Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

No but I'm trying to work through the psychology of how someone would interpret that situation with the laws.

I go back to my original point - if the referee believed that the ball was grounded by pink, then the moment it hit the line he should have blown his whistle - in addition, there is no indication in pinks actions or body language that indicates that he believes he has grounded the ball either. If he did, the moment the ball hit the line he most likely would have picked up the ball, and walked away to start preparing for the scrum.

No doubt pink didn't intend to ground it, but I think he pretty clearly did do what is neccessary to ground the ball (hold it, and touch the ground), whether he intended to or not

The question is then does the ref get to decide if it's grounded or not based on vibes (ie he was picking hte ball up, even though it took 3 seconds), or is it a strict liability thing?

 

[JRugby2]

No doubt pink didn't intend to ground it, but I think he pretty clearly did do what is neccessary to ground the ball (hold it, and touch the ground), whether he intended to or not

The question is then does the ref get to decide if it's grounded or not based on vibes (ie he was picking hte ball up, even though it took 3 seconds), or is it a strict liability thing?

I think unless 21.1a is interpreted word for word in the strictest sense, then yeah - it is vibes - because it's clear he is both holding the ball and it is touching the line.

If he thought it was grounded when it hit the line and was being held by pinks hands, the amount of time pink took to pick up the ball is irrelevant - ball was grounded by pink.

I don't personally like that interpretation. I think we need to see more clear action by Pink to intentionally ground the ball. He himself clearly still thinks the ball is alive considering he's prepping to box kick.