Wade try under 22.4

[FightOrFlight]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1061571343856711

In order for this to be awarded the ball must be on the ground as if it has bounced up and is not in contact with the ground he is deemed to be carrying it and is in possession and so touch in goal.

For me when Wade makes contact to ground it the ball is an inch or so up off the ground and so he is having to "carry" it to ground.

Long story short for me ball is not on the ground so NO TRY!

 

[Ian_Cook]

At first glance, no try.

The player has a foot in touch and is in contact with a ball that is not in contact with the ground, before he grounds the ball..

However, what does law 22.4 (g) actually say

[LAWS](g) Player in touch or touch-ingoal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.[/LAWS]

Is the Wasps player really "carrying" the ball?". Unfortunately the Laws to not define "carrying the ball". I have always considered it to be when a player is able to hold onto the ball, i.e., either he grasps it with one or both hands, or he has it tucked under his arm

Its a tough one, and another case where the Laws are not detailed enough.

If I was judging this at full speed, I would award the try. With the benefit of replay, as a TMO, I would probably rule Touch in goal - 22 drop out.

 

[RobLev]

At first glance, no try.

The player has a foot in touch and is in contact with a ball that is not in contact with the ground, before he grounds the ball..

However, what does law 22.4 (g) actually say

[LAWS](g) Player in touch or touch-ingoal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.[/LAWS]

Is the Wasps player really "carrying" the ball?". Unfortunately the Laws to not define "carrying the ball". I have always considered it to be when a player is able to hold onto the ball, i.e., either he grasps it with one or both hands, or he has it tucked under his arm

Its a tough one, and another case where the Laws are not detailed enough.

If I was judging this at full speed, I would award the try. With the benefit of replay, as a TMO, I would probably rule Touch in goal - 22 drop out.

Clarification 2/2009 (2nd attempt) equates carrying the ball with being in possession of the ball; and this clarification was incorporated into Law as 22.3(b); so try for me even after TMO, since he definitely wasn't in possession of the ball.

How about a PT? While W10 and Wade were running together for the ball, W10 threw himself across Yarde with a hand to his belly. That's not shoulder to shoulder within 10.1(a), so is obstruction - foul play. Without that illegal push putting him into TiG, Yarde was favourite to get to the ball and ground it while remaining fully in goal.

 

[Pegleg]

In "real" rugby: That's a try. Can't see, on the facebook clip, enough detail such as that the TMO gets. But where I ref I'mgiving it and let's get on with the game.

 

[Dickie E]

try for me

 

[Ian_Cook]

After having a read Confusification 2009/2, and have to revise my earlier statement and say "try scored".

Clearly, the Wasps player was not "in possession" of the ball.

 

[Camquin]

Definitions

Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball ...

 

[crossref]

I don't think you can take the meaning of a word in one Law and apply the same meaning in other contexts : viz in possession Law 20 Scrum has several references to the team in possession

[LAWS]This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage[/LAWS]
[LAWS]
If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage[/LAWS]

In this context 'in possession' clearly doesn't mean that the ball is being carried.

Ruck Law is similar.

 

[The Fat]

Definitions

Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball ...

The clarification you should all be looking at is not 2-2009 but 1-2012.

It would be a hard man not to award the Wade try however, it does look like the ball is off the ground when he first makes contact.
The TMO backs up his decision by saying to the referee, "The ball was on the ground when he placed it, yes".

Clarification 1 2012

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling: 1-2012

Union / HP Ref Manager: FFR

Law Reference: 22

Date: 4 April 2012

Request: The FFR request a clarification for the following:

Following a kick ahead, the ball goes over the goal line and whilst it is still up in the air, a player places his hand on it and grounds it. However, before this player grounds the ball, his feet are in touch.

We would like to know:

• Whether Law 22.4 (g) applies only to a ball already on the ground before it is touched down or other situations as described above;
• Whether the situation, as described above, is equivalent to “carrying the ball”.


Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee


Law 19 or Law 22.4 (g) applies;

• If player is carrying the ball, enters the opposition in-goal area and the player’s feet touch the touch-in-goal line or beyond then the player is in touch-in-goal and a try is not awarded. Law 19 Touch and Lineout – Definitions
• If a player is not carrying the ball then Law 22.4 (g) applies - Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

The designated members confirm that:

1. A try should not be awarded,
2. The player is considered to be carrying the ball as the ball is in the air when it is first played and,
3. Law 22.4 (g) only applies if the ball is on the ground.

 

[RobLev]

The clarification you should all be looking at is not 2-2009 but 1-2012.

It would be a hard man not to award the Wade try however, it does look like the ball is off the ground when he first makes contact.
The TMO backs up his decision by saying to the referee, "The ball was on the ground when he placed it, yes".

Clarification 1 2012

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling: 1-2012

Union / HP Ref Manager: FFR

Law Reference: 22

Date: 4 April 2012

Request: The FFR request a clarification for the following:

Following a kick ahead, the ball goes over the goal line and whilst it is still up in the air, a player places his hand on it and grounds it. However, before this player grounds the ball, his feet are in touch.

We would like to know:

• Whether Law 22.4 (g) applies only to a ball already on the ground before it is touched down or other situations as described above;
• Whether the situation, as described above, is equivalent to “carrying the ball”.


Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee


Law 19 or Law 22.4 (g) applies;

• If player is carrying the ball, enters the opposition in-goal area and the player’s feet touch the touch-in-goal line or beyond then the player is in touch-in-goal and a try is not awarded. Law 19 Touch and Lineout – Definitions
• If a player is not carrying the ball then Law 22.4 (g) applies - Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

The designated members confirm that:

1. A try should not be awarded,
2. The player is considered to be carrying the ball as the ball is in the air when it is first played and,
3. Law 22.4 (g) only applies if the ball is on the ground.

