[In-goal] What would you give (without TMO)

[TheBFG]

I don't think I've seen this one discussed, should be a good one :wink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT0qtuzorEM

What would you give?

 

[didds]

poor bugger !

Ive watched it about half a dozen times in real time, once ot check for knock on by the blue player that dives and missed .

As it happened? no replays or help?

could go either way. I think it depends on how closely he ,managed to watch the feet of the blue player that flipped it back. If he was watching something else, or had a blocked view, then its not C&O so no try. Not sure what to restart with, presumably a 22 d/o.

didds

 

[The Fat]

OK,
This is an interesting one that I know at least 2 members on here that will be salivating over.

1st look at full speed:
Hard one to call today, but will be easy to call with new law trials for 2017.
The AR is in the best position (out of Ref and AR) to make a decision but doesn't, which is disappointing at that level (obviously scared the camera will show something he doesn't see). The AR moves in-goal but does not move quick enough to get best position (he could have) which is on the DBL. Had he been on the spot, he would have seen that the ball and the player carrying it were both over the line when his foot left the ground and he then released the ball.
The correct decision, and I believe that GJ gives the TMO a hint at what he's looking for, is that the player is in touch when he releases the ball.
If I was the referee, without replays or a TMO, I probably would have awarded the try because it would not have been clear and obvious to me, from where GJ was (or from where I might have been), that the player hadn't released the ball before lifting his foot or if he still carried the ball after lifting his foot.
I would have awarded the try and would have been wrong. In 2017, I would have been right.

2nd look with video (disregard the TMO's decision):
Player is in touch (which is what GJ hinted at) before releasing the ball.

Prediction:
This thread will go to at least 165 posts

 

[crossref]

Law references needed!

 

[didds]

This is merelky me trying to lern, not a dig.

how is the ball carrier in touch when he releases the ball? he is nowhere near the touch line, only the DBL?

Presuming you mean dead-in-goal / over the DBL, he never has the ball when in contact with the ground past the DBL.

didds

 

[The Fat]

This is merelky me trying to lern, not a dig.

how is the ball carrier in touch when he releases the ball? he is nowhere near the touch line, only the DBL?

Presuming you mean dead-in-goal / over the DBL, he never has the ball when in contact with the ground past the DBL.

didds

There is a clarification from 2015??? I think, that says the DBL is to be treated the same as the touch-in-goal line for determining if a player is in touch. It came about following the George North try where he batted the ball back as he slid over the DBL the placed a hand on the ball for a 22.4(g) scenario

 

[The Fat]

Law references needed!

Law 19 Definitions
Also see my reply to didds

 

[Balones]

There is a clarification from 2015??? I think, that says the DBL is to be treated the same as the touch-in-goal line for determining if a player is in touch. It came about following the George North try where he batted the ball back as he slid over the DBL the placed a hand on the ball for a 22.4(g) scenario

clarification 1-2012?

 

[didds]

OK - so accepting the DBL is included in "touch" ... how is he in touch when no part of him is touching anything over the dbl while he is holding the ball?

didds

 

[Balones]

L19 definitions.
If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

 

[The Fat]

DEAD-BALL LINE TO BE TREATED AS TOUCH-IN-GOAL LINE From SA Refs website

30 Jul 2014
The IRB has spoken and for purposes of deciding about in in-goal or not, the dead-ball line is to be treated as the touch-in-goal line.
This follows debate following a try by George North in the Pro 12 League and a try by van Wyk at ]Craven week and a near try for the Hurricanes in Super Rugby.
The matter was discussed on this website - http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-two-tries-at-cravenweek/2830201/ - and on Rugby365 - http://www.rugby365.com/article/61214law-discussion-tries-at-craven-week. (In the Rugby365 case there are clips to go with the article.)
Currently there is a problem in the wording of the law: Law 22.4 (g) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.
The problem is that no mention is made of the dead-ball line.
André Watson, the manager of SA Referees, referred the matter to the International Rugby Board who are rugby's lawmakers.
He received the following reply: "To this date referees have treated the dead ball line the same as the touch in-goal line.
"A try scored by George North for Llanelli Scarlets against Cardiff Blues with Derek Bevan as the TMO got it spot on in accordance with that interpretation."
With a bit of luck the law will be made clearer.

 

[The Fat]

clarification 1-2012?

Sorry Balones,
I thought it was a Clarification in Law but it appears that it was a response to Andre Watson from the IRB.

Clarification 1-2012 deals with what constitutes a player "carrying/holding" the ball in relation to a 22.4(g) situation and specifically how a player "guiding" a bouncing ball is to be interpreted when that player is in-touch.

 

[didds]

L19 definitions.
If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

but neither of those cover the scenario in the clip, which was a ball carrier with a foot just inside the DBL falling over the DBL, and throwing the ball back in field - possibly with his feet now both off the ground - but with no part of his body in contact with anything in touch ie over the DBL


He didn't jump and catch - he carried and threw infield before he became in touch/DBL

didds

 

[menace]

Presumably then the touch-in-goal line also has a plane of touch like the touch line? And as we are supposed to treat the DBL as a touch in goal line. So not withstanding as alteady pointed out that the player didnt land back in the field of play - both the ball and the player were past the plane of touch (and I believe both feet were not in field of play) and so ball has to be in touch?

I probably would have ruled no try and that it had been kicked through dbl and I would have awarded option to defending team. But not 100% sure I would have been right .

 

[didds]

I may have missed a nuance along the way (forgive me, I'm just a coach trying to understand ;-)

So if his foot had remained in contact at all times withing the in-goal area it would have been a try, but the moment his boot leaves a blade of grass its a 22 drop-out?

ouch.


So while this is actually RL, this wold have been no try in RU and in touch?

View attachment 3487

didds

 

[Camquin]

The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

But the ball carrier did not touch the ground beyond the touchline until they released the ball.
SO we now go back to:

The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

But it didn't and the next player to play the ball was in the in-goal.

 

[menace]

Has to be both feet too (or two )

Im not saying Im saying right. Just how i would have interpreted it based on the ARU 'lineout your call' document. But hey ARU are known to make it up too.

 

[menace]

Ie this one.

 

[didds]

except that talks about a kick that has crossed the plane of touch before being played.

as opposed to a ball that is being carried by a player that starts in the field of play, and never touches the ground etc outside of it while he continues to hold the ball.

surely?

didds

 

[menace]

I may have missed a nuance along the way (forgive me, I'm just a coach trying to understand ;-)

So if his foot had remained in contact at all times withing the in-goal area it would have been a try, but the moment his boot leaves a blade of grass its a 22 drop-out?

ouch.


So while this is actually RL, this wold have been no try in RU and in touch?

View attachment 3487

didds

Not what i was meaning? I would allow this in ru as ball had nit crossed plane.

except that talks about a kick that has crossed the plane of touch before being played.

as opposed to a ball that is being carried by a player that starts in the field of play, and never touches the ground etc outside of it while he continues to hold the ball.

surely?

didds

Good point. But that is not exclusive to a kick? But i thought it just crossed the plane before he grabbed it.. " a player in touch may kick or knock the ball but not hold it provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline"