Deciding whether or not ball has been touched down...
- Thread starter j3ref
- Start date
I had this once, as I have mentioned before. A scrumhalf who had never played the position before picked up the ball which was on the "wrong" side of the scrum and went to feed it in from that side. The TH stopped him and he went to change sides, but I did not allow it. From discussion afterwards in the bar I think I was the only person on the pitch who knew that bit of law, but I didn't take a 30-man poll.
More recently a team tried to put a player back on after he had been knocked out and then gone off looking very dazed. They insisted that the referee could not over-rule their physio. He refused their arguments.
Presumably those who benefit from your decision would not complain, so you won't know if they think you are wrong.
By all means check up later, so that you know for next time. However the basic point is that you must referee according to what you think, not according to what you think that they think.
(Curiously enough, if you were wrong and they were right, I'd criticise you for being wrong, but applaud you for sticking to your decision. As long as you didn't do it again next time I saw you.)
More recently a team tried to put a player back on after he had been knocked out and then gone off looking very dazed. They insisted that the referee could not over-rule their physio. He refused their arguments.
Presumably those who benefit from your decision would not complain, so you won't know if they think you are wrong.
By all means check up later, so that you know for next time. However the basic point is that you must referee according to what you think, not according to what you think that they think.
(Curiously enough, if you were wrong and they were right, I'd criticise you for being wrong, but applaud you for sticking to your decision. As long as you didn't do it again next time I saw you.)
the first one is a pretty good example (although in reality if you had let it ride, somewhere on the pitch was bound to be a player or two who notice that you don't know the Law... so good on you for sticking to it).
in the OP it was one of fact - if actually both teams thought he had made the touchdown, and the referee was the odd one out, I'd wonder if he had made the right deicsion. In practice no doubt the opinions of the players were evenly divided, and the referee made the call -- which is what he is there for.
What would you do if the only ball avaialble was under the pressure prescribed by Law, but all the players were OK to play with it?
in the OP it was one of fact - if actually both teams thought he had made the touchdown, and the referee was the odd one out, I'd wonder if he had made the right deicsion. In practice no doubt the opinions of the players were evenly divided, and the referee made the call -- which is what he is there for.
What would you do if the only ball avaialble was under the pressure prescribed by Law, but all the players were OK to play with it?
Yep.
"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
- Samuel Johnston
Pressing or downards slapping action, ball squeezed out like an orange pip over DBL? Touchdown
Scooping action and ball goes over DBL? PK (and possible PT depending on proximity of defenders/attackers)
Punching action and ball goes over DBL? PK (and possible PT depending on proximity of defenders/attackers)
Intent is key!!
Last edited:
So Ian, you are not even vaguely interested in 22.11? Let alone 22.9 - you seem to be completely ignorant of what players actually do, but then again you seem to be full of yourself.
For my own part, I have not once seen a player scoop or punch the ball over the DBL, nor a PT awarded, but then again, I'm only approaching 100 games reffed and 1000 experienced (ok, more on both, but not that much), and the closest I can recall was a PT for deliberately knocking the ball into touch by a player on the ground about 3 yards out of goal in 1988.
In other words, you are bullshitting again, because not a single defender in the history of rugby has attempted to NOT ground a ball brought in there deliberately. But I will bow to your experience as to idiocy, should you so wish.
For my own part, I have not once seen a player scoop or punch the ball over the DBL, nor a PT awarded, but then again, I'm only approaching 100 games reffed and 1000 experienced (ok, more on both, but not that much), and the closest I can recall was a PT for deliberately knocking the ball into touch by a player on the ground about 3 yards out of goal in 1988.
In other words, you are bullshitting again, because not a single defender in the history of rugby has attempted to NOT ground a ball brought in there deliberately. But I will bow to your experience as to idiocy, should you so wish.
http://www.rugbydump.com/2009/12/1214/slaphappy-karmichael-hunt-learns-the-hard-way
The video has been removed due to copyright, but the text explains it well enough.
The video has been removed due to copyright, but the text explains it well enough.
