Refereeing decisions

[Brumby Runner]

Just another example of a largely ambiguous description that allows conclusions to be made according to individual biases.

Really, what does it mean - not in touch if the ball touches the post while being grounded, but in touch if it is grounded (ie placed on the ground) and touches the post? Seems to be the same set of circumstances being described to me.

 

[saulityvi]

I have seen a grounding like that twice before go to TMO reviewal, both times the ref and TMO both agreed that the ball simultaneously is grounded and hits the corner flag and they award the try, a lot like grounding the ball in to a goal post.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I have seen a grounding like that twice before go to TMO reviewal, both times the ref and TMO both agreed that the ball simultaneously is grounded and hits the corner flag and they award the try, a lot like grounding the ball in to a goal post.

The goal post is specifically allowed for in the laws of the game though, the corner post seems to be specifically excluded?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Just another example of a largely ambiguous description that allows conclusions to be made according to individual biases.

Really, what does it mean - not in touch if the ball touches the post while being grounded, but in touch if it is grounded (ie placed on the ground) and touches the post? Seems to be the same set of circumstances being described to me.

I read it as - touching the corner post is fine as long as your not in touch somewhere else, but specifically excludes grounding the ball while touching the post.

 

[saulityvi]

The goal post is specifically allowed for in the laws of the game though, the corner post seems to be specifically excluded?

Actually, on the second reading the law spesifically says that simultaneous grounding is out. Im not a native english speaker so very technical stuff is sometimes hard for me. Someone might want to clarify?

I have no problem in giving the attacking team the benefit of the doubt in situations like this and if it was Wakatawa who scored that try in the other end, I would have been just as happy to see such great work awarded.

 

[Pfitzy]

Corner post is NOT in touch. Hasn't been for a few years.

The ball only has to touch a blade of grass in-goal, which includes the try line. In this case the ball touches the blades of grass on the tryline first before hitting the sideline. Its physics.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Actually, on the second reading the law spesifically says that simultaneous grounding is out. Im not a native english speaker so very technical stuff is sometimes hard for me. Someone might want to clarify?

I have no problem in giving the attacking team the benefit of the doubt in situations like this and if it was Wakatawa who scored that try in the other end, I would have been just as happy to see such great work awarded.

It's pretty poorly worded and ambiguous sauliyvi, and as others have said very probably a try anyway!

Another bit of law that needs a rewrite to remove the uncertainty

Edit and I wonder how the French translation works - might be the reason some there see it differently

 

[saulityvi]

" not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post."

Kuridranis try clearly hit the flag first. But I am sure I have the goal post rule applied in these kind of situations in the past.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree with Pfitzy that it has been established that the corner post is not in touch for a number of years now, so no matter if the ball touched the corner post on the way down, it is still in play. I just can't get the logic of the second part of the law which refers to grounding and touching the post. Seems to me to be redundant unless it is meant to specifically exclude the goal post situation. Although, then the first part would seem to come into play where the ball is still in play if it is grounded while touching the post. All very confusing.

Anyway, no matter, it was a try for all money.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I thought the intention of this wording was that grounding the ball at the base of the corner flag is the same as grounding it on the touch-on-goal line ie no try. I am not sure if this is what happened here as I haven't seen the footage.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So the law change regarding the corner post came about from the 2008 ELVs

In the IRB guidelines for those law changes here (page 15) they make the following comment

A try will no longer be disallowed if the ball carrier touches the corner post before grounding the ball as long as that player has not otherwise been in
touch.
A try will still be disallowed if the ball is grounded against the corner post.

Interesting that the ref and TMO awarded the try after a review. There's a bit of a disconnet somewhere

 

[Bullrush]

If a ball hits the sideline, it's considered as out-of-play isn't it?

Given the wording of the law, if the ball or Kuridrani had hit the flag without hitting the actual sideline - try all day.

The fact that he seems to ground the ball on the actual sideline makes it pretty dubious to me - no try.

But what an effort - you almost want to give it just based on the effort alone!

 

[Slim 293]

Nothing dubious about it........ 100% try.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Nothing dubious about it.... 100% try.

could you share your reasoning?

 

[Slim 293]

could you share your reasoning?

Sure......... we're applying that law to the wrong scenario:

The wording in the paragraph refers to this kind of situation where if the ball hits the corner post and bounces back into the field it's still in play:

http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/12/48...corner-flag-try-in-harlequins-defeat?page=all


Something similar happened when the All Blacks took a penalty kick against the Argies a couple of years ago - the ball didn't go directly out, hit the corner post, and then bounced back over the touch line which gave the AB's a lineout.

What Kuridrani did was 100% legit, as he was not out of play when he hit the corner post before grounding the ball.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Sure... we're applying that law to the wrong scenario:



What Kuridrani did was 100% legit, as he was not out of play when he hit the corner post before grounding the ball.

What about the bit in the law specifically about grounding against the corner post?

 

[Brumby Runner]

So the law change regarding the corner post came about from the 2008 ELVs

In the IRB guidelines for those law changes here (page 15) they make the following comment




Interesting that the ref and TMO awarded the try after a review. There's a bit of a disconnet somewhere

Thanks SC. That clarifies it for me. The only question then with the Kuridrani try is whether the ball was grounded (touched a blade of grass) on the try line before it brushed the post.

 

[Quick Hands]

A few Frenchman out there (not here!) think they were robbed by the TMO for Kurindrani's try.

Here it is
https://streamable.com/5tky

Here's the law



What do you reckon?

Could only have been written by a lawyer.

My first instinct when I saw is was no try as it seemed to me that the ball was grounded simultaneously on the touch in goal line and the corner post.

It's a 50/50 call and I'm happy with the final decision and wouldn't have had a problem with no try either.

 

[Quick Hands]

Not applicable here, because no one grounded the ball against the corner post before these bolded bits occurred....

I think that the bit that you have bolded would be if the ball touched the post but not the ground. Once it has touched the ground and the post at the same time it then becomes "otherwise being touch in goal" and is thus out of play.

 

[Lindommer]

But the corner post is no longer in touch.