Try?

[Wedgie]

5m attacking scrum to red. Red win the hook, and ball stays in their second row as they push forward a metre or so. All of a sudden the ball squirts out of the second row sideways and the first person to react is the red flanker, who falls sideways on the floor to secure the ball such that his body is lying parallel with the try line. Pretty much immediately he realises that no-one is challenging him for the ball and so takes one roll forward and places the ball over the try line to claim the try. For clarity on the distance moved, if the 'one roll' had been in after being held and brought to ground in a tackle situation nobody would be complaining and it was not all that different from the example shown here (taken from IRB Law 14 webpage) excepting the ball was placed forward over the try line and not backward as BOD(?) does.

Try? Penalty against Red flanker for playing the ball off his feet? Other?

 

[TigerCraig]

Try? Penalty against Red flanker for playing the ball off his feet? Other?

Penalty

Law 20.9 (e) (e) All players: No falling on the ball. A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of the scrum.

Law 14 doesn't apply as it specifically excludes "immediately after a scrum or ruck"

Even if you thought the ball had left the scrum area, and the Law 14 did apply the flanker has only 3 options:

• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball.

Play the ball is not an option as there is no tackle

 

[chbg]

Words paint different scenarios to different people, but I read "squirted out of the second row sideways" as the ball having left the scrum, not "as it is coming out". If the ball is clear of the scrum such that a player has fallen on it without endangering himself or others, then Law 14 ought to apply - he must "get up with the ball, pass the ball, or release the ball". Rolling is not allowed! PK against Red.

All Laws lead to PK against Red!

 

[menace]

I think I would need to see it....but the flanker falling sideways seems to suggest the ball was well clear of the scrum, so it seems the scrum was over and we have open play and therefore there should be no issue of him unbinding and going to ground to collect the ball as per law 14. Once he had tha ball and if he only rolled over once to ground the ball in-goal without contest then I would allow it and award the try. I see that as effectively a process towards getting up to play or release the ball.

There is obviously a lot of variables to consider to give a definitive decision from the OPs description.
I admit that I would find it hard to PK for falling on the ball out of the scrum if the ball was well out (say 1 m) as that would seem a technical PK, if it had only just emerged and he flopped on it then PK with 20.9 e might be in consideration. Equally if the ball was well out of the scrum then I think 'immediately' is passed and law 14 is back in play.

You have to consider who was under pressure and had the ascendency here, and for mine red was applying the pressure and was in control. To deny them on some technicalities seems harsh.

I guess it comes down to what we/you decide your threshold is to 'as it is coming out' and 'immediately' ?

 

[TigerCraig]

I think I would need to see it......I guess it comes down to what we/you decide your threshold is to 'as it is coming out' and 'immediately' ?

Agree - my mental picture from the OP was of the flanker falling on it just as it passed his "shadow" if you like

I would still penalise though as even if we are in Law 14 territory I would not allow a roll (or a reach and place for that matter). On an equity basis I think the defenders whether under pressure or not are in an unwinnable position - they can't drop on the flanker on the ground, they can't tackle him, they can't go for the ball as he is rolling over it : they just have to watch him. Of course in real time it would look and feel very different to words on a page.

 

[menace]

You make a fair point re the rolling, but how material was the roll to deny a contest? If he was not being contested by the oppo then the roll over didn't seem material in stopping the try? ( I am presuming that he probably could have attempted to get up an lung and still would of scored...which also beckons the question why he didn't)

 

[Daftmedic]

It has materiality as a "try was scored"

 

[FlipFlop]

How long was the "pause" on the ground? If he fell on the ball, and immediately rolled and placed, I'd give the try. If it was not immediate, i.e. he fell, placed, then realised he could roll, and then rolled, then I would PK Red. It needs to almost be one movement of falling and then rolling, for it to be a try. (And only 1 "roll" so he faced the right way).

(Roll that I would allow - a 180 degree roll (or so) - If he went through 360 - then it is a PK. I allow a change of direction roll!)

 

[Simon Thomas]

He did not get to his feet, and on the ground he can each but not roll. PK against Red. No try.

 

[menace]

It has materiality as a "try was scored"

But I didn't say that, I said " but how material was the roll to deny a contest? "
Big difference. And it was a question.

He did not get to his feet, and on the ground he can each but not roll. PK against Red. No try.

