[Law] What is the purpose ......

[ChrisR]

What is the purpose of the following paragraph from the definitions of Law 14:

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.

The first sentence of this paragraph is frequently referenced to support any number of law scenarios.

I believe that its purpose is quite narrow:

It prohibits a player, in possession of the ball, from deliberately going to ground (not in a tackle) to deny opponents access to the ball. It also prohibits a player from falling on the ball to make it unplayable.

I find it somewhat ironic that "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." is included in the definitions of the law that specifically allows players to go off their feet.

 

[L'irlandais]

Hi Maruader,
I did an intensive coaching course.

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet.

This is one of the fundamental principals of the game. It was probably part of the game even before the laws were formalized.
OB.. may be able to date it. For example the tackled player must release the ball became law in 1874, for the ball carriers own safety. This was because those holding on to the ball on the ground were getting rucked and kicked in the competition for the ball. So those off their feet are out of the game. It is that simple.

That more recent laws bring it into question is a shame. Our game has 4 guiding principals that have given it all it's appeal. Those rewriting the laws would do well to understand why the game works;
the professiona/TV game is denaturing the sport. :shrug:

 

[OB..]

Hi Maruader,
I did an intensive coaching course.
This is one of the fundamental principals of the game. It was probably part of the game even before the laws were formalized.
OB.. may be able to date it. For example the tackled player must release the ball became law in 1874, for the ball carriers own safety. This was because those holding on to the ball on the ground were getting rucked and kicked in the competition for the ball. So those off their feet are out of the game. It is that simple.

That more recent laws bring it into question is a shame. Our game has 4 guiding principals that have given it all it's appeal. Those rewriting the laws would do well to understand why the game works;
the professiona/TV game is denaturing the sport. :shrug:

[LAWS]1892 Free kicks by way of penalty shall be awarded on claims by the opposite side if any player, being on the ground, does not immediately get up.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]1911 Players must understand that the penalty will be inflicted if they interfere with the ball in any way while they are lying on the ground.[/LAWS]

However these seem to have evolved into current Laws 14 and 15, which allow limited options to a player on the ground with the ball. The question of a player being on the ground and subsequently playing the ball does not seem to have been addressed during this process.

As usual I am not that impressed by semantic arguments. They rarely give clear answers, so my question is what serves the game best? Given that my own preference is supported by the (unchallenged) decision of the officials. I am happy to accept their view.

 

[Dickie E]

[LAWS]The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet[/LAWS]

There are so many times that this isn't true that I consider it somewhat as a platitude. Translation: "yes, there will be times when you need to play the ball on the ground, just don't make it a habit"

 

[Blackberry]

This has been a great thread. To my mind, I have not found evidence compelling enough to sway me from my opening point; you can play the ball on the ground if you didn't get there by way of a tackle. There are other laws which tweak this (not diving on the ball near a tackle/ruck/scrum, must release if an opponent plays the ball etc) but in open play if you are on the ground for any reason other than a tackle, play the ball.

 

[L'irlandais]

I must confess the does not appear to be any mention of the definition in the first rules of Rugby football from 28th August 1845. But those are only 3 pages long.

 

[OB..]

This has been a great thread. To my mind, I have not found evidence compelling enough to sway me from my opening point; you can play the ball on the ground if you didn't get there by way of a tackle.

You discount the decision in the other thread?

In the courts we have Common Law and Statute Law. The former is set by judicial precedent and prevails unless specifically in conflict with Statute Law. We have an approximation to that in rugby where referees interpret the "laws" (which are somewhat less rigid than Statutes anyway). Sometimes their view actually conflicts (eg allowing scrumhalves to pick the ball out of a ruck).

 

[ChrisR]

You discount the decision in the other thread?

I think 'debate', rather than 'decision', would describe the other thread.

In the courts we have Common Law and Statute Law. The former is set by judicial precedent and prevails unless specifically in conflict with Statute Law. We have an approximation to that in rugby where referees interpret the "laws" (which are somewhat less rigid than Statutes anyway). Sometimes their view actually conflicts (eg allowing scrumhalves to pick the ball out of a ruck).

