Tipuric out of the game, on the floor

[Balones]

About 58 minutes of Wales v Ireland
Ball comes to Tipuric who is in the floor and he passes immediately.
No real problem with the decision. I just wish refs at this level were consistent.

 

[Paule23]

About 58 minutes of Wales v Ireland
Ball comes to Tipuric who is in the floor and he passes immediately.
No real problem with the decision. I just wish refs at this level were consistent.

Would this be something better penalised with a free kick? I mean the ball practically lands in his lap, what is he supposed to do? There are clearly instances when people on the ground make intentional interventions (normally moving towards the bal, actively tackling etc.) and i know there was a subsequent pass, but if the ball lands on you, you're going to grab it and get rid of it. I'm all for applying a strict interpretation of if you're on the floor you're out of the game, bt would like some latitude on how this is penalised.

 

[L'irlandais]

Does it matter that it was an instinctive reaction? Off one's feet = out of the game.

 

[DocY]

I saw this incident and immediately thought "That's one Ian will like!".

No objections to the penalty. Sure, it landed on him, but he very intentionally played the ball. If he had just let it bounce off him, I'd have said it should be play on.

 

[Pegleg]

Agreed its a PK. No problem with Wales being PK'd there

 

[OB..]

I mean the ball practically lands in his lap, what is he supposed to do?

I suggest he is supposed to comply with the laws.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I suggest he is supposed to comply with the laws.

Not necessarily for OB, but with what law is not complied in this case.

 

[The Fat]

Not necessarily for OB, but with what law is not complied in this case.

I'm guessing you are aware that if someone gives the correct Law reference, this thread will descend into a 60 page argument between those who say the game is to be played by those on their feet and the others who twist Law 14 to suit themselves and say that if a player who is on the ground and the ball then comes to him, or near to him, and he grabs it and does something with it immediately, it is play on which is definitely incorrect.:hap:

That won't start the ball rolling.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I saw this incident and immediately thought "That's one Ian will like!"

My heart sang..... epper:

I've no doubt crossref's heart sank!!!

I mean the ball practically lands in his lap, what is he supposed to do?

1. Leave the ball alone

2. Get to his feet and then play it

Either one will do me fine

Not necessarily for OB, but with what law is not complied in this case.

Law 14

This is a fundamental tenet of Rugby Union; the game is to be played by players who are on their feet. Its stands to reason then, that if you are off your feet, you are out of the game.

The only time you are allowed to do ANYTHING with the ball when you are lying on the ground is when the law specifically allows you, e.g. Law 15 (place, pass, push), Law 17 hold onto the ball.

NOTE: I have also see players PKd when the ball rolled up to them while they were on the ground, and they toe-poked it into touch!

 

[talbazar]

I haven't seen the incident, so I might miss an important piece of information here.
So, I apologise if I play the devil's advocate here, but:
What law is he penalised against?

To me, we are in the green situation below, and as such he is not liable to any penalty.
Furthermore, he is clearly keeping the game alive and as such is not negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised

I know some would argue that The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet which I totally agree with. But I come back to the spirit of the game and making sure we keep some rugby on so the 3 or 3 millions spectators (depending n the game) are given what they are here to watch: a game of rugby.

Did I really miss something?
Cheers,
Pierre.

[LAWS]Law 14 - Ball on the Ground - No Tackle
DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

14.1 Players on the ground
(a)
A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
- Get up with the ball
- Pass the ball
- Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

(nb I wasn't annoyed by WB my contention is always that the Law is ambiguous, and that is why we see inconsistencies in how the situation is reffed. The interpretation of the Law that I prefer is in line with talbazar above as toe that make sense and makes Rugby a better game. IF WR ever make a ruling on this I would expect them to come down that way. Meanwhile I don't blame WB for being on the other side of the argument)

BUT question for Ian - - if a player is on the ground and the ball, travelling fairly fast, hits him on the arm and bounces forward, is there a knock on?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I haven't seen the incident, so I might miss an important piece of information here.
So, I apologise if I play the devil's advocate here, but:
What law is he penalised against?

To me, we are in the green situation below, and as such he is not liable to any penalty.
Furthermore, he is clearly keeping the game alive and as such is not negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised

I know some would argue that The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet which I totally agree with. But I come back to the spirit of the game and making sure we keep some rugby on so the 3 or 3 millions spectators (depending n the game) are given what they are here to watch: a game of rugby.

Did I really miss something?
Cheers,
Pierre.

[LAWS]Law 14 - Ball on the Ground - No Tackle
DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

14.1 Players on the ground
(a)
A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
- Get up with the ball
- Pass the ball
- Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

The bits you have highlighted in green only apply to a player who goes to ground ALREADY in possession of the ball without being tackled. This can happen when

a. the player falls over of his own accord
b. is pushed over or is ankle tapped by an opponent.

He is now in a position where he finds himself on the ground in possession of the ball, and he must act immediately to correct that

However, a player on the ground NOT already in possession of the ball is acting illegally if he takes possession of the ball without first getting to his feet, i.e. he is taking part in the game while off his feet. In so doing, he is denying an opportunity for a player who IS on their feet to take possession of the ball, and, as you put it, negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game. The decision WB made wrt Justin Tipuric was the correct one according to law and according to the way the game has been refereed for as long as I can remember.

