[In-goal] Try or no try? You decide.

[Phil E]

Was this a try or not?

Ruck near the goal line, defending SH rolls the ball back with his foot onto the goal line.
Onside attacking player dives forward and grounds the ball...or does he?

His initial contact was to knock/push the ball forward, no downward pressure, as required in law:

[LAWS]22.1(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the
in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of
the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.[/LAWS]

But he didn't lose contact with the ball between knocking it and pressing it down.

[LAWS]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward......[/LAWS]

So try or no try? Did the little push forward make a difference?

 

[crossref]

I saw this one yesterday.
It's an interesting one. It seems to me his hand remained in contact with the ball at all times, so he was pushing/rolling the ball forwards along the ground -- are you allowed to do that?

In real time with no TMO, a ref would give a knock on, I am sure, but perhaps the TMO was technically correct.

 

[didds]

The only question I'd ask is if something similar occurred (legally onside, ball actually out etc etc etc) on the half way line would you consider it a knock-on in an attempt to retrieve the ball?

If not then award the try; if so, then award the 5m scrum, black ball.

didds

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I've no real issue with the try being awarded here. A big lesson to be learned by Black #9 ... he won't do that again in a hurry!

 

[Camquin]

It would not happen on the half way line as it would be almost impossible to retrieve the ball, but on the try line you only need to press down on it.

I think the white player has contact with the ball throughout so I would award the try, but I cannot actually find a law reference that says if the ball remains in contact with the hand it is not a knock on.

If you do not award the try would you penalise black 4 for handling in the ruck? If not why not?

 

[crossref]

If you do not award the try would you penalise black 4 for handling in the ruck? If not why not?

IF you are happy that the ball is touching/over the line, then there is no ruck, so he's allowed to handle it.

 

[Camquin]

When black four handles it is is a good foot short. He places it back just in the field of play. The 9 then heels it back onto the goal line and stands around looking like a lemon while the white player dives on it.

 

[OB..]

Realistically, if a player pushes the ball forward without it leaving the ground, some component of the force applied must be downward. Try awarded.

 

[crossref]

Realistically, if a player pushes the ball forward without it leaving the ground, some component of the force applied must be downward. Try awarded.

I like that way of thinking

 

[Rich_NL]

Realistically, if a player pushes the ball forward without it leaving the ground, some component of the force applied must be downward. Try awarded.

Not necessarily, as there's a downward force from gravity. And as I see it int his case, his hand comes under the point of the ball; there's an upward force but not enough to lift it more than the rolling motion lifts it anyway.

My thinking would be that he didn't lose control (or contact) forward and the push forward was not material, though, so no reason not to award the try.

 

[Decorily]

If you do not award the try would you penalise black 4 for handling in the ruck? If not why not?

No... Once the ball is won at a ruck it is common practise to steady/place the ball with a hand so that we can get on with the game.

 

[OB..]

Not necessarily, as there's a downward force from gravity.

I don't see the point of trying to introduce such subtle theoretical considerations. From the purely practical point of view, I prefer to ask if the ball was lifted. If not, then there was some sort of downward pressure.

My thinking would be that he didn't lose control (or contact) forward and the push forward was not material, though, so no reason not to award the try.

The question of contact is moot. Since the ball is on the goal line initially, there is no tackle, ruck, or Law 14 situation. I think it could be appropriate to use the Law 15 paragraph that says you cannot push the ball forwards, but I don't have to, having decided there was enough downward pressure.

 

[4eyesbetter]

No try. Knock-on in-goal. No downward pressure until the second go.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem with giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side, or against a defender who has apparently just done something egregiously stupid.

 

[ChrisR]

Pushing the ball forward along the ground is illegal ... if you are the BC in a tackle. Otherwise not covered.

Knock-on? I don't think so as the player did not "lose possession" of the ball. From Law 12 Definitions.

Award the try.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Did the little push forward meet any of the criteria in Law 12 for a knock-on

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON

"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward"...no

"or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm"...no

"or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward"...no

If it's not a knock on, then that is a legitimate try.

 

[DocY]

I was watching this in the club house after reffing a game. Cue lots of questions about whether it'd be a try or not.

I said knock-on - I thought he wasn't in possession of the ball and it went forward. To me, maintaining contact isn't sufficient to count as being in possession (except when Faletau had his try disallowed in the WC).

A bit embarrassing when the TMO announced his decision!

 

[RobLev]

When black four handles it is is a good foot short. He places it back just in the field of play. The 9 then heels it back onto the goal line and stands around looking like a lemon while the white player dives on it.

I noticed that not only did W7 see the opportunity - so did W3. If a SH can be outthought by a THP...

 

[crossref]

so, when Black 9 places the ball on the try line, why isn't is a 5m scrum to White (harking back to the earlier thread when we discussed whether a touch down requires an intention to touch down..
If you say its because he rolled it with his feet, what if he had rolled it with his hands?

 

[DocY]

so, when Black 9 places the ball on the try line, why isn't is a 5m scrum to White (harking back to the earlier thread when we discussed whether a touch down requires an intention to touch down.. If you say its because he rolled it with his feet, what if he had rolled it with his hands?

He's on a pretty sticky wicket - if he puts his hands on the ball in the usual scrum half way, I'd call that a touch down. *Knocking* it back with his hand might be okay, but he'd have to be very careful.

Is there any sort of guidance to give to the players in this situation? "Be careful not to minor it!"?

 

[Phil E]

You can't ground the ball with your foot.