Touch down in goal

[spikeno10]

From my U16s game yesterday. Red hacks ball from 22 towards try line. Winger (Red) and FB (gold) race for ball. Gold (defender) dives on ball and slides with ball in hand and on the ground over try line. Believes he should have got 22 drop out but as he is getting up the Red winger puts hand on the ball and referee awards a try.

My boys except decision but after match question this with me. I asked the referee to explain the decision so I could feedback. He advised the ball should have been picked up and put down in goal (carried over) not a slide.

Have I missed something here?

 

[Jacko]

No - ref got it wrong. Should have been scrum 5, attacking ball as ball was carried over by defender.

 

[Phil E]

Taken in and made dead (grounded) by defender.

Scrum 5, attacking ball.

 

[spikeno10]

Thanks - that was my understanding but the referee was very confident in the bar so assumed this was one of those technical things which come up every now and again.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Thanks - that was my understanding but the referee was very confident in the bar so assumed this was one of those technical things which come up every now and again.

I agree with Phil and Jacko - well Jacko anyway.

PS I am VERY confident in the bar after a few pints as well.

Well done to you and your lads for accepting the decision - not easy but will stand you/them in good stead in the long run.

Cheers hic!

 

[Simon Thomas]

Sounds like a taken in by defender and scrum 5m attacking side.

Did the gold FB clearly ground the ball, having carried it in-goal ?

I was always coached to make a "display" of grounding the ball in goal in defence to avoid any confusion - hence the pick up and gounding action referred to by the referee.

But a hand on the ball on the ground in goal is sufficient in Law for the defender.

Therefore the try award is a strange one.

 

[spikeno10]

Did the gold FB clearly ground the ball, having carried it in-goal ?

I was always coached to make a "display" of grounding the ball in goal in defence to avoid any confusion - hence the pick up and gounding action referred to by the referee.

Good point, we will cover this at training. Happened a bit too quick in the game so I didn't see the actual movement but he was adamant he had the ball under control and on the ground after the match.
And i'm very pleased with the boys for accepting the decisions - as a coach I expect nothing less though. Have never seen a referee change his mind so its a waste of time and effort debating decisions, just get on with playing the game is my approach.

 

[Davet]

U16 game -

Society ref?

If so I am surprised that the try was given - it seems quite clear that a scrum 5 would have been correct.

 

[Dixie]

U16 game -

Society ref?

Doubt it - see Spike's spear tackle thread

 

[Simon Thomas]

Yes he was apparently - but needs an urgent assessment and to attend training meetings.

 

[PaulDG]

My boys except decision but after match question this with me. I asked the referee to explain the decision so I could feedback. He advised the ball should have been picked up and put down in goal (carried over) not a slide.

I've known some very high level (OK, 7 up) referees make mistakes like this.

In some cases it's because the long since put the Law book down and, although they attend meetings, they don't actually listen to anything about law changes.

And in other cases, it's something they've always gotten wrong from their own playing days and never had it corrected.

And in this particular one, had the match been on Sunday afternoon, I'd have said it was because the ref had been watching the Wasps game.

Cos I'm sure I heard some nonsense from the commentators about the need to pick up the ball and put it down to get the scrum back (when actually the point was the ball wasn't moving when made dead) and this sort of thing just feeds the confusion.

But as it was Sunday morning, it couldn't have been that

 

[OB..]

And in this particular one, had the match been on Sunday afternoon, I'd have said it was because the ref had been watching the Wasps game.

Cos I'm sure I heard some nonsense from the commentators about the need to pick up the ball and put it down to get the scrum back (when actually the point was the ball wasn't moving when made dead) and this sort of thing just feeds the confusion.

Actually I thought they got that right.

Law 22.9 (e) If a player with one or both feet on or behind the dead ball line picks up the ball, which was in motion within in-goal, that player has picked the ball up outside the playing area.

The ball was moving, but he merely touched it down, so all he did was make it dead in in-goal under Law 22.5.

 

[Fat Twin]

OB - I agree. I thought it was a great presence of mind by the referee to identify the difference with the player...

Awful game though! Skill levels were poor considering the near perfect conditions for playing!

 

[PaulDG]

The ball was moving, but he merely touched it down, so all he did was make it dead in in-goal under Law 22.5.

Ah, OK. I didn't see what happened, just heard the commentary which didn't sound right at all - the impression I had was that they thought what mattered was the picking up and putting down, not where the player who did the picking up was standing.

i.e., the decision was the correct one but the reason I thought I heard was incorrect.

 

[didds]

L8 league game a very few years ago... covering back FB, ball in-goal on the ground following mkick ahead, very wet conditions, drops/slides into ball and hits it downwards with hand as he slides past.

following up attacker dives on ball.

ref awards try as FB "did not demonstrate control".

awful.

didds

 

[Davet]

Oh dear.
On behalf of the fraternity, I think an apology is due.

 

[didds]

thank you davet ;-)

its definitelyin the "where the ... did THAT idea come from" camp.

didds

 

[Davet]

Barnesy is alway warbling on about Control - as do some others - gawd alone knows why.

 

[didds]

well, he is just a bloody idiot...

didds

 

[Deeps]

well, he is just a bloody idiot...

didds

...and those that listen to him might be questionable too!