Wade try under 22.4

[MrQeu]

If he is not carrying, couldn't it be a knock-on?

 

[Ian_Cook]

If he is not carrying, couldn't it be a knock-on?

Not unless it separates from his hand, goes forward and touches the ground. If he has his hand on the ball all the way to the ground, then he's controlling the ball, probably why the iRB reasons that he is effectively carrying it.

 

[OB..]

Regardless of what they had in mind with Clarification 2012/1, the fact is that in this case the ball was in the air when first played, and the Clarification specifically states that this is carrying. I agree with them. I would far rather have a hard and fast line drawn that everyone can see and understand, i.e.

the ball is on the ground when played = try
the ball is off the ground when played = no try

....than some fuzzy, indefinite, flexible definition that is open to individual judgement and interpretation. If 1cm off the ground is OK, how about 1.5cm, or 2cm or 3cm. Where does the line get drawn.

I dealt with this argument in my #33. The problem it sets the player is unrealistic, so he would have no choice but to gamble. (PS Does "ground" mean a blade of grass? A puddle?)

If we do this, we make a rod for our own backs and it will be our fault when we get beaten with it. What if five minutes later, the white team do something similar at the other end, but the player plays the ball a foot off the ground and the TMO then rules out the try? If I was coach/captain of the white team I would be bloody furious with a decision like that, and rightly so!

We will permanently disagree on this. I think the best balance makes it yet another judgement call: was the player having to guide the ball down, or just hit it?

A similar problem arose with a player jumping and touch. It is certainly easier to judge where a player takes off from or lands than whether he and/or the ball have crossed the plane in the air, but greater clarity gives some unnatural outcomes.

 

[Mat 04]

Perfectly understandable how the committee reached it's decision - If you exert enough pressure on the ball whilst its in the air to stop it leaving contact with your hands as you apply the downward pressure then surely you must then be in possession of it?

It's a tough call to make and it is particularly harsh for the player in question, but how would fairly differentiate this from the same instance when the ball is 1m off the ground?

 

[OB..]

It's a tough call to make and it is particularly harsh for the player in question, but how would fairly differentiate this from the same instance when the ball is 1m off the ground?

The same could be said of forward passes, or offside decisions, or just about any scrum offence. Providing an interpretation that makes life easier for the officials is not necessarily what is best for the game.

 

[Browner]

Perfectly understandable how the committee reached it's decision - If you exert enough pressure on the ball whilst its in the air to stop it leaving contact with your hands as you apply the downward pressure then surely you must then be in possession of it?

It's a tough call to make and it is particularly harsh for the player in question, but how would fairly differentiate this from the same instance when the ball is 1m off the ground?

I know the difference between 'C&O' controlling of the ball, and incisive dotting/ dabbing it down , I suspect most of us could make an accurate informed judgement call on what we see.

 

[menace]

IMO, there is a distinct difference between "knocking" the ball and "carrying, pushing, scooping or holding" the ball. If I were to smack you in the face, as opposed to push you in the face, I have no doubt you would be able to tell the difference easily.

You see, I could probably quite as easily put 'pushing' in the same category as "knocking" ....as it could be easily argued that pushing is not 'carrying, scooping or holding'. For eg If I were to push you in the face (and not clasped my fingers into your eyes :biggrin, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say I carried/held your face? So your description of the push, as I vision it, could mean I come up with a different judgment?

[LAWS]A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not
crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space
rising immediately above the touchline.[/LAWS]

I take this to pretty much mean that anything other than a knock or a kick would put the ball into touch.

I see no difference whatsoever between a player pushing down on a ball in the air, and grasping the ball in the same action. The player is holding the ball.

Ian - I dont want to labour the point as your opinion is that a 'push' down on the ball is effectively holding the ball. If that's what you believe then that is up to you. Also I agree that because of the clarrification I have come around and see that the definitive line in the sand by WR is the ball in the air - not whether it is 1 cm or 1 foot and they need to be treated the same and I have to treat it as such (though personally I believe that you can push the ball down from a very short distance but to guide/control the ball down from more than a few centimetres requires more than just a push!).

But I found it interesting that this opinion was in the judgment about the Biggar incident...and although relates to players in the air the concept of 'push' arose. The discilpanary committee said
"The Committee therefore went on to consider the meaning of the words 'push' and 'tap' in a rugby context. The Oxford Dictionary definition of 'push' is to:

"exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself".

The synonyms for 'push' include shove, propel, bump, knock or strike. ...."

And within the Macqurie Thesarus, "Hold" did not cite "push" as a synonym, though push appeared as "Hitting". So your assertion that "push" is also "carrying, scooping, holding" for the sake of your scenario of pushing the ball while in touch but deeming it as "held" is rather dubious. I agree that defining symantics to the nth degree within the rugby laws is rather fruitless, though I would say that in most layman's terms "push" is disctinctly different from "hold".

I still think it's one of those judgment calls and what my eyes see could mean the ball is on the ground or it's not. I'll decide on what I see. Lucky my games arent always taped and reviewed infinitum.

Ps: without replay I would still call the Wade one a try!