Unconscious offending?

[didds]

I don;t have an issue with PKing a trapped player "on the wrong side" as a general rule. i would have a problem with anybody just automatically doing so "by rote" witrhout checking for extenuating circumstances.

What about a player on the "right" side that gets trapped there, blocking access to the ball because of poor presentation skills by the tackled player, after the oppo have rucked the tackling team back? That is more likely a scenario.

didds

 

[RobLev]

which takes us back to the Andyscott (and my) position : if he's lying on the wrong side of the ball and blocking the ball from coming out - then it's a PK whether he meant to or not.

I've never yet PK an unconsious player [which let's face it is an edge case which I think you could sell either way to be honest] but certainly I have PK players whom I believe did genuinely find themselves trapped against their will. In that case I may well acknowledge it with a quick word. It's unlicky but it's still a PK

What Law are you penalising under?

 

[crossref]

One or other of these, depending on the circumstances.

[LAWS]15.4 (b)
The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

[LAWS]15.6 (h)
After a tackle, any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

[LAWS]16.4 (d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[RobLev]

One or other of these, depending on the circumstances.

[LAWS]15.4 (b)
The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

[LAWS]15.6 (h)
After a tackle, any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

[LAWS]16.4 (d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

None of which make it illegal for the player to be where he is; they make it illegal for him not to move - which in the case of trapped or unconscious player makes it a very cheap free-kick.

If a player has been trapped on the wrong side of the ball, have you ever considered PK'ing the players doing the trapping under Law 15.7(c); and if not, why not?

 

[crossref]

None of which make it illegal for the player to be where he is; they make it illegal for him not to move - which in the case of trapped or unconscious player makes it a very cheap free-kick.

let's leave aside unconscious players - if I see someone unconcious I am going to blow first, and think about the restart later, and an unconscious player in a ruck is so unusual, and different every time, I don't think you can have a set rule about what you would do.

the reason for penalising trapped players is that if being trapped is an excuse, players will be getting themselves trapped over an over again. Whereas knowing that being trapped makes them liable for a PK means they try hard to not get trapped.

If a player has been trapped on the wrong side of the ball, have you ever considered PK'ing the players doing the trapping under Law 15.7(c)

Of course, and indeed have done so.

 

[ChrisR]

This thread illustrates why the tackle/ruck is such a critical element of the game and so difficult to call.

My view is this:

1. Tacklers frequently end up on the "wrong" side of the ball as a dynamic of the tackle.

2. The BC support arrives so quickly that the tackler can get trapped through no fault of their own.

3. If the ball can be made available (the usual case when the BC support get there quickly) then "Play on".

4. If the ball is not available then call for the attacking scrum unless:

a. the tackler C & O moves post tackle to get in an obstructing position. PK to BC's team

b. the tackler makes no effort to move out of the way. PK to BC's team.

c. the BC support collapse on the tackler. PK to tackler team.

d. players other than the BC and tackler(s) end up on the wrong side of the ball

 

[crossref]

This thread illustrates why the tackle/ruck is such a critical element of the game and so difficult to call.

My view is this:

4. If the ball is not available then call for the attacking scrum unless:

not quite - it's not the attacking team, but the team moving forward. Which is very probably what you meant, but in Law attacking merely refers to being in the opponent's half.

[LAWS]15.8 Doubt about failure to comply
If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to Law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw-in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team[/LAWS]

 

[RobLev]

...

the reason for penalising trapped players is that if being trapped is an excuse, players will be getting themselves trapped over an over again. Whereas knowing that being trapped makes them liable for a PK means they try hard to not get trapped.

...

How does a player "get himself trapped"? Do you mean - "place himself in a position where later arriving players from either side fall on him such that he can no longer comply with his obligations (to move)"?

And again - if opposition players prevent him from moving (by trapping him) how can he be infringing laws that require him to move?

 

[RobLev]

Following on from my last post - this is essentially the point made by ctrainor at #21 and (albeit less strongly) by didds at #61.

 

[didds]

Nobody has stuck their head above the parapet I see so i'll ask again..

"What about a player on the "right" side that gets trapped there, blocking access to the ball because of poor presentation skills by the tackled player, after the oppo have rucked the tackling team back? That is more likely a scenario"

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

I'm having trouble visualizing that Didds. Can you reframe it for us?