• 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

Scoring while on the ground

J

jeremy

Member
Attacking team kick & chase toward the corner flag. An onside attacking player races to beat defenders to the ball.
The ball dribbles to a halt just over the goal line.
The attacker dives towards it but slides to a halt just short of the goal line.
While still on the ground, he reaches a hand out and applies downward pressure on the ball.
Defenders are arriving but he touches just before they do.

What's the decision if (other than his reaching hand):
a) The player remains entirely within the field of play?
b) The player's foot is on the touch line as his hand makes contact with the ball?


My thoughts:
a) No try, PK against attacker
- 13.3b applies (player on ground in field of play)
- 18 does not apply (no touch)
- 21.9 & 8.2e do not apply (no touch)

b) Try
- 13.3b does not apply (player not in field of play)
- 18.2d applies (player in touch but not holding ball)
- 21.9 & 8.2e apply (player in touch but not holding ball)

I realise my pedantic interpretation of Law 13 is the problem here.

What decisions and explanations would people consider reasonable?

What other factors might affect the decision in either case? (Continuity of motion/delay of action, deliberate/accidental foot placement...)
 
He has gone to ground with the express intention of playing the ball, so I'd consider 13.1 to apply. I think 8.2.d and e also indicate a general favourable view of allowing the try unless explicitly contraindicated.

I can certainly understand the other argument though.
 
I think you said it yourself - you're being pedantic re: Law 13. IMO, 13 is more for when a player falls on a loose ball but the defender is on their feet and attempting to play it.

If the attacker stumbles going to ground to play the ball and falls short, what makes a PK to the opponent an equitable outcome?
 
smeagol said:
I think you said it yourself - you're being pedantic re: Law 13. IMO, 13 is more for when a player falls on a loose ball but the defender is on their feet and attempting to play it.
Click to expand...
The prohibitions on playing the ball don't mention opponents - but the other sections of the same laws are explicit prohibitions on preventing opponents from doing so.

smeagol said:
If the attacker stumbles going to ground to play the ball and falls short, what makes a PK to the opponent an equitable outcome?
Click to expand...

What's equitable about allowing him to play the ball while off his feet?
 
My main issue with 13.3 is that its wording restricts it to players in the field of play. Logic would suggest those words are there for a reason. But experience suggests that any such reason is probably perhaps not very rigorously thought through.

In any case, the whole scenario suggests that a player finding himself in such a situation (and deciding he has no time to get to his feet) might do well to very clearly reach for the touchline at the same time as reaching for the ball.

(Edit to add)

Although in this case a less risky approach might be to place his other hand on the ground in-goal rather than in touch. No longer in the field of play, but not in touch either. And applicable across the entire width of the field, not just near the touchlines.
 
Last edited:
tim White said:
21.9If a player is in touch or touch-in-goal, they can make a touch down or score a try by grounding the ball in in-goal provided they are not holding the ball.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is actually the weirder law - but the lawgivers consider it so important that they gave it twice (8.2e says the same thing).
 
Very sad. You don't need to blow for the "offence" so it is completely accurate you do need t oblow for the try. also completely accurate.


Get a life!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top