• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Held up/goal line drop out "gray area".

Volun-selected said:
Maybe I’m missing something? For me, the 5m s rum is for when I see the ball grounded but I’m not sure who grounded it, not if I’m unsure there was a grounding In the first place.

If I see a ball carrier diving to ground the ball then either they are successful and I see it grounded and deal with that, otherwise I consider it held up. I rarely (maybe one game a year) have an actual ref running touch so it’s all on me and this is how I quickly process this scenario.

Genuine question: Am I wrong in this interpretation of the law?
Click to expand...
That is how I would do it too but it isn't backed up in law hence why we are discussing it.
Grounded = try. Held up = GLDO.
But law is silent on the fairly common occurrence of ref being unable to determine if grounded or held up. There is a reasonable & sound argument for "stoppage for any other occurrence" = scrum
 
Dickie E said:
That is how I would do it too but it isn't backed up in law hence why we are discussing it.
Grounded = try. Held up = GLDO.
But law is silent on the fairly common occurrence of ref being unable to determine if grounded or held up. There is a reasonable & sound argument for "stoppage for any other occurrence" = scrum
Click to expand...
I think we are haveing to decide one of the fallowing:
1: Probably held up = GLDO
2: Probably a TRY = TRY
3: I have no idea either way = Scrum 5 Attacking ball

As the law stands we have to judge one of those. Give a clear a confident call which ever one you go for.

But, perhaps, Crossref is right. The Lawmakers maybe need to remove doubt. Should the Law makers ammend 21.7 to read:

DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING

If there is doubt about which team first grounded, or whether the ball was grounded at all, the ball in in-goal, play is
restarted with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.
 
Marc Wakeham said:
But, perhaps, Crossref is right. The Lawmakers maybe need to remove doubt. Should the Law makers ammend 21.7 to read:

DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING

If there is doubt about which team first grounded, or whether the ball was grounded at all, the ball in in-goal, play is
restarted with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.
Click to expand...
Certainly agree with referee doubt about a decision being removed. Can support the amendment.
 
Marc Wakeham said:
I think we are haveing to decide one of the fallowing:
1: Probably held up = GLDO
2: Probably a TRY = TRY
3: I have no idea either way = Scrum 5 Attacking ball

As the law stands we have to judge one of those. Give a clear a confident call which ever one you go for.

But, perhaps, Crossref is right. The Lawmakers maybe need to remove doubt. Should the Law makers ammend 21.7 to read:

DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING

If there is doubt about which team first grounded, or whether the ball was grounded at all, the ball in in-goal, play is
restarted with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.
Click to expand...
This is based on the notion that the lawmakers would want a scrum to be one of the options
I believe that the law makers basically don't want 5m scrums after pile ups (because it encourages pile ups) and the answer will be : guys, it's either a try or a gldo
(and they will tweak the law to make that clearer)
 
reasonable points from CR, and on reflection I think he is right regarding WRs view of 5m scrums. The latest law tweaks/tests show that WR want to move away from scrums and resets etc so Cr's points make sense.
Though yes indeed, a law clarification is in order so as to make that clear and universal.
 
Another instance of the TV people influencing the Laws to suit TV.

What about the grass-roots part of the game where a scrum is a chance to at least catch your breath. If we do not retain scrums in something like their previous/present form we have lost the game for "All shapes and sizes" (Don't get me started on not-straight and off-set feeds, I thought it was supposed to be a contested restart rather than a waste of time).
 
crossref said:
This is based on the notion that the lawmakers would want a scrum to be one of the options
I believe that the law makers basically don't want 5m scrums after pile ups (because it encourages pile ups) and the answer will be : guys, it's either a try or a gldo
(and they will tweak the law to make that clearer)
Click to expand...
I would not disagree with you as to the Desires of WR. However, I feel there is something inherently wrong with a "guess" call. Credibility goes out of the window. But WR has "often" paid lip service to such matters.
 
Last edited:
Phil E said:
Rubbish article. Scotland were denied by their aimless kicking and failure to attack in the second half. If you leave it till the last minute you have to live with the consequences.
Click to expand...
Two weeks in a row, Scotland held up over the line when the clock is red.

They need to take a leaf out of the Exeter book and shift from relying so heavily on 1m carries to attack the try line in a world where the defence is looking to hold the ball up... that old tactic is no longer reliable.
 
Stu10 said:
Two weeks in a row, Scotland held up over the line when the clock is red.

They need to take a leaf out of the Exeter book and shift from relying so heavily on 1m carries to attack the try line in a world where the defence is looking to hold the ball up... that old tactic is no longer reliable.
Click to expand...
Tactical naivety?

Most heads are focussed in and space is out wide, but this is frequently negated by encroaching players. I would consider this an area for greater consideration for penalty tries, but the attacking team need to show some ambition to at least score a try.

Ben Earle carrying 4 defenders over the line from the base of the scrum for the likelihood of a try being scored?
 
BikingBud said:
Tactical naivety?

Most heads are focussed in and space is out wide, but this is frequently negated by encroaching players. I would consider this an area for greater consideration for penalty tries, but the attacking team need to show some ambition to at least score a try.

Ben Earle carrying 4 defenders over the line from the base of the scrum for the likelihood of a try being scored?
Click to expand...
Earl's try was amazing and arguably shouldn't have happened, but I think has a higher likelihood of scoring compared to some of the 1m pick and drives that we typically see.

I've learned from playing touch rugby that it is often easier to attack from 10m out than from the 5m line... defenders are more spread out, they are more concerned that you might pass the ball, and you have more space to move the defenders and find a gap. Very close to the line, there is no space for you to move laterally, the defence starts very close and in your face, and everyone knows what you are going to do.
 
Stu10 said:
Earl's try was amazing and arguably shouldn't have happened, but I think has a higher likelihood of scoring compared to some of the 1m pick and drives that we typically see.

I've learned from playing touch rugby that it is often easier to attack from 10m out than from the 5m line... defenders are more spread out, they are more concerned that you might pass the ball, and you have more space to move the defenders and find a gap. Very close to the line, there is no space for you to move laterally, the defence starts very close and in your face, and everyone knows what you are going to do.
Click to expand...


and Id add to that spot on analysius, more modern in goals arent very deep typically so the dribble and chase is less likely from 5m out now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top