I must admit I thought it was clear but obviously not. Yes a grounding makes a ball dead. But in this context there is doubt. In other situations such as held up, maul driven into touch, pileup, etc, I am suggesting that there is no doubt. (Even as it has been pointed out, attacking foot in touch or even an attacking knock-on - there is no doubt.) Doubt = scrum - attacking ball/side going forward before doubt. - Anywhere on pitch.
50:22 from a free kick
- Thread starter lawsons
- Start date
no, I don't get it! In this scenario, there is no doubt the ball is dead.
- if it was grounded it's dead
- if it was held up it's dead
Unless, maybe what you are saying is that
- you can't apply either 21.16 or 21.17 because you don't know what happened.
- therefore award a scrum [which coincidentally just happens to be the same outcome as 21.17]
I can see that argument. It's subtly different to Phil's argument which is that 21.17 applies.
- if it was grounded it's dead
- if it was held up it's dead
Unless, maybe what you are saying is that
- you can't apply either 21.16 or 21.17 because you don't know what happened.
- therefore award a scrum [which coincidentally just happens to be the same outcome as 21.17]
I can see that argument. It's subtly different to Phil's argument which is that 21.17 applies.
Last edited:
If it was held up there was no doubt. It was definitely and clearly held up.
i edited my post #62 as you replied. hopefully I have grasped your argument now...
Unless, maybe what you are saying is that
- you can't apply either 21.16 or 21.17 because you don't know what happened.
- therefore award a scrum [which coincidentally just happens to be the same outcome as 21.17]
I can see that argument. It's subtly different to Phil's argument which is that 21.17 applies.
number11
Referees in Wales
Sounds like Schrödinger's Try? 
If the ball is grounded: Try
If the ball is held up: GLD
If the ball cannot be seen under a pile of bodies: Attacking scrum 5, as it can be neither discerned to be grounded nor held up.
I think player knowledge of the last one would entice attackers to pile on, while defenders try and stop them.
If the ball is grounded: Try
If the ball is held up: GLD
If the ball cannot be seen under a pile of bodies: Attacking scrum 5, as it can be neither discerned to be grounded nor held up.
I think player knowledge of the last one would entice attackers to pile on, while defenders try and stop them.
If you have an unsuccessful maul in goal that has been taken into goal by the attacking side you have in effect a pile up. This pile up and lack of availability of the ball was caused by the defending side. In normal play this results in a turnover ball. (In general play this results in a scrum to the side that didn’t take it into contact.) In in-goal a turnover would I suggest nowadays mean a GLDO. The defending side made it dead by creating a pileup. (Unsuccessful maul.) There is no doubt involved. If you didn’t have a pileup you would have a try.
Well, GLDO is what I would give. Phil was arguing for a scrum . I got the impression you were as well
I am confused!
Because a maul cannot exist in goal we may have doubt about who caused the pileup I suppose. My logic is that if you don’t have a clear grounding then you must have it held up, even if it is in a pileup. My experience of seeing this at the highest levels leads to a GLDO.
I agree completely (it's what I said in #47)
If in doubt it is a scrum. When there is a pile up I don’t have any doubt. The ball was killed by the defenders, therefore GLDO. Doubt is in the mind, don’t have any. Unless you are certain that you can’t tell who grounded it first or it may have been simultaneous. (Not a theoretical concept I know.)
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
Phil, what would be done in this scenario:
Speedster ball carrier is tackled by speedster chaser in the corner and on the goal line. By the time you get there the ball carrier is on his back with ball on chest but claiming he grounded it. Would the RFU be suggesting 5m scrum?
This has been an interesting discussion, but @shebeen you should have started a new thread ! It has nothing to do with whether you can achieve a 50/22 from a FK !
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
this makes little sense to me. You could just as legitimately have said that you don't have any doubt that it is a try. You can't see what happened ie you can't see the ball being grounded but likewise you can't see the ball not being grounded. If you said to the players that you have no doubt that the ball was held up, you wouldn't be telling the truth
this is one of a grassroots referee's worst nightmare, as there is no easy answer.
Basically a ref needs to be close enough to make a credible decision, and - if you weren't close enough - then your decision isn't credible.
I don't think this is a Laws question, I think it's a game management / player management question, and the best decision might well depend on context (eg what's the score?)
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
talk me through the "what's the score?" decision process
Well if a team was losing 50-3 with two minutes to go it would be that much easier to decide that you did get a good view of the touchdown from 20m away and give the try. 50-8 with one minute to go ..
But don't attack the answer , as there is no real answer other than you should be closer
how would you deal with it?
But don't attack the answer , as there is no real answer other than you should be closer
how would you deal with it?
Last edited:
The law is quite clear on this one isn't it?
If I haven't seen the ball grounded then I cannot give the try. I learnt a long time ago that making stuff up (i.e. what you "think" happened) comes back to bite you on the arse.
I can see the ball is clearly held up so that would be a GLDO. I am assuming the tackler is holding the ball up as well and preventing a grounding, otherwise the ball carrier could just ground it as I got here.
Explain to both Captains I didn't see a grounding, so cannot award the try. Move on.