The Laws of the Game/Referee - Discussion Thread

[goodNumber10]

As discussed in the suggestions sub forum, here be a discussion thread for all things relating to the laws.

*not sure if i'm allowed to hotlink here so can someone add it to the forum images?*

This can be a general question about something you want to know more about, or an example from a game. The main purpose of the thread is to keep the law discussions from filling up the game related threads, but is not to be seen as an exclusive place to ask Law based questions.

Rules:
Law 1: The laws are complicated, no having a pop if someones opinion doesn't agree with your interpretation of the law, or they don't understand something.

Law 2: Follow Law 1

I'll start moving some of the questions been posed in game related threads in here later on.

Reference Material:
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?language=EN
http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/laws/


*Any chance this could be a sticky?*

 

[goodNumber10]

Lets start with a classic:

This is one that has me puzzled



Please watch the video from about 71:52 on the game clock (YouTube 4:46)

1. It wasn't a tackle on Cipriani, it was a Law 14 situation (player on the ground with the ball, no tackle) so no gate, therefore Black 20 (Vito) was OK to come in from where he did

2. Nigel Owens says "ruck now!" just after Black 13 starts to join directly behind the ball

3. Black 16 joins from well back behind the ball drives directly over it (so much so that he knocks it with his knee)

4. When the ball comes loose, Black 21 moves in from an onside position and picks up the ball.

So who did Owens penalise for side entry, and why, because I cannot see a penalty there? Owens says "in the side, not through the gate", but there is no gate at the ruck, only at the tackle.

What I see is a textbook example of winning a turnover driving opponents directly off the ball.

 

[goodNumber10]

Lets see if we can get the Law discussion going:

Mike Brown try for England vs New Zealand:

Brown goes over, looks to be a hand underneath the ball:

my question is: if it's mike browns hand, does that mean held up? does the ball carriers arm/hand count as grounding?

 

[William18]

A good thread I think which can keep some crap out of the match threads which can become a bit of a ***** fest.

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a)
Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.1 2

(b)
Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Law: 22.1

(a)
Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

 

[Darwin]

Lets see if we can get the Law discussion going:

Mike Brown try for England vs New Zealand:

Brown goes over, looks to be a hand underneath the ball:

my question is: if it's mike browns hand, does that mean held up? does the ball carriers arm/hand count as grounding?

Yes. It doesn't matter whose hand/foot/arm/ear is under the ball - unless the ball is grounded it is held up. Unless your name is George Ayoub

 

[Tony Manx]

My only comment on this thread is a general one, and not specific to the "Brown Try"......you can have all the laws you want but officials will always make a mistake in seeing something or interpreting circumstance and people will believe the officials have made mistakes, in particular where it affects their team!

 

[munstermuffin]

Yes. It doesn't matter whose hand/foot/arm/ear is under the ball - unless the ball is grounded it is held up. Unless your name is George Ayoub

Can you produce the evidence that conclusively shows TMO was wrong and you 100% proof it never touched on initial attempt. UK tv showed same pictures TMO got but none of them showed it fully so if you could show the pics ye had that'd be great.

 

[Darwin]

Can you produce the evidence that conclusively shows TMO was wrong and you 100% proof it never touched on initial attempt. UK tv showed same pictures TMO got but none of them showed it fully so if you could show the pics ye had that'd be great.

Again it is not a question of whether I thought the ball was held up (though it looked pretty clear to me). All that maters is what the ref/tmo saw. They both thought it was clearly held up, but the try was awarded any way. That was the problem.....

 

[munstermuffin]

Again it is not a question of whether I thought the ball was held up (though it looked pretty clear to me). All that maters is what the ref/tmo saw. They both thought it was clearly held up, but the try was awarded any way. That was the problem.....

Again they agreed the 2nd one after initial dive was held up but for people like you who'll slate the refs I'm asking can you back up why they were wrong. They agreed it looked held up after but that wasn't 100% clear so I'm still hoping I can see proof ye got

 

[Tony Manx]

Again they agreed the 2nd one after initial dive was held up but for people like you who'll slate the refs I'm asking can you back up why they were wrong. They agreed it looked held up after but that wasn't 100% clear so I'm still hoping I can see proof ye got

I so admire your tenacity!!! Keep going and the next match will soon be on us with a different, yet so much the same, arguments!!

 

[Darwin]

Again they agreed the 2nd one after initial dive was held up but for people like you who'll slate the refs I'm asking can you back up why they were wrong. They agreed it looked held up after but that wasn't 100% clear so I'm still hoping I can see proof ye got

When did they ever mention anything about an 'initial dive'? There was only one instant when the ball was close to being grounded, and the ref thought (correctly) that there was a hand under the ball. The TMO didn't think it mattered for some reason because it was an English hand. That was the problem. It has nothing at all to do with benifit of the doubt or being 100% clear. It was the fact that the TMO thought it didn't matter if it was held up by an English hand.

I haven't got access to the conversation between the ref and tmo at the moment, but will post it when I find it.