The last time we had this discussion here, I took the trouble of contacting Rod Hill, the NZRU Referees High Performance manager to ask about Law 14. Here is the text of my email and his reply...

Hi Rod
I have always believed that players who are on the ground are out of the game. While Law 14 pretty much states this..."The game is to be played by players who are on their Feet" , it nonetheless does seem to leave a couple of loopholes. I have seen occasions when that is not enforced, i.e a player is already on the ground from previous play, grabbing a ball that rolled up to him and popping it up (for example, Nigel Owens in the second Argentina v England test in 2013). South African referee Louren van der Merwe, answering a question about that incident on SAReferees.com made it pretty clear what his thoughts are... "in the definitions section under law 14 it’s clearly stated that: The Game is to be played by players on their feet. Therefore such a player who plays the ball whilst on the ground should be penalized."
I have also read that Lyndon Bray is clear about this. When asked the question in an interview a couple of years ago, he replied "It is clear to me that if a player is already on the ground he cannot then play the ball without first getting to his feet.".

I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on this. Is it something you have discussed with your referees? Is it something worth asking WR to clarify?

Cheers

Ian

Hi Ian

Simple answer is that there has been no change to Law 14 and a player is out of the game if they are on the ground. And yes there may be times when referees “miss” the correct decision. We did see a couple of these ruled on during the recent RWC, so the law remains valid.

Regards

Rod

From my perspective, that is a definitive end to the matter and leaves no wiggle room. There is nothing further I can add to the discussion.

Of more concern to me is that there are referees who seem to want to write their own hymn sheet instead of singing off the one the other 99% of referees use. These few referees need to talk to their Society/Association education officers because its one thing to question the interpretation of the Laws, its quite another to come on here and give new referees the WRONG information.

 

[ChrisR]

There are those of us who believe that the sentence " The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." should be interpreted in the context of the paragraph in which it is contained.

The next sentence in that paragraph reads "A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down." This paragraphprohibits players player from falling down to make the ball unplayable. Nothing more.

I agree with crossref that until WR makes a law amendment or other clarification the question is still open for debate.

 

[ChuckieB]

There are those of us who believe that the sentence " The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." should be interpreted in the context of the paragraph in which it is contained.

The next sentence in that paragraph reads "A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down." This paragraphprohibits players player from falling down to make the ball unplayable. Nothing more.

I agree with crossref that until WR makes a law amendment or other clarification the question is still open for debate.

You cannot read laws in isolation. This is a principle within the laws that is then supported by express laws determining what you may do in such circumstances: e.g. Get up. Together they then combine so as to avoid players being penalised for "killing" the ball. By itself, falling on the ball doesn't make it unplayable. Only subsequent actions determined by the players do.

There is no wiggle room under the circumstances.

 

[ChrisR]

"This is a principle within the laws" Because you say so?

Turn to page 17 of the 2017 Laws and you will find under "Principles of the Game, Contest and Continuity" the following:

"It is the aim of the team in possession to maintain continuity by denying the opposition the ball and, by skillful means, to advance and score points." (my bold)

So, if you want to talk principles start with the section of the laws that specifically address them.

If you consider the actions of Tipuric as a principle of the game he was perfectly entitled to act as he did.

The Laws are written to be consistent with the principles but we referee to the laws. Those of us who disagree with Ian do so because we don't see the Law prohibiting Tipuric's action.

I do believe that if guidance from a society or union dictates otherwise then that guidance should be followed to provide consistency for players. But don't tell me this is not debatable.

 

[Pegleg]

Last week I penalised a player for what Tips did. The -player looked at me and said "I just had to do it." He went back 10 with no complaint and a smile.

He expected me to ping it but the temptation got hte better of him. I obliged!

 

[didds]

Just to add grist to the mill I was sure there was an incident on the EvS game where the ball came to a player on the floor, who caught it and passed it with no scanction

sorry - no game time identified

didds

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I had one yesterday and penalised the player.
His team and supporters shouting what was that for?
He got up with a smile on his face and said "fair cop, same as on the telly last night" ��

 

[VM75]

If you start from the premise that lying around being on the ground hoping that the ball might arrive is a pretty ineffective game strategy, then the context of Law 14 is key

Don't make it unplayable, instead, do help it back into carrying/running play asap.
Don't delay, instead, do one of the three things to make it playable
But do all of those things asap (immediately?!)

Play will continue to flow and unnecessary whistle blowing is omitted from the game. Well done Wayne Barnes and all others refs who promote continuity of play v gotcha

Suggestion: simply remove the misinterpreting words "the game is to be played by players who are on their feet" from this definition section the rest of the section makes perfect sense as far as game continuity is concerned.

As a player it makes sense, as a coach it makes sense and as a referee it makes complete sense.

 

[Rawling]

Earlier in the same game (or maybe it was last weekend?) I saw a player on the floor reach out and tackle the opposing ball carrier. Is that less or more of an offense to either camp here?