Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

Just watched it. Made a tackle. Ball came loose - he's still on his feet. He goes to ground near to the ball, roles over it, secures possession and then releases it.

I'm OK with that.

If he was on the ground before the ball came loose, then probably a penalty. Given he was on his feet when the ball was there to be won, and in open play, I think we are in 13.1 territory.

Others may have a different opinion.

 

[Braveheart81]

Really? I think he's off his feet from the moment he makes the tackle and should get back on his feet before playing the ball.

 

[Tomthumb]

He was literally never on his feet. Made a tackle, ball came off him, he rolled over on his knees and picked the ball up

 

[JRugby2]

I think they got these right in the end. The law is specifically that a player must not do anything "reckless or dangerous to others including ... jumping into, or over, a tackler."

That clearly applies in the Welsh case where he jumps directly towards and over the tackler, whereas the tackler is coming at Taumoefolau from the side and he jumps away/out of the way. I don't think what he does is reckless or dangerous - there's no leading knee or foot to create risk given where the tackler is, so the try should stand (as it did).

I think side by side neither pass the pub test. Adds to the narrative of inconsistent refereeing

 

[Strewthcobber]

Ok. Let's go through it.

He was on his feet approaching the ball carrier.

He never made a tackle as there was no tackle made. Ball carrier lost the ball before that, so we are still in general play phase.

The laws define when you are off your feet - Players are off their feet when any other part of the body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.

This doesn't happen until the ball has spilled well away from the collision. I don't think 13.3 applies because when the ball is loose he is on his feet and able to gather it (even if he's falling from the collision)

Law 13.1 permits you to play the ball on the ground

 

[JRugby2]

Ok, I'll change my mind. I agree with this.

He's on his feet, albeit stumbling when the ball comes loose (no reds player is in the process of taking possession so the ball is loose), and therefore can dive on a loose ball and immediately play it.

 

[Tomthumb]

Only if you are going to ground to gather the ball, or going to ground with the ball, neither of which he was doing

He was on the ground in the field of play, therefore he cant play the ball

 

[Tomthumb]

But he didn't dive on the ball, he was on the ground facing the other way, rolled over and picked the ball up while on his knees. He was in no way going to ground to gather the ball

 

[JRugby2]

Has everything to do with the timing of events rather than how he fell, where he fell etc. Provided he was on his feet when the reds lost possession (which he was) the law allows him to do this. He could have crawled there and still been fine.

 

[Tomthumb]

Which law allows him to do this?

 

[JRugby2]

13.1

 

[Tomthumb]

"Players, who go to ground to gather the ball or who go to ground with the ball, must immediately:

Videos
a. Get up with the ball; or

b. Play (but not kick) the ball; or

c. Release the ball."

This law?

 

[JRugby2]

Yes

 

[Tomthumb]

But he didn't go to ground to gather the ball and didn't go to ground with the ball, so how is this applicable?

 

[Braveheart81]

This is my take. Blackadder is on the ground without the ball after making the tackle. He hasn't left his feet to secure the ball but does secure it without ever regaining his feet first.

 

[JRugby2]

The reason I disagree with that is because there is no way to prove his intent was to only make a tackle, and nothing else - you can only infer this or guess that was the case (FWIW, I agree here - most likely the case).

And while that may have been the original intent, as soon as the ball came loose you can equally infer that his intention was to gather the ball - but his momentum from the tackle put him in an awkward position to do so. Since he's on his feet at the time the ball pops loose, he can go for it.

The other element of him falling the wrong way, rolling over I also don't think is relevant because the wording of the law doesn't infer it is.

All throughout the book it uses wording like "directly", "immediately" or "close" when it wants to add clarity - but for whatever reason for this law it doesn't. So my read is that the ball could be loose in one corner of the pitch, and you could go to ground to gather the ball in another and technically crawl there and still have gone to ground to gather the ball.

 

[Strewthcobber]

My take on law 13.1 is this is an instruction to players on what they have to do once they gather the ball. The important part is he did, in fact, gather the ball

a) players who stay on the feet to gather the ball have to do X
b) players who go to ground to gather the ball have to do Y

Players, who go to ground to gather the ball......, must immediately.....Release the ball.

 

[Tomthumb]

There is also no way to prove his intent was to gather the ball, so that's hardly the greatest reason to explain why it shouldn't have been a penalty

Surely unless it's clear and obvious that someone is diving on a ball, rule 13.3 should come into play?

 

[JRugby2]

Exactly, so there is no reason to judge either way. A player's intention is for better or worse, completely irrelevant. You make a decision based on what the law says and what actually happened.

And maybe? But I don't think it is - because of the timing of when the ball became loose and when he fell. For example - I think if it had played out like he was one defenders across to his right, and someone else made the tackle to knock the ball the ball loose - if he had tripped on his shoe laces or something and was off his feet while the Reds player still had the ball then regathered - then 13.3 comes into play.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it comes down to whether the player went to ground to regather the ball or were they on the ground already and then regathered the ball.

I can't see how you can watch that footage and decide that the player wasn't already on the ground independent of trying to regather the ball.

I guess this highlights why refereeing is difficult though. I posted this here thinking that there'd be pretty broad agreement that the player on the ground played the ball however that clearly isn't the case.