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

[crossref]

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.

He'll correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that Ian is in the 'always material' camp for this one.

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.

I dunno, it seems a question that is often asked, SA Refs seem to have dealt with it twice, I wouldn't be surprised to see it come up as an official clarifcation at some point.

 

[crossref]

On this thread we might also consider what is the purpose of this Law
[LAWS]

15.6 Other players
(a)
After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

After a tackle, players on the ground cannot play the ball
After a tackle, players in the ground cannot play the ball

So this really does imply that, at other times, players in the ground can play the ball. Otherwise the Law is redundant and plays no purpose.

 

[Camquin]

If I were applying legal standards to the laws I would agree that "the exception proves the rule"
However, the laws seems to have been written in a stream of conciousness.
In the discussion of the position of the scrum 5, we found the answer in a discussion of a charge down - nobody claimed that if there was no charge down it would not apply. However, that might be because we all thought it said what we thought it ought to say.

This is the only definition of what we mean by "on their feet" and we apply that elsewhere - e.g. at rucks.

As discussed in the other thread on this subject, we are all grabbing on the evidence to support our side of the argument.

 

[crossref]

As discussed in the other thread on this subject, we are all grabbing on the evidence to support our side of the argument.

indeed -- but I don't really have a side - my viewis that the Law is ambiguous and we can't settle this argument definitively by looking at the Laws.

[If it WAS possible to settle it using the Laws, then we wouldn't be having the argument]

I was just noting that some parts of the Lawbook point us one way, other parts point us the other.

 

[Ian_Cook]

On this thread we might also consider what is the purpose of this Law
[LAWS]

15.6 Other players
(a)
After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

After a tackle, players on the ground cannot play the ball
After a tackle, players in the ground cannot play the ball

So this really does imply that, at other times, players in the ground can play the ball. Otherwise the Law is redundant and plays no purpose.

No, this is referring to other players at the tackle, i.e. tackle assists, jacklers and and arriving players.

Furthermore, the exception in 15.6 (a)....

[LAWS]Exception: Ball goes into the in-goal. After a tackle near the goal line, if the ball has been
released and has gone into the in-goal any player, including a player on the ground, may
ground the ball.[/LAWS]

...actually infers the opposite of what you are saying.

The fact that there is an exception allowing players in the in-goal to play the ball when they are off their feet, strongly infers that they are not allowed to play the ball when they are off their feet in the field of play. Otherwise, why the need for an exception?

To refer back the OP's question, "What is the purpose?" What is the purpose of the exception if it is not to allow players to do something that they otherwise are not allowed to do?

 

[DocY]

indeed -- but I don't really have a side - my viewis that the Law is ambiguous and we can't settle this argument definitively by looking at the Laws.

Agreed - it's not the only place the lawbook is ambiguous. But I do still think this is just a problem in the wording and I'm quite sure of what the intent was.

If it WAS possible to settle it using the Laws, then we wouldn't be having the argument

Having a clearly-written lawbook would be no fun at all!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Agreed - it's not the only place the lawbook is ambiguous. But I do still think this is just a problem in the wording and I'm quite sure of what the intent was.


Having a clearly-written lawbook would be no fun at all!

If Laws were clear, there would no need for Lawyers.

This rather reminds me of a DVD I once heard of an after dinner talk by a chap called David Gunson, an ex-RAF fighter pilot who ended up as an Air Traffic Controller. In it he said something like this...

"The reason for having Air Traffic Controllers is a bit hazy. The chances of two aircraft being at the same place at the same time is so remote that it is not worth worrying about. All we do at Air Traffic Control is to force them down narrow corridors, thereby increasing the risk of collision, and therefore justifying the job of Air Traffic Controllers to keep them apart!"

 

[ChrisR]

Furthermore, the exception in 15.6 (a)....

Exception: Ball goes into the in-goal. After a tackle near the goal line, if the ball has been
released and has gone into the in-goal any player, including a player on the ground, may
ground the ball.

...actually infers the opposite of what you are saying.

The fact that there is an exception allowing players in the in-goal to play the ball when they are off their feet, strongly infers that they are not allowed to play the ball when they are off their feet in the field of play. Otherwise, why the need for an exception?

The exception referenced above applies specifically to players at a tackle: Law 15

"Law 14 Ball on the Ground - No Tackle" applies specifically to situations other than a tackle.

 

[Christy]

What would opinions be of following.
Maul in progress 5 players at each team legally bound .

Ball carrier team ( ball carrier goes to ground )
His team mates & opposition go to ground .legally
( just trying to paint a clear picture )

The ball carrier whilst on floor with ball at his disposal .
Does not him self pop ball to supporting players who are on their feet ..

But his team mate who was also involved in maul , who is now also on floor , reaches over & pops ball to a team mate
( no time dealay , it done straight away )
Who then in turn catches ball & plays on accordingly .

Q) should the team mate , who was legally in maul , who by default ended up on floor , who was not thr ball carrier , then handles the ball on floor .

Imagine your team is in world cup final ( im from wales , so im strugling with imagining this at moment )
And the opposition is the person who got popped the ball from the non carrying ball player in maul as described & he runs in a try ) & that score wins world cup

Are you shoting at tv ,,,he cant do that
Or do feel , the player off his feet in maul , who was not the ball carrier , can legally play ball . So you except try stands.

 

[didds]

If it all happened really fast, then maybe like the final ruck player pushinmg the ball back with bhis hand then let ti go in the interests of "allowing the game to flow".

This at the elite level where they make it up (in line with the RWC final example).

At Old wobbleybottoms 4th XV versus Snadchick Ackies 5th XV... probably let it go rather than have the 876th scrum of this half.

didds

 

[didds]

WRT ball coming to the player on the ground.

FWIW my 2p. Which isn't probably worth that much anyway.

Its clear the law does NOT address this scenario for whatever reasons, and I imagine its cos the maw makers haven't contemplated it.

So I sympathise with the simple and easy to follow "players on their feet" argument.
Though equally I am sympathetic to "if its not specifically outlawed then let it go" line.

As long as a ref was consistent within himself/a game given the lack of definitive direction from WR/a union I think that's all we cam expect.

Q: how many times a season do you as refs see this "ball comes to a player already on the floor" ? (straight question!)

didds

 

[DocY]

What would opinions be of following.
Maul in progress 5 players at each team legally bound .

Ball carrier team ( ball carrier goes to ground )
His team mates & opposition go to ground .legally
( just trying to paint a clear picture )

The ball carrier whilst on floor with ball at his disposal .
Does not him self pop ball to supporting players who are on their feet ..

But his team mate who was also involved in maul , who is now also on floor , reaches over & pops ball to a team mate
( no time dealay , it done straight away )
Who then in turn catches ball & plays on accordingly .

Q) should the team mate , who was legally in maul , who by default ended up on floor , who was not thr ball carrier , then handles the ball on floor .

Imagine your team is in world cup final ( im from wales , so im strugling with imagining this at moment )
And the opposition is the person who got popped the ball from the non carrying ball player in maul as described & he runs in a try ) & that score wins world cup

Are you shoting at tv ,,,he cant do that
Or do feel , the player off his feet in maul , who was not the ball carrier , can legally play ball . So you except try stands.

So to summarise:
Maul, BC goes to ground, another player who wasn't the BC, but went to ground at the same time as the BC, then plays it?

If the ball touches the ground, then he's handling in the ruck whether he's on his feet or not.

If it doesn't then what?. Should it be treated as him going down to collect the ball, or being on the ground and receiving the ball? I'm inclined to think the former and play on. Unless it was to Wales' detriment, of course.

Interesting point about popping the ball out though. It would look strange, but I can't think of any way it'd be an infringement if done immediately.

 

[DocY]

Q: how many times a season do you as refs see this "ball comes to a player already on the floor" ? (straight question!)

didds

Once or twice this season, as far as I can remember (previous seasons blur into one, but I reckon similar numbers). A few times I've had a player move towards the ball while off their feet on top of that.

 

[chbg]

This rather reminds me of a DVD I once heard of an after dinner talk by a chap called David Gunson, an ex-RAF fighter pilot who ended up as an Air Traffic Controller. In it he said something like this...

"The reason for having Air Traffic Controllers is a bit hazy. The chances of two aircraft being at the same place at the same time is so remote that it is not worth worrying about. All we do at Air Traffic Control is to force them down narrow corridors, thereby increasing the risk of collision, and therefore justifying the job of Air Traffic Controllers to keep them apart!"

It is indeed an excellent 50 min monologue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM

 

[crossref]

Q: how many times a season do you as refs see this "ball comes to a player already on the floor" ? (straight question!)

didds

I am not sure I have ever seen it.
I do see players on the floor after a tackle playing the ball, because that's the scenario where a player finds himself on the floor, with the ball unexpectedly within reach. But after a tackle there is no doubt.. it is clearly illegal.

 

[Blackberry]

It is indeed an excellent 50 min monologue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM

He also asked why do they have frosted glass on the toilet windows in aircraft?

 

[Dixie]

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.

I don't believe this interpretation in any way flows from the words, nor is intended. Let me outline a fairly common scenario:

At a set play following a lineout, Red #12 switches with Red #10 and makes deliberate contact with Blue 7. That contact is made by a shoulder driven into Blue 7's midriff, followed by an immediate fall to ground with the ball presented back. Red forwards converge above the ball and set up a ruck, with fast ball delivered out to Red #10 to distribute now that Blue #7 is tied into the ruck.

There is no way this is a PK offence. Red ball carrier has deliberately gone to ground in the absence of a tackle to deny Blue #7 the opportunity to use his greater strength to strip the ball, but has done so entirely legitimately. Any ref pinging this would lose credibility instantly.