USA Rugby In-goal Matrix
- Thread starter Marc Wakeham
- Start date
Volun-selected
Referees in America
The table is trying to capture a number of differing permutations, but I generally find it easy to follow.
The two blank cells in the âneitherâ columns, I canât think of an in-goal scenario this could happen that isnât already covered.
In the maul example, most likely itâs the attacking team who carry it in, though I guess a defending team could start a maul on the line and get pushed back in. Then whatever happens in-goal that results in the ball ending up in TIG or over the dead ball line, or grounded by defenders seem to covered by the table.
Even the more esoteric scenarios such as âAttackers ground ball in goal and simultaneously touch on or over TIG or DBL = 22mDO regardless of how ball got in goalâ are covered in the list below (end even notes that âThis law is almost never invokedâ)
So is it just the choice the word âneitherâ that is concerning you, or are there specific examples where you feel the matrix or notes underneath would lead someone to issue the wrong ruling?
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
The table is trying to capture a number of differing permutations, but I generally find it easy to follow.
Observation: Except its errors
The two blank cells in the âneitherâ columns, I canât think of an in-goal scenario this could happen that isnât already covered.
Observation: So why are they there?
In the maul example, most likely itâs the attacking team who carry it in, though I guess a defending team could start a maul on the line and get pushed back in. Then whatever happens in-goal that results in the ball ending up in TIG or over the dead ball line, or grounded by defenders seem to covered by the table.
Observtion: So why the "Neither" Column
Even the more esoteric scenarios such as âAttackers ground ball in goal and simultaneously touch on or over TIG or DBL = 22mDO regardless of how ball got in goalâ are covered in the list below (end even notes that âThis law is almost never invokedâ)
Observtion: So why the "Neither" Column.
The table is a "curate's egg" "good in parts". However, an "official document should not just be good in parts. It should be good full stop. USA Rugby should have taken the timeto get it right and WR should have double checked it.
Observation: Except its errors
The two blank cells in the âneitherâ columns, I canât think of an in-goal scenario this could happen that isnât already covered.
Observation: So why are they there?
In the maul example, most likely itâs the attacking team who carry it in, though I guess a defending team could start a maul on the line and get pushed back in. Then whatever happens in-goal that results in the ball ending up in TIG or over the dead ball line, or grounded by defenders seem to covered by the table.
Observtion: So why the "Neither" Column
Even the more esoteric scenarios such as âAttackers ground ball in goal and simultaneously touch on or over TIG or DBL = 22mDO regardless of how ball got in goalâ are covered in the list below (end even notes that âThis law is almost never invokedâ)
Observtion: So why the "Neither" Column.
The table is a "curate's egg" "good in parts". However, an "official document should not just be good in parts. It should be good full stop. USA Rugby should have taken the timeto get it right and WR should have double checked it.
What errors do you reckon you have found @Marc Wakeham ?
Rich_NL
Well-known member
The options are
1) that it rolls/flies out, not made dead by anyone in the in-goal, in which case you look at the rows (who brought it in, and how), or
2) that it's held up, in which case the referee declares the ball dead.
At least in the second case, neither side makes the ball dead - the referee does so by blowing the whistle. The players can keep playing on until the ref decides to blow. In every other case, there's a criterion to be met - a foot on the line, ball is lost forward and hits the ground, etc etc. Held up is a referee call.
So they could have called the "Neither" column "Referee" and kept only the second column, and then moved the first column to "attackers" as "ball kicked dead through TIG/DBL from FoP". And for completeness, copied to "defenders" as well.
And while we're on about completeness, Defenders' restart kick gets blown back into their in-goal (or a GLDO goes 5 and bounces back into in-goal) isn't covered by this table.
5m attacking scrum for both ?
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
I've already told you. Do keep up.
Ah, I gathered that you were saying that you don't think the table is very clear. Fair enough
I missed where you point out any errors
Is there a scenario (s) where the table gives the wrong answer?
Last edited:
thepercy
Referees in America
I agree that the word neither is unnecessary. I'll contact my people to see if it can be removed, until then just pretend/imagine it's not there. Any other revisions to the chart needed?