Rushforth, I'm not in the habit of supporting our 'over the ditch' sporting foes, but I think you are seriously out of line with that response. Regardless of what you think of Ian from previous pissing contests you've had with him, that IMO was unnecessary.
Like dickie says above, I too have seen it a couple of times where a player deliberately knocks or bats the ball from in-goal over the dead ball line. Usually these players are rugby league converts, where such actions in-goal are permitted to prevent a try. (In RL the player who makes the ball dead matters, not who put it in-goal). The few times I've had it happen, I've never given a PT, but using some player empathy I have given a PK (as there was no oppo close enough that could have scored), and on other occasions I've let it go and had a word with the offender to let them know not to do it again (as the ball was just about to roll over the dead ball line anyway and there was no one in cooee).
Like dickie says above, I too have seen it a couple of times where a player deliberately knocks or bats the ball from in-goal over the dead ball line. Usually these players are rugby league converts, where such actions in-goal are permitted to prevent a try. (In RL the player who makes the ball dead matters, not who put it in-goal). The few times I've had it happen, I've never given a PT, but using some player empathy I have given a PK (as there was no oppo close enough that could have scored), and on other occasions I've let it go and had a word with the offender to let them know not to do it again (as the ball was just about to roll over the dead ball line anyway and there was no one in cooee).
A couple of points here:
1.I have refereed considerably more games than you and have seen this enough for it to be considered something worth considering.
2. With all due respect to your vast experience, I would have hard cash on Ian's refereeing and playing experience beating your somewhat narrow world view.
Your wording was rude and unnecessary. It's only made worse by being hyperbole and wrong, as other posters have proved.
God I hate defending Kiwis.
1.I have refereed considerably more games than you and have seen this enough for it to be considered something worth considering.
2. With all due respect to your vast experience, I would have hard cash on Ian's refereeing and playing experience beating your somewhat narrow world view.
Your wording was rude and unnecessary. It's only made worse by being hyperbole and wrong, as other posters have proved.
God I hate defending Kiwis.
I agree with the principle of keeping things as simple as possible for your own sake. But the fact is that any player has the option to pick up the ball in goal as well as the option to ground the ball. If an attacking player fumbles the ball whilst attempting to pick it up in the in-goal area, or succeeds in picking up the ball and then loses possession to a defending player, would it be correct to award the try? I don't think so.
Following the same principles and the laws of the game, I think it is just as important to distinguish between pickups/pickup attempts and proper groundings by defending players. Touching the ball whilst it is on the ground does not in itself constitute a grounding. I would say that a defensive touch down needs to be just as clear and deliberate as a try grounding
At the risk of doing this to death, here is another common enough scenario...
After a five metre scrum a scrum half throws a bad pass towards his ten who is standing in the pocket in-goal waiting to kick. The pass pitches on the ground at the feet of the ten who crouches down to pick it up but fumbles it split seconds before the attacking nine dives on it. I would say try!
Following the same principles and the laws of the game, I think it is just as important to distinguish between pickups/pickup attempts and proper groundings by defending players. Touching the ball whilst it is on the ground does not in itself constitute a grounding. I would say that a defensive touch down needs to be just as clear and deliberate as a try grounding
At the risk of doing this to death, here is another common enough scenario...
After a five metre scrum a scrum half throws a bad pass towards his ten who is standing in the pocket in-goal waiting to kick. The pass pitches on the ground at the feet of the ten who crouches down to pick it up but fumbles it split seconds before the attacking nine dives on it. I would say try!
Here's the video on Karmichael Hunts PT: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs8jfu_j12-biarritz-racing-metro-92-20-23_sport 50sec mark onwards
In keeping with the title of this thread
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BVYF2kBup_w
In the absence of a C&O separation of forearm and the ball then Try looks like the right decision ( notwithstanding the discussion wording betwixt officials)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BVYF2kBup_w
In the absence of a C&O separation of forearm and the ball then Try looks like the right decision ( notwithstanding the discussion wording betwixt officials)