Wade try under 22.4

[OB..]

Suppose the ball had taken a freak bounce a couple of feet in the air. If Wade put his hand on it and guided it down to the ground (preventing it from going out of play), would you feel it should be a try? Maybe the Clarification makes sense in that case.

For me Equity says the try should be awarded, so where is the dividing line? There is a subtle distinction in that if the ball is close to the ground, just about any downward pressure will ground it, with no need to control the ball or the direction of the contact. That is effectively the same as saying that if there is no TMO you would go with your judgement and if the control element was not C&O, you would award the try.

(No, the law does not mention "control", but perhaps in this instance the concept is useful?)

 

[menace]

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

Yeah probably. But we are not talking about the ball being dragged from a clear height. It's just barely off the ground ! Luckily for me I won't have games video that close to pick it up.

 

[Browner]

Suppose the ball had taken a freak bounce a couple of feet in the air. If Wade put his hand on it and guided it down to the ground (preventing it from going out of play), would you feel it should be a try? Maybe the Clarification makes sense in that case.

For me Equity says the try should be awarded, so where is the dividing line? There is a subtle distinction in that if the ball is close to the ground, just about any downward pressure will ground it, with no need to control the ball or the direction of the contact. That is effectively the same as saying that if there is no TMO you would go with your judgement and if the control element was not C&O, you would award the try.

(No, the law does not mention "control", but perhaps in this instance the concept is useful?)

Agree 100% OB, IMO the notion that the IRB clarification sought to disallow any instance where the ball is a mere 0.5cm off the ground (or that a player needs to be so precise as to wait until the millisecond of actual ground contact is acheived before he can be rewarded) is quiet frankly bonkers.

 

[ChrisR]

For me the deciding factor is that there is no other guidance other that straight downward force of grounding. Try every day.

 

[thepercy]

Agree 100% OB, IMO the notion that the IRB clarification sought to disallow any instance where the ball is a mere 0.5cm off the ground (or that a player needs to be so precise as to wait until the millisecond of actual ground contact is acheived before he can be rewarded) is quiet frankly bonkers.

So you say .5 cm is close enough, menace says barely off the ground, WR says on the ground. Where do you draw the line of "close enough"? .5 cm short of the goal line is short for me, would you give a try because it was great skill getting there, and it was close enough? If the grass was longer then it would have been a try, but I wasn't and its not a try.

 

[crossref]

seems to me that
- in real time, with no TMO, you'd give a try every day of the week
- but armed with replays and slo-mo the TMO has no option other than to follow the Law inc the clarification. otherwise what's the point of having a TMO ? so no try. If WR see that as unjust they can always issue a new Law.

 

[Browner]

So you say .5 cm is close enough, menace says barely off the ground, WR says on the ground. Where do you draw the line of "close enough"? .5 cm short of the goal line is short for me, would you give a try because it was great skill getting there, and it was close enough? If the grass was longer then it would have been a try, but I wasn't and its not a try.

No thepercy you're wrong to think that a measuring stick is the critical aspect of this, its not. I think that the clarification wants to prohit a player from being able to ..... On second thought, just Read OBs post, cos it aligns with my view

 

[thepercy]

No thepercy you're wrong to think that a measuring stick is the critical aspect of this, its not. I think that the clarification wants to prohit a player from being able to ..... On second thought, just Read OBs post, cos it aligns with my view

I guess I am stuck on point 3 of the clarification, "Law 22.4.g only applies if the ball is on the ground." The clarification does not say "near" or "close to", it says "on".

 

[didds]

and the problem with these clarifications is - as oft menitoned here - they are often somewhat bizarre and even sometimes do not address the actual question asked.

I merely take that to unfortunately mean nobody on the calt#rification panel actually considered anything but one scenario and/or certainly didn't really consider the dynamic nature of the game and the posive outcomes for positive play we presumably strive for?

didds

 

[OB..]

I guess I am stuck on point 3 of the clarification, "Law 22.4.g only applies if the ball is on the ground." The clarification does not say "near" or "close to", it says "on".

... and yet again we are arguing the meanings of words instead of looking at what is best for the game and aligning our interpretation with that.

 

[Ian_Cook]

seems to me that
- in real time, with no TMO, you'd give a try every day of the week
- but armed with replays and slo-mo the TMO has no option other than to follow the Law inc the clarification. otherwise what's the point of having a TMO ? so no try. If WR see that as unjust they can always issue a new Law.

THIS^^^

Its what I said waaay back in post 2.

Wade is "pushing" the ball downwards, not pressing on a ball already on the ground, therefore his contact with the ball is more than momentary.

Scenario: A try appears to have been scored. You are the TMO. The referee wants you to check some action that happened back on the 22m. A kicked ball is about to bounce into touch (but had not crossed the plane of touch) when an attacking player with his feet in touch pushes the ball infield where it is caught by a team-mate who runs through and grounds the ball in goal. NOTE: The player did not bat the ball, he didn't catch the ball either, he got a hand on it without grasping it, and flicked infield. The ball definitely travelled a short distance infield with his hand still in contact with it.

Your decision: Try or no try?

----

IMO, this is "no try" because the ball was put in touch by the player per Law 19 Definitions (6th and 9th paragraphs)

If your decision is "try", IMO, you are wrong in Law.

If your decision is "no try", but you still think that the Wade try was good, how do you reconcile the two decisions?

 

[thepercy]

THIS^^^

Its what I said waaay back in post 2.

Wade is "pushing" the ball downwards, not pressing on a ball already on the ground, therefore his contact with the ball is more than momentary.

