Thoughts on ELV 13: The corner posts

[Toby Warren]

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.

Pablo

I completely agree, in the early days of the ELV debates I suggested that this law change actually made it harded to judge. I was widely (but politely) barracked with the view being 'you don't need to worry about the posts anymore so it is easier'

Down in the weeds (in fact at all levels other than TMO) seeing a post move is so much easier than seeing if a line is crossed/touched.

It is a suprisingly common occurance that there are incidents with the corner posts.

 

[ex-lucy]

Flint? i have been there ... played for Detroit RFC.
And reffed a cuppla matches. I think i still have a bright red Flint RFC baseball cap.
Cherry City was my most fav place to play in Michigan... sunset over the bay sat on the board walk supping beer and swapping war stories ...

 

[OB..]

It is a suprisingly common occurance that there are incidents with the corner posts.

I cannot remember the last time I saw it. We obviously have very different (memories of our) experiences.

Down in the weeds (in fact at all levels other than TMO) seeing a post move is so much easier than seeing if a line is crossed/touched.

Seeing the post move is not sufficient. You also have to see the ball touched down before or after. If before, you also need to know that no other part of the player has touched the touchline.

The most significant point of your argument is that a try is a critical incident, and so carries more weight than the convenience factor. I still do not personally find it tilts the balance, but I shall look out for such occasions and try to note what actually happened if I see any.

 

[ddjamo]

Flint? i have been there ... played for Detroit RFC.
And reffed a cuppla matches. I think i still have a bright red Flint RFC baseball cap.
Cherry City was my most fav place to play in Michigan... sunset over the bay sat on the board walk supping beer and swapping war stories ...

nice! depending on the year(s) I probably played against you! do you remember a big strapping, good looking lock for flint? *wink*

the cherry pit is a great tourney...and I bet the flint rogues hat has budwiser on the front - eh?

did you play with drfc's first side or old boys up north? what year? I have them against pitt this year...know most of them very well...in fact - just saw my 6 year old off to the bus and he had a "detroit rugby" t shirt on!

 

[Phil E]

supping beer and swapping war stories ...

Which war

 

[Davet]

Can we knock on the head that ball coming to rest against the base of the corner post, without actually touching the touchline or tig line, is somehow in touch-in-goal. It isn't, it is in play. It has not been grounded.

If what happens next is a defender touches it down then it's a touch down, if an attacker , a try.

If a player treads on the post, at the base, then he must also have trod on the line. You have the same problem as you do if his foot is marginally on the line anywhere.

If the post moves because of his body touching it partway up then again you have the same problem as anywhere, did part of the players body touch ground, on or over the touch or tig line?

In other words, forget the post. It isn't relevent, just worry about the line.

 

[Toby Warren]

Can we knock on the head that ball coming to rest against the base of the corner post, without actually touching the touchline or tig line, is somehow in touch-in-goal. It isn't, it is in play. It has not been grounded.

If what happens next is a defender touches it down then it's a touch down, if an attacker , a try.

If a player treads on the post, at the base, then he must also have trod on the line. You have the same problem as you do if his foot is marginally on the line anywhere.

If the post moves because of his body touching it partway up then again you have the same problem as anywhere, did part of the players body touch ground, on or over the touch or tig line?

In other words, forget the post. It isn't relevent, just worry about the line.

Davet

A good accurate summary - one I hope we can all agree on.

The point I (and Pablo) are raising is that this law has complicated what was a simple issue to judge in real time - The ELV is easy to understand and comprehend but harder to judge.

 

[Phil E]

Can we knock on the head that ball coming to rest against the base of the corner post, without actually touching the touchline or tig line, is somehow in touch-in-goal. It isn't, it is in play. It has not been grounded.

If what happens next is a defender touches it down then it's a touch down, if an attacker , a try.

I dont think it is.

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

 

[Dixie]

I dont think it is.

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

And Phil's comment comes to the heart of it - though once again, the law may be badly worded. The post is in effect to be ignored for most purposes. If the ball touched the intersection of the touch line and the goal line in the absence of a post, what would we give? T-I-G. So if the ball is at the base of the post without being touched, can we assume that it is T-I-G, having hit the line? That would seem to be the inference from the bit Phil quotes - if a guy touches it without moving it, it's TIG, so should be anyway before the touch

 

[OB..]