 

[hjklhjkl]

Check about 33:25

 

[William18]

Again it is not a question of whether I thought the ball was held up (though it looked pretty clear to me). All that maters is what the ref/tmo saw. They both thought it was clearly held up, but the try was awarded any way. That was the problem.....

This is where I jump off. You can't go into the TMO's mind. The TMO probably expressed himself poorly. What someone says != what someone thinks. I think it is pretty clear to to you, me and the TMO that the ball must touch the ground for a try to be awarded. I think the TMO found no reason not to award a try (erroneously) so a try was awarded because of a poor initial question.

 

[Tony Manx]

I think the TMO found no reason not to award a try (erroneously) so a try was awarded because of a poor initial question.

Exactement!!

 

[William18]

That video shows that the question "can you give me a reason not to award a try" was asked because Garces thinks it is a try. Garces had no way of seeing from that angle and did not see the ball grounded (or he would have said so). I don't think an AR saying he thinks it is a try is a good reason to change the burden of proof.

"It's the English player's arm holding the ball" was what the TMO said. I think it is a bit ridiculous to use that statement as evidence the TMO didn't know basic rules of the game. He just communicated in an unclear manner.

 

[Tony Manx]

"It's the English player's arm holding the ball" was what the TMO said.

I think that he said that in response to the ref saying that he thought there was an NZ arm holding it up?

I do not think he meant it that the ball NEVER touched the ground only that it was not an AB arm.

I also think he had no conclusive view that it did NOT touch the ground before the roll on to the back and, therefore, had no option to award the try based on the question that was asked of him which may or may not have been the wrong question.

 

[munstermuffin]

When did they ever mention anything about an 'initial dive'? There was only one instant when the ball was close to being grounded, and the ref thought (correctly) that there was a hand under the ball. The TMO didn't think it mattered for some reason because it was an English hand. That was the problem. It has nothing at all to do with benifit of the doubt or being 100% clear. It was the fact that the TMO thought it didn't matter if it was held up by an English hand.

I haven't got access to the conversation between the ref and tmo at the moment, but will post it when I find it.

Well when they first hit ground. Again there was no conclusive evidence so the refs were correct. They couldn't say about when it first went to ground as angles weren't clear. My point is some kiwis are slating ref/TMO for awarding try but can't prove themselves why it wasn't a try. I'm not a fan of slamming refs wrongly

 

[Darwin]

This is where I jump off. You can't go into the TMO's mind. The TMO probably expressed himself poorly. What someone says != what someone thinks. I think it is pretty clear to to you, me and the TMO that the ball must touch the ground for a try to be awarded. I think the TMO found no reason not to award a try (erroneously) so a try was awarded because of a poor initial question.

Thank you for addressing my point I see where you are coming from (and to be fair I never claimed the TMO doesn't know the laws), but I still think there was obviously a problem with the TMO's communication. The ref stated "I do feel there is a hand between the ball and the grounding". Rather than contradict him (or suggest it wasn't completely clear) he stated "It’s the English players arm holding the ball. It’s not the black players arm it is the English players arm." This completely irrelevant point clearly confused the referee (and me). The referee then appeared a bit flustered, then agreed to go with the TMO decision.

I do feel part of the problem lies with the way the TMO and referee now seem to debate these decisions. Previously it went straight up to the TMO who made the final decision. It was simple, and in my opinion the best way to do it. These days there seems to be a debate between the TMO and referee every time a decision is made. Sometimes the referee accepts the TMO's decision, other times they will completely over-rule the TMO. If we are going to continue with this system the role of the TMO and referee in these decisions need to be more clearly defined in my opinion, and importantly the discussion between the two needs to be clear and concise.

I think that he said that in response to the ref saying that he thought there was an NZ arm holding it up?

I do not think he meant it that the ball NEVER touched the ground only that it was not an AB arm.

I also think he had no conclusive view that it did NOT touch the ground before the roll on to the back and, therefore, had no option to award the try based on the question that was asked of him which may or may not have been the wrong question.

The referees initial statement was "I do feel there is a hand between the ball and the grounding". He doesn't mention whose hand it was because it was completely irrelevant. Perhaps the TMO was trying to be helpful in some way by stating it was an English arm, but all it did was completely confuse the situation.

I will state again I really don't have a massive issue with the TMO actual decision. I (and the referee) thought the ball was clearly held-up, but the TMO obviously didn't think it was 100% clear. The interaction between the TMO and referee was the biggest issue, along with the fact the wrong question was probably asked initially!

Well when they first hit ground. Again there was no conclusive evidence so the refs were correct. They couldn't say about when it first went to ground as angles weren't clear. My point is some kiwis are slating ref/TMO for awarding try but can't prove themselves why it wasn't a try. I'm not a fan of slamming refs wrongly

It was pretty easy to prove it wasn't a try by watching the video Again, that's not the point I've been trying to make, so I should probably give up!

 

[William18]

I think the problem is that the debate is televised. The referee and the TMO should not have a debate on live television because it just causes controversy when they disagree. They should come together in private. It is an example of TV companies being over intrusive. However, I think in this case both referee and TMO should have to give an explanation of what they saw after the game.