Scenario: A try appears to have been scored. You are the TMO. The referee wants you to check some action that happened back on the 22m. A kicked ball is about to bounce into touch (but had not crossed the plane of touch) when an attacking player with his feet in touch pushes the ball infield where it is caught by a team-mate who runs through and grounds the ball in goal. NOTE: The player did not bat the ball, he didn't catch the ball either, he got a hand on it without grasping it, and flicked infield. The ball definitely travelled a short distance infield with his hand still in contact with it.

Your decision: Try or no try?

----

IMO, this is "no try" because the ball was put in touch by the player per Law 19 Definitions (6th and 9th paragraphs)

If your decision is "try", IMO, you are wrong in Law.

If your decision is "no try", but you still think that the Wade try was good, how do you reconcile the two decisions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pNSqt9Vo4s

 

[OB..]

The ball definitely travelled a short distance infield with his hand still in contact with it.

That is always going to be the case. Are you suggesting the TMO should time the contact in order to decide?

Law 19 says he can knock the ball but not hold it, Law 22 uses the word "carrying". Are these laws meant to be making the same distinction? Most players can hold a ball in one hand in the sense that their grasp is sufficiently strong to resist gravity. Knocking the ball eg with the flat of your hand, cannot achieve that. Will there always be some indeterminate in-between state?

Perhaps we are trying to divide the indivisible. A strip of paper is black at one end and shades off to white at the other. Is there a specific point where black becomes white? No, but that does not stop us from distinguishing black from white in the majority of cases.

The problem is that the referee has to make a black vs white decision on a shade of grey, and we are trying to tie it to a measurement.

Can we do that with other decisions, such as a deliberate knock forward vs an unintentional knock-on?

The game is full of judgement calls, and this is just another example.

 

[Ian_Cook]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pNSqt9Vo4s

huh???

 

[The Fat]

Firstly, I think Wade did wonderfully well to get to the ball.
However, in this instance it is absolutely clear that the TMO is aware of exactly what the 2012 clarification says as he tells the referee that the was on the ground when Wade made contact. The video would suggest otherwise.
As I said earlier, with no video & TMO it's a try. With a TMO who knows the law it should have been no try.

 

[Ian_Cook]

That is always going to be the case. Are you suggesting the TMO should time the contact in order to decide?

Law 19 says he can knock the ball but not hold it, Law 22 uses the word "carrying". Are these laws meant to be making the same distinction? Most players can hold a ball in one hand in the sense that their grasp is sufficiently strong to resist gravity. Knocking the ball eg with the flat of your hand, cannot achieve that. Will there always be some indeterminate in-between state?.

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.

While I agree that it is down to judgement, the use of the TMO allows for refined judgement. It allows play to be slowed down and examined to see what really happened. If you are going to get the TMO to look and see what really happened and then you make a decision that ignores what you see, then why bother even using the TMO at all.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Firstly, I think Wade did wonderfully well to get to the ball.
However, in this instance it is absolutely clear that the TMO is aware of exactly what the 2012 clarification says as he tells the referee that the was on the ground when Wade made contact. The video would suggest otherwise.
As I said earlier, with no video & TMO it's a try. With a TMO who knows the law it should have been no try.

Yup, this

I don't think the TMO decides it was OK for Wade to force a non-grounded ball down. I think he simply didn't see what we see; that the ball is not in contact with the ground then Wade first touches it.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Reading some of the replies here it seems to be that people are advocating a degradation of the laws of the game to reward skilful players and actions over "normal play". These guys are ELITE match officials officiating a professional game of rugby union which is subject to the laws of the game as set out by WR. Under the laws of the game the ball must be on the ground for the try to be awarded under 22.4. In this case it is not and so the law demands the TMO who is employed to make these very close calls in the pro game calls no try.

I can only assume that if Wade beats the entire opposition team and then goes over in the corner with his boot brushing the touch line before he grounds the ball the TMO is expected to award the try because it was "good skill in getting there".

As I said before if this is in your Sunday game and you're a team of one you may give it, but an elite TMO has to call no try.

At the highest level we must have the highest standards and if you allow 0.5cm to be the norm then soon 1cm is the slide point and then sure why not 2cm.

Law's the law and the law says no try.

 

[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.

While I agree that it is down to judgement, the use of the TMO allows for refined judgement. It allows play to be slowed down and examined to see what really happened. If you are going to get the TMO to look and see what really happened and then you make a decision that ignores what you see, then why bother even using the TMO at all.

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?

This reminds me of the ubiquitous 'gold and white OR blue and black dress' that's doing the rounds on the web. Ie you make a judgment call on what you see, and we all may see it slightly differently.

Having said all that, this thread has certainly highlighted the issue more clearly for me and makes me think about my judgment on such an event. It also highlighted that TMO has made law interpretation more pedantic - prossibly an unforeseen side effect of trying to correct the 'clanger' errors in the professional era.

 

[menace]

Reading some of the replies here it seems to be that people are advocating a degradation of the laws of the game to reward skilful players and actions over "normal play". These guys are ELITE match officials officiating a professional game of rugby union which is subject to the laws of the game as set out by WR. Under the laws of the game the ball must be on the ground for the try to be awarded under 22.4. In this case it is not and so the law demands the TMO who is employed to make these very close calls in the pro game calls no try.

I can only assume that if Wade beats the entire opposition team and then goes over in the corner with his boot brushing the touch line before he grounds the ball the TMO is expected to award the try because it was "good skill in getting there".

As I said before if this is in your Sunday game and you're a team of one you may give it, but an elite TMO has to call no try.

At the highest level we must have the highest standards and if you allow 0.5cm to be the norm then soon 1cm is the slide point and then sure why not 2cm.

Law's the law and the law says no try.

Right..that's it then, I'm never ever letting the scrum half dig the ball from a ruck. It's clearly hands in the ruck and that's it! PK the blighter every time!fftopic:epper: