• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Refereeing decisions

barbarian

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Yeah without looking at the law, my understanding was for the 'foot in touch' thing to work you needed to have possession of the ball, and not just touch/ground it.

Quade didn't pick it up, he forced it straight down. At the time I thought 'he's fucked that up, it's a 22 now' but the call went the other way.
.
 
Sully

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
So if Kerevi grounded the ball and touched the sideline simultaneously as the TMO suggested is it not a try?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
 
Lindommer

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
Wilson's sorta right. Law 19.5 (a) mentions ".....a player with.....feet..... beyond the touch-in-goal line picks up a ball which was stationary.....that player has taken the ball into touch-in-goal." But, that doesn't cover a moving ball. From my reffing workshop days it was worked out if a player with any part of his body in touch (or t-i-g) touches a MOVING ball, he didn't take it out. The ball is in touch, as described in the definitions in Law 19: "The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline."

So, a player can put his toe on the t-i-g, or dead ball, line and if a MOVING ball touches his fingertip, he didn't take it out. Scrum 50m back upfield.
 
Lindommer

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
I slo-slo-moed the TMO's slo mo, his thigh touched the t-i-g line a moment before the ball brushed the grass. Correct decision. Apart from the fact the big lug had the ball on the wrong side.

But, Sully, the answer to your question's well beyond my pay grade. :(
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Scott Sio's non-try has also been raised elsewhere. It seemed to me that De Klerk had the ball in his hands when he was tackled, and that forced the ball loose. If that is what happened, then surely it was play on as Sio came from an on side position and went on the get the try. Can any one confirm or otherwise that the tackle on De Klerk was legitimate?
 
Jagman

Jagman

Trevor Allan (34)
Sully said:
So if Kerevi grounded the ball and touched the sideline simultaneously as the TMO suggested is it not a try?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm likely wrong but I imagined it was about how the referee phrased the question. Try no try would mean its no try, any reason why I should not award the try and should be a try.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Brumby Runner said:
Scott Sio's non-try has also been raised elsewhere. It seemed to me that De Klerk had the ball in his hands when he was tackled, and that forced the ball loose. If that is what happened, then surely it was play on as Sio came from an on side position and went on the get the try. Can any one confirm or otherwise that the tackle on De Klerk was legitimate?
Click to expand...
Sio got penalised for taking the half back out, so Owen decided that the ruck wasn't over yet.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Lindommer said:
Wilson's sorta right. Law 19.5 (a) mentions "...a player with...feet... beyond the touch-in-goal line picks up a ball which was stationary...that player has taken the ball into touch-in-goal." But, that doesn't cover a moving ball. From my reffing workshop days it was worked out if a player with any part of his body in touch (or t-i-g) touches a MOVING ball, he didn't take it out. The ball is in touch, as described in the definitions in Law 19: "The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline."

So, a player can put his toe on the t-i-g, or dead ball, line and if a MOVING ball touches his fingertip, he didn't take it out. Scrum 50m back upfield.
Click to expand...
Relevant laws Lindommer - I reckon if it's legitimate for a try scorer to score from TIG by grounding a moving ball (which I do), then it should have been a 22 for the same situation from a defender

22.5 Ball grounded by a defending player
(a) Touch down. When defending players are first to ground the ball in their in-goal, it results in a touch down.
(b) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If defending players are in touch-in-goal, they can make a touch down by grounding the ball in their in-goal provided they are not carrying the ball.

22.7 Restarting after a touch down
(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.
Click to expand...
 
Teh Other Dave

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
Law 19.5 (b) If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up the ball, which was in motion within the playing area, that player is deemed to have picked up the ball in touch (or touch-in-goal).

So if QC (Quade Cooper) picked the ball up, it's treated as if the attacking player kicked it touch in goal. If he grounded without picking the ball up, 22.5 (b) applies.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Strewthcobber said:
* The wallaby maul tactics which worked well but was done 2 too many times.

My question though is in those lineout maul situations, where the gold player comes round the back but the green team hold it at the front.

If the gold player is prevented from tackling the ball carrier at the front of the non-maul by the players bound behind him is it still obstruction?

Can you obstruct a tackler from behind the ball carrier?
Click to expand...


If the ball is still in the hands of the player who caught it and they haven't moved from the line of where the lineout took place then the lineout isn't over and Kepu (or whoever else) can't run around and try and tackle them etc.

Once the ball is transferred the lineout is over, Kepu can run around and then the Springboks are running obstruction as well because there is no maul.
 
Scrubber2050

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
All good valid points.

But these technicalities are what makes our game hard to follow not only to the uninitiated but also the tragics
 
Eyes and Ears

Eyes and Ears

Bob Davidson (42)
I think there are quite a few differences. They certainly don't differentiate between whether you place it or pick it up.
In Union, you also can't jump beyond the dead ball line and flick a ball from beyond the dead ball line, back into the in-goal, while you are in the air.
 
Highlander35

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
Also can't deliberately throw or knock the ball into touch.

Most leaguies, particularly those in the back 3, get carded in their first season or two (Vuna, Folau and Hegarty defo did, think 1 or 2 others have too).
 
Teh Other Dave

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
Ok, 'nearly identical' was a stretch, but union's and league's laws are of similar complexity.

Bit of a worry when professionals don't read the law book for the game they intend on making a living from.
 
Lindommer

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
Mmmm.... Doubt if they could get past the first paragraph of their contracts. They certainly don't read the third party ones. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top