Try or penalty against attackers

[Cymro]

Should this have been a try or a penalty against attackers for play contrary to 16.3(d)

http://www.rugbyfanz.com/VideoShow.php?id=1039&nl=2304

 

[Dickie E]

Try for mine.

Ruck is over as the ball had emerged and he jumped OVER, not ONTO the ruck.

16.3(d) is to stop players jumping ONTO a ruck while it is progress.

 

[OB..]

Ingenious, well done, and not dangerous.

I would not want the idea to catch on, because too many people would make a mess of it, but in this case, no problem for me.

 

[cymrubach]

Try, no problems at all, in fact the whole passage of play was exceptional:clap:

 

[Dixie]

We had a great discussion on this before. http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3738. GLS boasted that he did this ages ago, holds the intellectual property rights and will doubtless sue. Judah compared to gridiron's mid-air hits and was very anti; others majored on the safety of the action in question, rather than outlawing every possible incidence.

On the subject of safety, I wonder how that is judged? The scorer pretty much came down on his head; do we wait to see whether he gets up, and only penalise him if not?

 

[KML1]

Great passage of play and a great idea, but the issue of accidental offside would be my main concern.

In this case, I couldn't see any attacking defenders in front of the 9, who by default would therefore have been blocking a defender getting to the ball carrier. But there must have been attackers in that pile. Can't envisage a scenario where that woudnt be the case. You'd have to look very closely to decide whether they were causing a blockade.

 

[Davet]

Try for me. Ruck over so 16.3.d doesn't apply.
(I did think there was a forward pass way back, but hey).

KML1's point about a potential blocker is more relevant, but given that the player came right over the top, then defenders could get at him if there had been any in position.

 

[Dixie]

KML1's point about a potential blocker is more relevant, but given that the player came right over the top, then defenders could get at him if there had been any in position.

There was one, on the edge of the muck by the touchline who stood up from his rucking position underneath the diver and rotated him head downwards, though without trying to actually "tackle" him.

Possible offences by this player are:

a) - shoulder/head contact only - failing to wrap the attacker: dangerous tackling;
b) - Causing the attacker to come down head first - dangerous play;

Anyone fancy awarding a PT?:wow:

 

[Greg Collins]

have done similar as a player; sometimes scored sometimes got penalised, even did it once by diving over the ruck to ground the ball that was sat on the floor in goal on the oppo's side waiting for the SH to pick it up. Asked ref if it was out, he winked and nodded, I went. Try scored. SH punched me as I got up and got himself sent off!

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Does anyone think IRB Ruling 8 2006 might have some relevance here? I know it is not exactly identical but it does concern a player diving over a body of players that had previously formed a ruck.

1. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on an
opponent as soon as his opponent has his hands on the ball, by diving over
the players on the ground in front of him?
2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the
ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the
ground in front of him?
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the
opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the
players on the ground in front of him?
4. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the
opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by staying on his feet but
being in contact with players on the ground in front of him?

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the
question raised:
1. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and16.3(d).
2. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and16.3(d).
3. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and16.3(d).
4. Yes. If the player was on his feet and came from an onside position.

I have to say, at the levels I referee at, I would regard that as extremely dangerous and would not award the try: a penalty to the defending team and an admonishment. In levels higher up it becomes less clear cut as the players are more skilled and a lot stronger. At levels 10 and below I don't think we should encourage stuff like that.

 

[chopper15]

Would the defence be allowed to tackle the ball carrier in the air?

 

[OB..]

Fair question, to which the answer has to be Yes.

You can tackle a player diving for the line in the ordinary way, and the prohibition is aimed at not tackling a player jumping for the ball - which he wasn't.

 

[Gareth-Lee Smith]

Yup, those pro teams are always copying my skills and tactics.

I was, in fact, one of the unsung backroom staff in the Welsh Grand Slam effort of this year, dontchaknow.

 

[Davet]

Why would you give a PT?

The try was scored anyway, and would not have been scored in a more advantageous position.

 

[chopper15]

Why would you give a PT?

The try was scored anyway, and would not have been scored in a more advantageous position.

But the defence in the FoP 'obstructed' the poor chap without trying to hold him! He could've gone a few more inches to his left! 'Course it's a PT!