The point I (and Pablo) are raising is that this law has complicated what was a simple issue to judge in real time

That is where I keep challenging you.

Merely seeing the post be hit was never enough. You had to judge other things as well.

 

[Toby Warren]

That is where I keep challenging you.

Merely seeing the post be hit was never enough. You had to judge other things as well.

OB - I know - I'll try and make my view clearer - I don't think that I have ever said (and certainly didn't think / rule) that a moving post alone was no try.

The point I'm making is seeing a post move (and who moves it) is easier than seeing a line crossed / touched, who by and where (touch or TIG).

As an aside if you (plural) have any doubt on whether a try was scored (rather than grounding/held up) who do you give the benefit of that doubt to?

 

[tim White]

Attacking side. "Why can't I award a try????" If I see the ball grounded then I have to be sure it is NOT a try before I dissalow it.

 

[ex-lucy]

re: Flint ... or Midlands, i think, when i played them.
dont remember oppos much sorry !!
it was 1997.
I played lucy for DRFC 1st xv. And one Sat for Vets as well.
Gareth Davies the President is still a very good frend of mine. When he pops over to the motherland i obtain int tkts for him etc. John Mallett, the ikkle Welsh scrum half, comes over now and again. Drummy is a legend.
Really good bunch of rugby lads.
Lions series in Four Green Fields on 13 mile (i think) and then on to Royal Oak ... and then a curry.

i played in Toledo too as part of an Anglo-German festival, as a warm up for the soccer.
I dont like Jagermeister.

 

[OB..]

The point I'm making is seeing a post move (and who moves it) is easier than seeing a line crossed / touched, who by and where (touch or TIG).

But since you MUST see if the ball was grounded before or after, you can only use the post if you also have a view of the ground at the relevant point.

I think any advantage is marginal, in a situation that itself occurs rarely.

 

[Dixie]

As an aside if you (plural) have any doubt on whether a try was scored (rather than grounding/held up) who do you give the benefit of that doubt to?

Attacking side. "Why can't I award a try????" If I see the ball grounded then I have to be sure it is NOT a try before I dissalow it.

Seems reasonable. To be in doubt for reasons other than grounding, we are in the realms of either field of play offences or touch. What do I do in those cases anywhere else on the pitch other than in the red zone? I play on. If I see an offence or a foot in touch, I call it. If I don't have sufficient certainty to ping the event, I play on. I see no reason to change that policy in the red zone.

 

[Davet]

Phil, yes sorry, in haste - clearly iof they simply ground the ball against the post it's tig. If they pick up and ground in-goal then as I said, touchdown or try.
My point was really that the ball at rest touching the post, still in FoP is still in play.

 

[Rawling]

If the ball is at rest, touching the post, still in the field of play, and someone grounds it, who do you count as having put the ball into TiG (and as such decide whether it's a 22 or 5)? The person who put it against the post, or the person who grounded it?

 

[tim White]

The person who put it there, same as if it was sitting in the middle of the in-goal area

 

[Phil E]

But the ball isnt in TIG until its grounded. Its still in the FOP and if it was picked up could be run into the TIG area. So in theory the person who grounds it put it into TIG.

 

[Dixie]

My point was really that the ball at rest touching the post, still in FoP is still in play.

I don't see how it can be. Grounding the ball in the field of play is a nothing - play on, while respecting Law 14. If putting downward pressure on the ball while it is nestling against the post means the ball is then TIG, it follows that the ball was TIG before it was grounded.

I took the view when this provision came out that the intent was that above the level of the grass, the post was considered irrelevant. That cannot be so at ground level, because the post actively prevents the normal action of the touchline, goal line and TIG line coming into play. So at ground level, the post is TIG; above ground level, it is an artificial construct to be ignored.

Viewed in that light, we have logical consistency, and a reasonable story to tell. Ball nestling against the post is TIG, kicker put it there. I don't see any other way to get to that happy position.