Wales v SA Chris White

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,872
Post Likes
114
Was it just me that clearly heard Chris White call, on at least two occasions, when a retreating player went to ground to gather a ball "LET HIM UP!" :wow:
 

Tibbs


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
136
Post Likes
0
Didn't notice it myself, but then again I was blind drunk by that time...

Enjoyed the match though - I've been on way too many school tours of Wales to be non-biased...

Tibbs
 

KML1


Argentina Referees in Argentina
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
1,200
Post Likes
63
Location
England
Current Referee grade:
Elite Panel
What's wrong with that?? Personally I prefer "Do something" but most refs would go for 'let him up'.
 

PeterH


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
709
Post Likes
0
KML1
Why?

I was told by my Soc (and thought we had all agreed on here that all of our Soc's approach was) that to shout "play the ball" as it solves 2 problems...

The man on floor must release IF the player on feet goes for ball...
Also - it's a gentle reminder to the man on feet not to flop onto the prone player...
Based on - man on feet is the boss...

Sorry - meant to add...
I hear players shouting every week " he has to let him up"... No he doesn't - but he DOES have to play the ball
 

Deeps


Referees in England
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
3,529
Post Likes
0
Keith,

I and no doubt others would be interested as to why you think that 'Let him up' is a good call? What about the rights of the man on his feet? Apart from human rights I cannot think what rights the man on the floor with the ball has?
 

jboulet4648


Referees in America
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
568
Post Likes
0
Because the man does not have to let him up.....he must allow the player on the ground to do one of three things, but does not have to let him up....this was discussed in earlier forums.
 

PaulDG


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,932
Post Likes
0
What's wrong with that?? Personally I prefer "Do something" but most refs would go for 'let him up'.

If the ref needs to say things, would you also go for: "shoe him out of the way" at the breakdown?

Lots of people think that's legal too.
 

Account Deleted

Facebook Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,089
Post Likes
1
What's wrong with it? It is not correct that is what is wrong with it!
Funnily enough this "let him up" came up in our Society meeting last night. The agreement was you don't have to. You have to comply with Law.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
As has been expressed many times on this forum, the idea that the man on his feet with positive play in mind has to stand meekly by while the player on the deck gets to his feet is just totally wrong. It's a huge misconception, unsupported in law, and it's depressing to realise that the misconception is shared at Panel and elite level, and not just the pub exiles on a Saturday afternoon.

Interestingly enough, our Aussie colleagues had never heard of any suggestion that the grounded player had to be given all the rights until members of this forum started moaning about the calls of "let him up" emanating from the touchline. They are utterly bemused. KML, you suggested that most refs would opt for "let him up". I think you've yet to find one, other than Mr White (who represents pretty useful company, it has to be admitted!).:swet:
 

Account Deleted

Facebook Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,089
Post Likes
1
Interesting call at one line out where he pinged SA for an "Early lift" Surely he has to call it "early support".
I know what he means but still.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,477
Post Likes
1,686
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Interestingly enough, our Aussie colleagues had never heard of any suggestion that the grounded player had to be given all the rights until members of this forum started moaning about the calls of "let him up" emanating from the touchline. They are utterly bemused. KML, you suggested that most refs would opt for "let him up". I think you've yet to find one, other than Mr White (who represents pretty useful company, it has to be admitted!).:swet:


This is true - I've never heard it here.
 

Greg Collins


Referees in England
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
2,856
Post Likes
1
and it's depressing to realise that the misconception is shared at Panel and elite level, and not just the pub exiles on a Saturday afternoon.

I have never been exiled from a pub in my life!
 

Deeps


Referees in England
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
3,529
Post Likes
0
Because the man does not have to let him up.....he must allow the player on the ground to do one of three things, but does not have to let him up....this was discussed in earlier forums.

Actually, JB I do believe you have the wrong emphasis even now.

Man on floor with ball, man on feet wanting ball. Law 14 Definition 'The game is to be played by players on their feet... A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and spirit of the game and MUST BE PENALISED [my capitals].'

Man on floor 'MUST IMMEDIATELY' [mine again] do one of three things...; he does not usually have the time, nor the permission of the referee, nor the indulgence of the player on his feet who is waiting to play the ball to choose which one but he must do one of the three without making the ball unplayable. The player on his feet is fully entitled to the ball which the man on the floor may not make unplayable nor may he obstruct the player on his feet from access to it.

The ONLY, only thing the player on his feet must do is to remain on his feet, that is all.

Your mindset must be in support of the attacking player demanding the ball, providing that he remains on his feet of course. Ask yourself has the player on the floor done enough so as not to make the ball unplayable. In my book he has but a nano second to play it or get away from it so that the player on his feet's rights to the ball are not impinged.

Protecting the ball and screaming 'he has to let me up' while delaying in order for his own side to support cuts no ice here. It has the potential of a PT if close enough to the goal line or even on halfway as I saw once in the World Sevens Series.
 
Last edited:

PeterH


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
709
Post Likes
0
I would love to see the face of the full back as we trot off backwards towards the try line - arm aloft!! :)
 

Pablo


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
1,413
Post Likes
112
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Newboy's observation is correct - the most useful thing a referee can call here is "Play the ball" - it's a clear, positive instruction to both players, and neatly encapsulates its own explanation if either party fails to comply.
 

jboulet4648


Referees in America
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
568
Post Likes
0
Actually, JB I do believe you have the wrong emphasis even now.

No my emphasis was what I meant. The player on his feet does NOT have to let the player get up. Players on the ground must do one of three things with the ball. Players on their feet have the ability to limit the options of players on the ground, as long as they do not dive on them. If he so choosed, the player on the feet can hold the player on the ground down(why he would want to do this if he could play the ball, I do not know but he could if he wanted) as long as he allows the player to release the ball or pass the ball. To shout Let him up, or play the ball are inaccuracies, and misguiding, since the ref is coaching the player to go in a certain direction. Saying "Stay on your feet" or "keep your feet " would be a more neutral position to take in this instance of play based on law.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
We've missed you, Judah. Welcome back.
 

Deeps


Referees in England
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
3,529
Post Likes
0
Judah,

I take your point and my apologies if I came across a little strongly but I do hold that we do not give the player on his feet sufficient room to manoeuvre although the law to me is clear. As a group we get twitched about safety to the point that we allow it to affect game play when there is no reason to do so, thus effectively negating any dues to which the man on his feet is entitled. When a player catches a ball from a kick do we call 'Don't tackle the ball carrier until he returns to the ground'? No we don't, so there is no justification in applying restraint on he who has the greater right to the ball in a Law 14 situation by advising him to 'Stay on his feet'.

I do contend that the primary aspect of game play here is that the player on the floor does not in any way make the ball unplayable and therefore he can only exercise the options open to him which meet this fundamental requirement.

Too often the man on the floor is trying to make the ball unplayable long enough so that his support can arrive, invariably by choosing the option that will take him longest to perform which is getting to his feet with the ball. Ostensibly he can sell this as being a legal option because, as a breed, we allow him to get away with his limited interpretation when we should be applying the whole law in the spirit in which it was intended to be used.

My interpretation, given the very clear definition statements, is that he may only take whichever of the options allow him to comply with the whole law, primarily that he does not make the ball unplayable, not just the bit that he thinks he can get away with as compliance.
 
Top