Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

Its very likely that you could throw this up to a round table of professionals and get 2 or more distinct views.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Just had a look back at some of my old law books. The laws were "simpified" in 2018 and as per a few other situations, they actually made it less clear by combining and removing several definitions.

For what it's worth, prior to 2018, the relevant laws looked like this

Law 14 - Ball on the Ground - No Tackle

DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck. It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.

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.

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.

A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately

14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball

But since 2018, this part of Law 13.3 is new, and I'm sure we could all come up with situations where it contradicts 13.1 (eg the one we are talking about). So who knows what the law makers intend

A player on the ground in the field of play, without the ball is out of the game and must:

a. Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.

b. Not play the ball.

c. Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.

 

[Derpus]

Isn't it just if you go to ground in the act of gathering the ball then you are legal but if you go to ground and then gather the ball you are not.

He goes to ground in the act of making a tackle and not to gather the ball. Seems pretty simple...

 

[JRugby2]

It would be if the law included the phrase "in the act of", but it doesn't - or "while" or anything that would infer that a player who goes to ground, rolls and gathers the balls is illegal. It does use that terminology for other laws though - so whether this one is an oversight or intentional, who knows - but the lack thereof is relevant for mine.

He's still on his feet when the ball comes loose - so how can you be 100% sure that the tackle was the only intention? You're making an assumption either way.

 

[Braveheart81]

He's literally attempting a tackle. I don't know how you can argue he goes to ground for any purpose other than trying to make a tackle.

 

[JRugby2]

Because at the moment the ball is knocked loose he's still (lawfully) on his feet - how can you be certain he doesn't change his intention in the moment

(I hate using pictures only - but here the ball has just bounced, and Blackadder hasn't yet gone to ground)

 

[dru]

You take that as "on his feet"?

 

[Strewthcobber]

We did this a page ago, but anyway, it's not JRugby'2s definition, it's World Rugby's

On feet
Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground

 

[Tomthumb]

His body is being supported by a Reds player on the ground, so he’s off his feet in that still image via World Rugby’s laws

 

[JRugby2]

Probably the most egregious thing here is the ball is knocked loose and then forward off blackadders upper arm. How that was missed in the box is concerning.

 

[Derpus]

I think you need a degree of pragmatism when interpreting these laws. The dude made a tackle and, although the ball did come loose before he actually touched the ground, he still went to ground as part of the tackle.

 

[Derpus]

They miss pretty egregious knock-ons a lot. There was a terrible one in the Force v Reds game last week and then again in the Tahs v Force game this weekend. Both resulted in big momentum shifts too.

 

[JRugby2]

FWIW I don't disagree nor am I trying to completely dismiss the argument - but putting the knock on aside and if I'm in a try or no try situation, for me the moment the ball has come loose he's not yet clearly off his feet - so I'd go try.

But with that knock forward - I'd be surprised if this is the debate their having at the review table.

 

[Derpus]

This still supports the assertion that it was the act of tackling that took him to the ground, not the act of gathering the ball. I'd argue this still supports the common sense interpretation.

You can definitely infer from position and action what the mental state was. That screams 'I just made a tackle' not 'oh look im going to dive on the ground to grab that bouncing ball'.

He's nowhere near the ball and is on top of the bloke he just tackled.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I guess for me the pragmatic decision here is just to play on as the ref did, because it's not clear and obvious that there was an offense (which is often going to be true for laws where the ref has to guess at the player's intent).

Notwithstanding the knock -on!


Also WR (World Rugby), change the law!

 

[dru]

We did this a page ago, but anyway, it's not JRugby'2s definition, it's World Rugby's

SO a second rower going up for the ball is on his feet when airborne? Ditto a jump to catch a ball?

The bloke is crashing to the ground, any suggestion he is on his feet is utterly absurd.

 

[Dctarget]

What's the go on dragging players into touch who are tackled already? It was rightly penalised on the weekend in the 6N but I swear it's let go so often. It seems like it's just down to the ref's mood.

 

[John S]

What's the go on dragging players into touch who are tackled already? It was rightly penalised on the weekend in the 6N but I swear it's let go so often. It seems like it's just down to the ref's mood.

I'm assuming you're referencing a game on the weekend?

There were a few times in the Tahs v Reds game that both teams looked like they tried it, but I'm starting to put that game out of my memory.

 

[JRugby2]

What's the go on dragging players into touch who are tackled already? It was rightly penalised on the weekend in the 6N but I swear it's let go so often. It seems like it's just down to the ref's mood.

Top line - can't do it, once the tackle is complete you must release the ball carrier so they can release the ball. However as always context is important:

If you're tackling someone very close to the sideline in the natural motion of completing that tackle/ winning the collision you can get a piece of them over it - fair game. Up to the referee to interpret in that moment whether the tackle was complete or whether the momentum and dynamics of the collision took the ball carrier out fairly. Good players might be able to disguise a cheeky second effort.

Kinda similar logic to someone being tackled close to the tryline and reaching out to score, and that not being a double movement/ not releasing on the ground etc

 

[Strewthcobber]

14.5Tacklers must: a. Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.

That's the law. But there is no ref in the world who will take as hard a line on this as it reads. You are going to be able to hold on until "momentum" is gone