• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Slim 293

Slim 293

George Smith (75)
Derpus said:
What are the relevant rules about playing the ball in the in-goal? Presumably you can as people diving on the ground to try and stop a try happens every time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to suggest it was legal for at least this reason.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
JRugby2 said:
Is it legal though? Why/ why not? Clear release, playing the ball off feet?
Click to expand...

There's no requirement to release in goal.

I would say that this was adjudicated correctly. I don't think it has reached the stage of being held up. If the NZ player hadn't lost the ball and had rolled over with it away from Levi it would have been a try.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Vay Wilson (31)
21.10 If a tackled player is in the act of reaching out to ground the ball for a try or touch down, defending players may knock the ball backwards, or pull the ball from the player’s possession but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.
Click to expand...

This is the closest we get. Though 13. Players on the Ground in open play - make it less clear if this is legal.

13.3 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.
Click to expand...

Open play - The period after a kick-off, restart kick, free-kick, penalty or set piece and before the next phase, or the period between phases of play, excluding when the ball is dead.
Click to expand...

I think you have to determine whether Madi is allowed to play at the ball when she's off her feet / or whether she even plays at the ball at all (kinda looks like the NZ player just lets go?)
 
Ignoto

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
Seems to me like the NZ player simply let go of the ball into Madi's arms.

Madi made contact with the ball before being on the ground, didn't move her arm to suggest she was playing it whilst being on the ground. She simply wrapped the player up and they just so happen to lose control of the ball.

If the NZ player had better ball control it would have just been a held up try.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Vay Wilson (31)
Ignoto said:
Seems to me like the NZ player simply let go of the ball into Madi's arms.

Madi made contact with the ball before being on the ground, didn't move her arm to suggest she was playing it whilst being on the ground. She simply wrapped the player up and they just so happen to lose control of the ball.

If the NZ player had better ball control it would have just been a held up try.
Click to expand...
To me it looks like there is a little tug.
 
D-Box

D-Box

Cyril Towers (30)
I think the question for the Levi one is about whether Levi took possession as part of the tackle or after the tackle. Once the tackle is completed, you must release the player and definitely cannot play on the ball. During the tackle, you can do what you like. This looks like part of the tackle rather than after.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Vay Wilson (31)
D-Box said:
I think the question for the Levi one is about whether Levi took possession as part of the tackle or after the tackle. Once the tackle is completed, you must release the player and definitely cannot play on the ball. During the tackle, you can do what you like. This looks like part of the tackle rather than after.
Click to expand...
A tackle can only occur within the field of play, once it moves in-goal you have different laws applying.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Vay Wilson (31)
Shiggins said:
Hmmmm. I thought if you lift a player past Horizontal it's a penalty now. If you drop them on head and shoulders it's a yellow
Click to expand...
It might appear that way, but there is more nuance. This is the law
9.18 A player must not lift an opponent off the ground and drop or drive that player so that their head and/or upper body make contact with the ground.
Click to expand...
In practice:

Lift above horizontal, lands on side/ lower back - YC
Lift above horizontal, lands on shoulder/ neck head - RC
A lifting tackle that doesn't meet that criteria above but is still awkward/ dangerous for those involved - PK (but this would technically be law 9.13)

So yes, a lift past horizontal is still technically legal if they land safely, as per the above.

If you were to lift a player into a dangerous position, but them safely revert them back to their feet - I think most referees would (should) let that play.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
Love a good fringe case!

JR has hit the nail on the head. Can't have a tackle in goal (or a ruck, scrum or maul) so none of those laws apply.

It's in the In-goal - but there is no law in that section around playing the ball off your feet etc, and it appears that the requirements for "held up" aren't met.


21.10 If a tackled player is in the act of reaching out to ground the ball for a try or touch down, defending players may knock the ball backwards, or pull the ball from the player’s possession but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.
Click to expand...

So legal to get hold of the ball. What's legal next? Are we are on the ground in open play?

Back to arguing why she went to ground here again!

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

a. Get up with the ball
Click to expand...
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Vay Wilson (31)
Fortunately, the foreword of the law book gives us some clarity for situations like this:

It is the duty of the referee to apply fairly all the laws in every match, including law trials and variations as authorised by World Rugby - and in the event some cool shit happens, ignore them.
Click to expand...
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
Tackle technique had nothing to do with the RC so why would you put him into a program designed to address poor tackle technique?

Rugby talks a good game about protecting players then it goes & does this.

At best the third week should be suspended & added to the suspension for a similar offence in the next 12-18 months.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Vay Wilson (31)
Sure, but the other side of the coin is this way we get consistent sentencing for all dangerous tackles

There was an article about Hunter Paisami doing "tackle school" a while back and it said the content of the lesson was he had to watch the clip of the incident, identify what he did wrong and then demonstrate what he could do differently in the same scenario to mitigate the danger. You could apply all of this to the Withy incident.
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

John Hipwell (52)
It's worth noting that Tackle School is the colloquialism for the Coaching Intervention Programme - nothing in that name to suggest it's just relevant / applicable to tackles.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
No professional rugby player should need to be taught that sliding knees-first towards an opponent who's on the ground is dangerous. Even if you don't get his head as occurred here there's still ribs & limbs on the menu. It's straight-up dangerous play & needs to be dealt with as such.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Vay Wilson (31)
waiopehu oldboy said:
No professional rugby player should need to be taught that sliding knees-first towards an opponent who's on the ground is dangerous. Even if you don't get his head as occurred here there's still ribs & limbs on the menu. It's straight-up dangerous play & needs to be dealt with as such.
Click to expand...
Agree - but the same argument could be made about not bending at the hips in contact, or tucking your arm by your side.

We have the "tackle school"/ coaching intervention so at least it is consistently applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top