Well, that shows I should read on beyond the answer I wanted...

Having said that, since 2/2009 was specifically in terms of "possession", and it was incorporated into Law as 22.3(b) which refers to "carrying", they seem to say that grounding a bouncing ball involves taking possession of it.

So we go back to: was this a PT (see my earlier comment)?

 

[Browner]

Well, that shows I should read on beyond the answer I wanted...

Having said that, since 2/2009 was specifically in terms of "possession", and it was incorporated into Law as 22.3(b) which refers to "carrying", they seem to say that grounding a bouncing ball involves taking possession of it.

So we go back to: was this a PT (see my earlier comment)?

I don't think the clarification is meant to deny a score such as Wades. I think its designed to deal with a player who drags/presses/guides (basketball control style) controls a ball down to the ground from a significant height.
The notion that if a ball is a few cms off the ground ( as it momentarily bobbles)negates/cancels this fabulous skill, is just unnecesarily taking a microscope to this grounding.

Without that illegal push putting him into TiG, Yarde was favourite to get to the ball and ground it while remaining fully in goal.

RobLev has a reasonable PT case, albeit "Yarde" definately wasn't favourite in my reckoning !


Great Try.

 

[Camquin]

Crossref - the case in a scrum or maul is covered in the part of the definition I elided, indicated with ellipsis (the three dots).
Given this is from the general definitions it must apply here - otherwise what was the point of having it.

And I believe the later clarification seems to indicate you are carrying the ball from the moment you touch it until it hits the floor.

I tend to think this could only have been delivered by a committee who have forgotten that most referee do not have access to a TMO.

They would probably also argue that if the ball moves fractionally towards the Dead Ball Line before it touches the grass you should immediately penalise the player for a deliberate knock on.

 

[crossref]

I agree with you that it should be like that. But in fact the Laws are not written that carefully. The same word or phrase can mean different things in different contexts.

 

[beckett50]

Was at the match, and have to say that - for me - it was try all day long once I'd seen the first replay.

 

[FightOrFlight]

I was running this past one of our ref coaches today out at a school game and he said it was interesting. By the wonders of our modern world I pulled out the smartphone and showed him the clip. He said that he could see my point and then he decided he would sort the issue once and for all. He called up an IRB TMO he knows personally.

His response was simple enough "was the ball on the ground when he played it? If not it's no try"

In fact you hear the TMO at the end of the clip say "it's a try of it's on the ground when we plays it" or words to that affect. That was not the case.

Still no try for me and given the fact the TMO himself with slow-mo replay says "if it's on the ground" and fails to spot it's not is a fairly blown call.

 

[crossref]

I think the clarification of 2012 that The Fat quotes settled this beyond all doubt.

 

[The Fat]

I was running this past one of our ref coaches today out at a school game and he said it was interesting. By the wonders of our modern world I pulled out the smartphone and showed him the clip. He said that he could see my point and then he decided he would sort the issue once and for all. He called up an IRB TMO he knows personally.

His response was simple enough "was the ball on the ground when he played it? If not it's no try"

In fact you hear the TMO at the end of the clip say "it's a try of it's on the ground when we plays it" or words to that affect. That was not the case.

Still no try for me and given the fact the TMO himself with slow-mo replay says "if it's on the ground" and fails to spot it's not is a fairly blown call.

The TMO backs up his decision by saying to the referee, "The ball was on the ground when he placed it, yes".


This incident fails the "slo-mo go to the nth degree" test but doesn't fail the "Clear and Obvious test".
It's a very close call but, to be honest, it does look like the ball is off the ground when Wade first makes contact. In real time with no TMO and a To3 up to date with Clarification 1-2012, it is highly likely that the try would be awarded.

I suppose the problem I have with the TMO system is that sometimes they will replay a forward pass 10 times to attempt to make a decision. If after a couple of viewings it is not "Clear and Obvious" then play on. While this one didn't need more than 2 angles played once each, another look would prove, IMO, that the ball was off the ground so no try.

 

[FightOrFlight]

The TMO backs up his decision by saying to the referee, "The ball was on the ground when he placed it, yes".


This incident fails the "slo-mo go to the nth degree" test but doesn't fail the "Clear and Obvious test".
It's a very close call but, to be honest, it does look like the ball is off the ground when Wade first makes contact. In real time with no TMO and a To3 up to date with Clarification 1-2012, it is highly likely that the try would be awarded.

I suppose the problem I have with the TMO system is that sometimes they will replay a forward pass 10 times to attempt to make a decision. If after a couple of viewings it is not "Clear and Obvious" then play on. While this one didn't need more than 2 angles played once each, another look would prove, IMO, that the ball was off the ground so no try.

Well I watched the video once on facebook with dogey resolution and was able to spot there was an issue around the ball when he placed it.

If this is down the local club on a Sunday and you have no TMO or ARs you may give it if you judge it satisfactory enough, however if you have a TMO it is his job to look at it to the nth degree.

If the TMO does his job fully it is clear to see the ball is off the ground and in an Elite game with all the angles, slow mo and all the time he needs it is a very poor call. I would argue the point of going to the TMO in these cases is to do the slow mo nth degree test if the clear an obvious test is inconclusive in the referee's mind.

 

[menace]

I admire your doggedness of believing your own opinion....but that's a try all day long.

To have been denied a try over some technical bobble would have been a travesty. Wade quite simple outplayed his opponents in that move and remained 'live' so deserved the reward.

 

[SimonSmith]

Despite what WR (or IRB) said in 2012? That's a slippery slope