Try?

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
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).
Exactly. Which means CONTEXT is crucial since the two situation are dramatically different: in one you can roll to "score" and in the other you can't.

Again, I'm talking about a roll immediately and no oppo in close proximity to contest as described in the OP.
If the player had to get up before going for the line, that would take longer so the critical proximity distance increases.

However I still think he is using an illegal technique to get close enough to score, and I don't really see why we should be sympathetic. If there is no defender near enough to intefere, then he should do it properly; if one is near enough then we seem to agree it is a PK.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
If we reverse the side whose flanker dived, secured, rolled and touched down...


5m scrum, PK or a PT?

didds

Same proximity and th4 materiality considerations (PT excepted) ....
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
how far away was the nearest defender when he rolled? was that defender close enough to play the ball in the time that it took to roll? did it look bad or was the ball carrier literally all by himself when he rolled?
 

Wedgie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
210
Post Likes
30
Thanks for the discussion and advice (it was a real scenario).

The ball was a fair way from the scrum, so 20.9(e) did not enter the equation.

The defenders were not close enough to be able touch him when he placed the ball over the line, but to be honest, that did not enter by head at the time.

My thought pattern was that if he had performed the roll anywhere else on the pitch, no-one would have blinked an eye, so I gave the try.

We think in terms of 'material' or 'not material', but I guess that this is a simplification and that there are degrees of materiality. The roll in the middle of the pitch has to have some materiality - it gets the ball carrier 0.5m closer to the try line - otherwise, as a deliberate act, they wouldn't do it. A roll that close to the line has much more materiality and consensus seems to be that, next time it happens, I should award the PK.

Thanks,
W.
 
Top