In rugby I think we have common practice rather than common law.

The reason that I started this thread is to take it away from a specific incident (or thread) so that we could see it in its proper context. that is, the paragraph in which it appears, making the ball unplayable.

If "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet" is a principle of The Game then why is it hiding in the definitions of a rather minor law.

PS. When we allow a SH to dig for the ball we do so to expedite the game under the stated rugby principle of Continuity.

 

[crossref]

The Laws talk a lot more about what you can do on the ground than what you can't do

 

[OB..]

You discount the decision in the other thread?

I think 'debate', rather than 'decision', would describe the other thread.

The decision i was referring to was that of the officials quoted in the OP of the other thread.

In the courts we have Common Law and Statute Law. The former is set by judicial precedent and prevails unless specifically in conflict with Statute Law. We have an approximation to that in rugby where referees interpret the "laws" (which are somewhat less rigid than Statutes anyway). Sometimes their view actually conflicts (eg allowing scrumhalves to pick the ball out of a ruck).

In rugby I think we have common practice rather than common law.

That was essentially the point I was making. We cannot rely on the written laws alone because we often use common practice instead, and it may well conflict.

The reason that I started this thread is to take it away from a specific incident (or thread) so that we could see it in its proper context. that is, the paragraph in which it appears, making the ball unplayable.

The real context is the game as a whole. As you must know by now, I am not comfortable with deciding these things by looking at the wording of the laws for the reason given above.

If "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet" is a principle of The Game then why is it hiding in the definitions of a rather minor law.

Maybe because that was the context in which the problem first came to the attention of the law-makers? What we have here is a piece of case law.

PS. When we allow a SH to dig for the ball we do so to expedite the game under the stated rugby principle of Continuity.

Yes, we do. That does not mean that continuity is always the deciding factor (as mentioned in the other thread on knock-ons).

It would be nice if the laws were fully interconnected and internally consistent, but they aren't, and referee-made custom causes the effective laws to change.

 

[SimonSmith]

The Laws talk a lot more about what you can do on the ground than what you can't do

Would it be more accurate to say "what you must do"?

You may have a range of options - place, pass - but obligations are placed on the man on the ground

 

[DocY]

Would it be more accurate to say "what you must do"?

You may have a range of options - place, pass - but obligations are placed on the man on the ground

Perhaps "can and must do"?

I read this section as "you can't do anything off you feet, apart from... which you must do". By convention, at least, I think that's what's meant.

 

[Blackberry]

Discount? Certainly not, There were some weighty and well thought out contributions from many sides. What I find is that some of us sway between saying either its the letter of the law or its become common practice (I guess that is statutory vs common to a degree) depending which interpretation suits their desired outcome.

We are considering open play. A full back running back falls over by the ball, he can flick it up to his winger. A centre who has fallen over, on finding a missed pass rolling towards him can pass it to a team mate, even a player who has been knocked over (not tackled) who happens upon a ball can pass it to a more fortunate team mate. The moment a player on his feet tries to play the ball all these options disappear in an instant, until then the player on the ground in open play is free to play the ball.

You discount the decision in the other thread?

In the courts we have Common Law and Statute Law. The former is set by judicial precedent and prevails unless specifically in conflict with Statute Law. We have an approximation to that in rugby where referees interpret the "laws" (which are somewhat less rigid than Statutes anyway). Sometimes their view actually conflicts (eg allowing scrumhalves to pick the ball out of a ruck).

 

[crossref]

indeed, arguing about the letter of the law here is fruitless, as the Law doesn't properly address this.

on the other hand sharing examples of scenarios that we have seen in real matches, or dealt with ourselves, and what decisions were made, and how players/coaches reacted, also looking at opinions expressed from time to time from authoritative sources is all very useful in establishing what actually is , or possibly is becoming common practice.

 

[Pinky]

This has been a great thread. To my mind, I have not found evidence compelling enough to sway me from my opening point; you can play the ball on the ground if you didn't get there by way of a tackle. There are other laws which tweak this (not diving on the ball near a tackle/ruck/scrum, must release if an opponent plays the ball etc) but in open play if you are on the ground for any reason other than a tackle, play the ball.