Volun-selected
Referees in America
Why? Because this was knocked up on an Excel or google spreadsheet and so they had 2 cells that would never happen. So rather than write âignoreâ or ânot possibleâ they typed in ---. Since there is no way youâd ever end up on those cells, is this even material?
AFAIK this was never an official doc for global publication like the laws app. This was put together for the US, and ran past WR who gave it the OK. It then got widely shared because most refs found it useful when the GLDO update came out.
The 2 unnecessary cells are simply a vestige of trying so create a simple, easy to follow table that I think does the job they intended.
So, to say the sheet is wrong, can you describe any scenario in-goal that would end up on those 2 cells?
Or would you be happy if we just replaced the word neither with âOther Scenariosâ and filled in those 2 cells solid black or N/A?
To say the sheet is wrong because of the âneitherâ column - please describe a scenario where using that sheet I would end up on one of those two --- cells.
I cannot think of any other in-goal permutation where using that sheet I would give the wrong decision.
Volun-selected
Referees in America
Rich_NL
Well-known member
You're quite correct - I missed that! And of course, if the attackers ground it, it's a try (which is specifically marked in the table).
It's a useful resource, I'm always surprised WR doesn't have an additional guidelines/summary/interpretation document to keep this sort of thing (and man off tables, summaries of guidelines/clarifications, etc) in one place.
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
It was still made dead by someone!
The players made it dead by making it unplayable. The referee blows the whistle to bring order. The criteria is the ball being unplayable. You ufail to get it down you have caused it to go dead.
I'm glad yo unow ad mit neither is a nonsense. Does notr need t obe called referee it just is not needed.
Thank you some common sense! It's a good effort but as with most official rugby releases contains issues. I'm not sure why Crossref is getting so defensive.
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
We've been through this. back on ignore I think! Bye!
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
Well yes they could have tidied the rough edges and make it really official. thankfully The Precy is going to push a tidy up in. So that is great news. At least the USA addressed the general issue.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
No, I think you're wrong. The referee decides at what point it's dead, there is no concrete action of a player or team - it could be after a second, or five seconds, or ten. Just like when a referee decides a ruck or maul is dead - the criteria then is which team was going forward/had the ball/is in the opponent's half, because it's not down to a player action.
Since you think I "admit (I'm) wrong", I don't think it's worth discussing any further with someone rigidly unable to comprehend arguments or participate in civil discussion, though.
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
It's wrong because those cells shouldn either have an answer or not be there. See the Percy's post. about "neither"
We disagree who makes it dead. You think the referee does it, I think the players do. We disagree. The ball goes dead when it goes into touch and a QTI is not on. The referee may blow is whistle to signal it is dead. But he did not make it so. He just applied the law. The players playthe game we merely adjudicate on what has happened. We are " the sole judge etc" We judge and award accordingly the players "do".
"I'm glad you admit neither was nonsense" does not fit to your reply. I retract it.
Volun-selected
Referees in America
We agree that in the game, whether it is a player, a particular circumstance, or a whistle something or someone makes the ball dead? We can differ on the who/what, yes?
For me, the sheet isnât meant to be an all-encompassing statement of who/what makes a ball dead. Its driver is to get the correct restart.
I think it is key that the sheet says neither, not nothing or no-one.
Looking at the Niether columns I see it as âŠ
One column has the ball held up, so after a suitable amount of time I blow the whistle. I make the ball dead. Neither the attackers nor defenders have made the ball dead, I did. So Neither seems ok in context here.
Now the other column. When the ball is kicked or charged down and then goes over the TIG or DB line rather than carried over, doesnât that action make the ball dead not the player? A player may be responsible for the initial action that puts the ball over the line, but from what I can see most of the laws seem to just say âwhen the ball goes over the line and becomes deadâ to paraphrase, so again - Neither the attackers not defenders made the ball dead. The position of the ball has made it dead. So, again, Neither seams OK.
The 2 cells that are essentially empty are irrelevant as the ball cannot end up in this permutation but are the price of trying to capture the majority of permutations in a simple and easy to understand way.
Fortunately, the QTI Schrödingerâs ball isnât an option here.
Would simply updating the sheet from âNeitherâ to âOtherâ and replacing âWho makes ball dead, and howâ with âSubsequent action by team, and restart decisionâ address your concerns?