So if it's in the middle of the field and the player rolls over once to play/place the ball, you're going to PK him? That seems over officious and lacking empathy?
I see plenty of players rollover the once to place the ball and Most refs allow it.

As I read the OP, there was no one in opposition to compete for the ball and he rolled over once to place the ball? To PK him for that seems to be peculiar.

If he rolled over a few times (like crawling when no one is in opposition) then I could understand a PK.

 

[crossref]

As I read the OP, there was no one in opposition to compete for the ball and he rolled over once to place the ball? To PK him for that seems to be peculiar.
.

I guess the counter argument is that the reason he was able to score without resistance was the crafty (and partly invisible) roll. If he had got to his feet, the oppo (who must have been very close, given that non-scrummagers are allowed to stand on the trylione) would have had time to contest.

 

[Camquin]

Cross references in the laws would be useful.
Law 7 and law 14 permit a player to fall on the ball, and should refer to the restrictions in law 20 etc.

But then Law 7 is particularly badly written.

It refers to onside in respect to taking the ball and running with it, but not for any other action.
But then it does not say you have to throw the ball backward.

The laws really do need to be given to a competent technical author.

Camquin

 

[OB..]

He did not get to his feet, and on the ground he can each but not roll. PK against Red. No try.

I agree.

He found he could not reach out to score so without getting up he moved his body closer to the line. If he had fallen facing the line and pushed his body forward using his elbows or knees, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Browner]

The player on the ground is protected from being landed on, thus he can't use that protection to buy him time to execute a virtually undefendable roll.

That said, I think I'd decide based on the proximity of a defender/s, if none near enough then I'd give it, but if ANY defender MIGHT have stopped him if he'd released OR gotten to his feet then I'd penalise the unnecessary roll.

As with many scenario's you gotta get a feel for it 'live'

 

[menace]

I agree.

He found he could not reach out to score so without getting up he moved his body closer to the line. If he had fallen facing the line and pushed his body forward using his elbows or knees, we would not be having this discussion.

I understand but I can't but help harp back that there was no oppo in contest, and what's to say he wasn't rolling over to get up ( just once is a natural action to roll forward too) and hey presto he's on the line!!

For eg Would you allow a player in mid-field that's on the ground to roll over once and get up to continue running because there was no oppo near him? I'm sure you wouldn't PK that? So why not allow it near the try line? ( I see this as a similar quandary as the thread covering the tackler releasing immediately to allow the bc to reach out and score).

Again, I'm talking about a roll immediately and no oppo in close proximity to contest as described in the OP.

I'm happy to change my thought on this but so far I'm not seeing a convincing argument that I have up it so wrong? Perhaps my images of the described scenario is different to others?

 

[didds]

( I am presuming that he probably could have attempted to get up an lung and still would of scored...which also beckons the question why he didn't)

Well that's obvious - cos he didn;t need to!

Without any knowledge of where the defenders (if any) were placed it difficult to tell from the OP's description where the roll was material or not. If in the possibility the nearest defender was so far away or totally unaware of where the ball was, it would seem harsh to deny the score on such a technicality . Alternatively if defenders were approaching fast such that an attempt to stand first would have given time for the defender(s) to get to him then it is a material roll.

didds

 

[didds]

It has materiality as a "try was scored"

If in a n extreme case the nearest defendr was 20m away and the player on the floor with ball was 2m from the rtry line... would a roll in that scenario be a material act? The probably anaology here to be fair would be the full back knocking on gathering a rolling ball with the nearest opponent 20m away etc...

I feel that in some circumstances the roll is really a naughty no-no but the try COULD stand 9amyeb with a "word"). But I do also equally accept the knock on scenario I paint above which has huge similarities with this.

didds

 

[didds]

The player on the ground is protected from being landed on, thus he can't use that protection to buy him time to execute a virtually undefendable roll.

but a defender wouldn't have to land on him? they just have to show an attempt to get their hands on the ball whilst on their feet. Straight PK then.

didds

 

[Browner]

but a defender wouldn't have to land on him? they just have to show an attempt to get their hands on the ball whilst on their feet. Straight PK then.

didds

Hense my proximity / materiality point.

?

 

[didds]

If we reverse the side whose flanker dived, secured, rolled and touched down...


5m scrum, PK or a PT?

didds