That's an accidental offside against the flanker though not the SH. But true the scrum-half's actions are part of the cause.
Dropped ball in maul
- Thread starter Dickie E
- Start date
didds
Resident Club Coach
I think what was meant by picking the ball up the team mates in front of the ball carrier were now accidentally offside ?
Interesting point. I guess they're pre-bound at that point. Idk if one would call that offsides or more so the truck and trailer angle. But it seems like either are true. Thanks!
For me, none of the opposition players are “over the ball” and you need at least one from each team over the ball to form a ruck.
If it is a ruck, it’s clearly been won by the team that was mauling and so I’m still comfortable for the ball to be picked up.
For me, if it’s not a knock on, it’s just a loose ball on the ground. It needs to be moved or played away immediately, otherwise an accidental or penalty obstruction call is in order.
I think that's too tight of an application of the definition. In a different example, picture a tackle that just occurred and a supporting player of the ball carrier's team who immediately steps over the ball that the tackled player placed at their back foot simultaneously. A player from the other team then engages that player over the tackled player. This would surely be considered a ruck, despite the ball not being directly under (in the middle) between the two engaged players.
Sorry I should have used the full definition of a ruck and that covers it.
Whether it meets knock-on criteria or not?
Shelflife
Referees in Ireland
Sometimes you have to take the path of least resistance or the path where you protect yourself as a referee.
In this instance you have a situation where a penalty may well be the technically correct decision but it will be a hard sell, the easier sell is to give a KO and there's no issue with it.
Another scenario is where blue kick the ball through and red collect it and make it dead, its very close as to whether its taken over the try line by red or not.
You have a 50:50 call to make. You can give blue an attacking scrum 5m out or a goal line drop out, the easier sell is the GLDO, blue will still get the ball back in an attacking position and red aren't pissed off with you over giving blue a prime attacking platform 5m. Both teams happy , referee happy.
Its a complicated enough job, dont make it harder for yourself.
I don’t expect referees to ‘sell‘ decisions. In fact I don’t like the term. I expect them to make the correct decision. If they don’t know what is the correct decision then the next step is the most equitable one.
In the OP the referee deemed that the ‘drop’ did not meet knock-on criteria. I’ve no problem with that. He may or may not have been correct. We don’t know without seeing it for ourselves. I am supporting his decision based on what he saw and decided. He was totally correct with his next decision as far as I am concerned and support that. He was not asking about a possible knock-on. He was asking if his second decision was correct. Again I say he was.
In the OP the referee deemed that the ‘drop’ did not meet knock-on criteria. I’ve no problem with that. He may or may not have been correct. We don’t know without seeing it for ourselves. I am supporting his decision based on what he saw and decided. He was totally correct with his next decision as far as I am concerned and support that. He was not asking about a possible knock-on. He was asking if his second decision was correct. Again I say he was.
If he doesn't drop it, I wont blow it.
I can't see in the middle of a maul which direction the ball has left the hands, its impossible, so I am going with knock on every time.
I agree with you, but I find the general consensus around reffing rugby interesting in that being technically correct seems to be less important than in other sports, for certain cases.
I suspect it's the similar mindset on why a knock-on is commonly called for a dropped ball from hands that went straight down, or when it accidentally bounces off the foot of the ball carrier before it hits the ground, and clearly wasn't intended to be a kick. I don't agree with calling a knock-on in either scenario, because I like to be pedantically correct usually. But I've observed I'm usually in the minority on this.
That’s right.
I assume the maul was safe.
No law was broken but the referee doesn’t know what happened so equity can be applied if necessary.
After that a law was clearly broken.
No problem.
We don’t know how the ball was dropped in this scenario. It may have been dropped while the ball carrier was passing it back. That definitely is not a knock-on. Dickie it seems deemed there not to have been an issue. A knock-on has to go forward off the hands/arms. What was absolutely clear was that we had hands in ruck.
I’m prepared to support a referee whatever decision he makes and gives the correct reason for his/her decision. If you tell them you saw a knock-on then no problem. Dickie gave them a decision which the players accepted.
No need to sell it. It was clear and obvious and in line with law.So he sold the decision
Yea, again, I agree with you and your perspective. I was just rationalizing the thought process I see from other refs, of being technically correct isn't always most important it seems (despite me personally liking being as accurate in determination as possible). I think a ball dropped straight down is not a knock-on, but many would disagree lol.