Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

For what it's worth, World rugby's research shows players who undergo the coaching intervention are much less likely to reoffend.

No comment on taking a week off the penalty though

 

[Braveheart81]

In the under 20s Australia vs New Zealand last night, am I losing my mind or late in the game did a kick from New Zealand bounce along the ground, bump into the corner post, bounce back into the field of play and the referee called play on?

I get that the law says the following:

21.15 If the ball or ball-carrier touches a corner flag or corner flag post without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues unless the ball is grounded against the post.

That makes perfect sense that if the ball is in someone's possession and they are trying to score then touching the corner post isn't out. It's off the ground etc. but when the ball that no one is possessing touches the corner flag and then bounces back in, I find it completely nonsensical that it is considered not to have gone out.

 

[Strewthcobber]

That makes perfect sense that if the ball is in someone's possession and they are trying to score then touching the corner post isn't out. It's off the ground etc. but when the ball that no one is possessing touches the corner flag and then bounces back in, I find it completely nonsensical that it is considered not to have gone out.

That's how it's interpreted.

You can get some real interesting situations on occasion with that one

 

[Braveheart81]

That's how it's interpreted.

You can get some real interesting situations on occasion with that one

This has to be close to the most insane thing in laws.

You could very easily amend the law such that the ball touching the corner post whilst in someone's possession isn't out but a loose ball touching the corner post is touch in goal.

You're allowing something to rebound off a physical item that is outside the field of play and saying it hasn't gone out.

 

[Derpus]

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Can a player who's not on his feet effect a charge-down?

 

[Derpus]

Assuming a charge-down requires the player to 'play the ball' then no. If it was accidental then I don't think it would be a charge down?

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. Sanction: Penalty.
b. Not play the ball. Sanction: Penalty.
c. Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent. Sanction: Penalty.

I don't see how you can get around the above to do the below:

11.5 There is no sanction, and play continues, if:
a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

So if the kick hits you & goes forward off you it's* a knock-on, correct? Asking for my friend Nic Berry.

* at least.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

This has to be close to the most insane thing in laws.

You could very easily amend the law such that the ball touching the corner post whilst in someone's possession isn't out but a loose ball touching the corner post is touch in goal.

You're allowing something to rebound off a physical item that is outside the field of play and saying it hasn't gone out.

Is it that radically different from a ball that hits the goal posts that would have otherwise gone dead? Noting the goal posts are not on the perimeter of the field. Or from the player in touch that is allowed to knock the ball?

 

[Derpus]

So if the kick hits you & goes forward off you it's* a knock-on, correct? Asking for my friend Nic Berry.

* at least.

Knock forward When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it. [previously knock-on]

Seems like it, yeah. Knock on if its kicked into the hand or arm of a prone player and they didn't play at it or penalty if they did.

That said - it would kind of make more sense to just be play on if they didn't play at it IMO.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Berry called it a charge-down which by definition is played at, no? Sorry to be going on about it but that's just flat-out wrong by the Laws as opposed to a differing interpretation thereof isn't it?

 

[Wilson]

I don't think there's any requirement for you to have actively played the ball for a charge down, as stated in 11.5 it's just a special case in the knock on rules. As I read it there's nothing that says you can't charge the ball down while off your feet, at least if it's kicked into you without you actively playing at it.

 

[Derpus]

Berry called it a charge-down which by definition is played at, no? Sorry to be going on about it but that's just flat-out wrong by the Laws as opposed to a differing interpretation thereof isn't it?

If its a knock on immediately after its kicked (ie hits his arms and he didnt play at it) then there is no sanction. The definition of knock on allows for it to occur without the player actively playing at it so it follows the same holds for a charge down (which is just a knock on right after a kick).

Edit: Which means I was wrong to begin with.

 

[Derpus]

It is a bit weird hey. Means you can charge the ball down accidently while off your feet but if you do it intentionally its a penalty.