seen to move a discernible distance i.e he flattens it? Is he in touch/touch in goal and if not, how is this different to the ball being grounded against the flag post?

I would prefer the old law or shift the flag post 1 metre away from the goal/touch line. Where it is at the moment doesn't help me one jot or tittle.

 

[OB..]

The main point of having the post on the intersection is surely to assist in judging kicks. I certainly find it helps.

It also makes life easier for the TJ/AR who only has to look at the ground, not way up the post at the same time.

Players stepping on the base of the post is too rare an occurrence to be a major factor.

 

[Pablo]

What happens if the potential try scorer steps on the base of the flag post such that it is seen to move a discernible distance i.e he flattens it? Is he in touch/touch in goal and if not, how is this different to the ball being grounded against the flag post?

To have trodden the flag flat, I would imagine his foot must also have hit some part of the ground beyond the touchline, and on the goal-line - which would seem to me to be touch-in-goal. I suppose it's analogous to grounding the ball against the corner post, but actually is just another example of a gaping whole in the ELV law text through which one could drive a bus.

I would prefer the old law or shift the flag post 1 metre away from the goal/touch line. Where it is at the moment doesn't help me one jot or tittle.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make when I began this thread. The ELV has unnecessarily complicated the job of us referees who only get to watch the try-scoring dive once. It's all well and good making this change when the TMO and his endless TV replays are available, but outside of the elite it's completely unworkable.

 

[OB..]

Pablo - I think you are overstating the case.

There will always be some difficult cases, and if a player dives, hits the post and touches down, will you always be able to see which happened first?

I presume it was dropped because its role as a marker was thought to be more important, though of course there is always a possible bias towards the top end where they have ARs.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I presume it was dropped because its role as a marker was thought to be more important, though of course there is always a possible bias towards the top end where they have ARs.

Talking of which so is the 5m at scrum ! It was impossible to manage without ARs or trained club TJs on second match Sunday (friendly Colts match that needed close FR and BR control.

So I told both fly halves (County colleagues and well known to me) at half time they were on 'scout's honour' and to inform me quietly if either had a problem with the 5m gap at scrum.

Not one complaint all half. And I asked them if all was ok afterwards and they said fine, both had respected 5m gaps - of course I am not niaive enough to expect that all the time, but it was an interesting experiment.

 

[Pablo]

Pablo - I think you are overstating the case.

There will always be some difficult cases, and if a player dives, hits the post and touches down, will you always be able to see which happened first?

I presume it was dropped because its role as a marker was thought to be more important, though of course there is always a possible bias towards the top end where they have ARs.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that I am overstating the case. I get to see each incident in my games once and once only, and since the corner flag is significantly more visible than a line on the ground at all but the shortest of distances, its previous unambiguous status as part of touch-in-goal made things straightforward for players, referees and spectators alike. Now the post has this weird half-life of being touch-in-goal if touched by the ball at the base, and a mysterious obstacle at all other times. Simple to adjudicate with TV replays; much less so without. Given that dives for the line inevitably represent a scoring opportunity, I consider this particular ELV to have drastically increased the likelihood of critical errors by referees at the community level - and that's bad for the game.

 

[OB..]

Pablo - are you assuming that every time a player hits the post the try should be disallowed?

 

[ExHookah]

I have gone back to my source to confirm the details I stated earlier, as I'm unable to find any evidence of it in my email box.

If I mis-stated I will post that on here, so that my colleages in Detroit and Santa Fe are not left swinging in the wind with confusion.

 

[ddjamo]

I have gone back to my source to confirm the details I stated earlier, as I'm unable to find any evidence of it in my email box.

If I mis-stated I will post that on here, so that my colleages in Detroit and Santa Fe are not left swinging in the wind with confusion.

thank you....I am going to ask before my evals how they expect a few items to be called and that will be one...will explain that there is much debate over them, etc....detroit? c'mon I'm closer to an ever worse city...Flint!

 

[Pablo]

Pablo - are you assuming that every time a player hits the post the try should be disallowed?

No, of course not - it depends on the order of events. Ball grounded, then post moves = try; Post moves, then ball grounded = no try (under non-ELV law). But spotting the movement of the post is much easier than spotting whether any part of the entire length of the diving player's body has hit the ground on/beyond the touch-line before he grounds the ball - especially when there are other players between me and the touch-line.

And that is the situation I had on Saturday - the post definitely moved before the grounding of the ball, but even from only 10m away, because of the position of other players, I cannot honestly declare I am certain that no part of the diving player was in touch. Under old law, it was clearly touch-in-goal and no try. Under the ELV, I just can't be certain, and the post was no help to me whatsoever. Given one of the oft-repeated rationales for the ELVs was to "make the game easier to referee and simpler to understand for spectators", I am pointing out that this ELV has absolutely failed to achieve this aim, as exemplified by my match last weekend.