JRugby2
Alex Ross (28)
Its very likely that you could throw this up to a round table of professionals and get 2 or more distinct views.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Strewthcobber
David Codey (61)
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
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
For what it's worth, prior to 2018, the relevant laws looked like this
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
JRugby2
Alex Ross (28)
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.
Last edited:
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
Alex Ross (28)
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
David Wilson (68)
You take that as "on his feet"?
Strewthcobber
David Codey (61)
Derpus
Phil Waugh (73)
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
Alex Ross (28)
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
Phil Waugh (73)
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 no where near the ball and is on top of the bloke he just tackled.
Strewthcobber
David Codey (61)
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!
Notwithstanding the knock -on!
Also WR (World Rugby), change the law!
Last edited:
dru
David Wilson (68)
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.