My rule of thumb is that you can only play the ball if you are off your feet when you are tackled or when you go to ground to gather the ball. There are a few others such as if a maul falls over you do not have to let go. Whilst I might be lenient on the player who slips over and then plays a ball that rolls towards him if there are no other players close enough to be inconvenienced, there have been a number of decisions recently where folks who were off their feet played at balls rolling past and they have (rightly in my view) been penalised.

 

[crossref]

Whilst I might be lenient on the player who slips over and then plays a ball that rolls towards him if there are no other players close enough to be inconvenienced, there have been a number of decisions recently where folks who were off their feet played at balls rolling past and they have (rightly in my view) been penalised.

In summary if a player happens to be on the floor and the ball rolls past and he plays it, he might or might not be PK'd.... it depends on the circumstance

I think that's a pretty good summary of where we are at the present, the Law isn't quite clear and common practice isn't consistent.

 

[DocY]

In summary if a player happens to be on the floor and the ball rolls past and he plays it, he might or might not be PK'd.... it depends on the circumstance

I think that's a pretty good summary of where we are at the present, the Law isn't quite clear and common practice isn't consistent.

Perhaps, but the image I have of what Pinky's describing is something like two players fielding a long kick with no opposition around, the first player trips over his own feet just before the ball, then flicks it up to his team mate before getting back to his feet. I think penalising such a thing would be showing a distinct lack of empathy for the game.

On the other hand you have a prop lying down having a breather a few meters behind a ruck, the ball squirts out towards him and he flicks it up to a team mate. I think this is quite a different situation and I would (and have) penalised.

TBH, I suspect (nearly) everyone knows where this should be penalised and were it shouldn't (despite the vagaries of the law book) and I'd expect almost all referees to handle the same situation in the same way.

 

[crossref]

Perhaps, but the image I have of what Pinky's describing is something like two players fielding a long kick with no opposition around, the first player trips over his own feet just before the ball, then flicks it up to his team mate before getting back to his feet. I think penalising such a thing would be showing a distinct lack of empathy for the game.

On the other hand you have a prop lying down having a breather a few meters behind a ruck, the ball squirts out towards him and he flicks it up to a team mate. I think this is quite a different situation and I would (and have) penalised.

TBH, I suspect (nearly) everyone knows where this should be penalised and were it shouldn't (despite the vagaries of the law book) and I'd expect almost all referees to handle the same situation in the same way.

quite.

for a knock-on the Law book is clear, and we penalise every knock on, even if there is no opponent within 50m, and even if the player is really unlucky (eg was looking in the other direction). we don't think that penalising a really unlucky, remote, immaterial knock on shows a lack of empathy, it's just the Law.

but when you are on your knees looking for a contact lens, or tying a lace and the ball comes in your direction, and you grab it while on your knees, and then stand up with it -- the Law isn't quite so clear, so real life decisions vary....

If the Law was ever clarified it would likely go one of two ways
a) that the player who happens to be on the ground is exactly the same as the player who goes to ground (with the same options and duties)
b) the player who just happens to be on the ground must get up before he can play the ball.

personally I predict that the Lawmakers would one day go with (a). If you go with (b) we'd be forced to penalise all sorts of immaterial events, such as the ones you describe.

 

[DocY]

If you go with (b) we'd be forced to penalise all sorts of immaterial events, such as the ones you describe.

I'm not sure we'd have to. 'Always material' infringements are very much the exception rather than the rule (I can only think of knock-on, throw forward and foul play) and that makes sense and doesn't even need stating in the law book - though maybe I'm hard-wired to think that. I don't think it'd make sense for playing the ball on the ground to be considered in the same category.

TBH though, I think we'll be waiting a long time for the lawmakers to change anything - I can't see this being an issue that's come to their attention.

 

[Camquin]

Oddly if their is an opponent near enough for the knock on to be material they often gather the ball and we play advantage.

Funny game, but we love it.