Rugby rules question

[shanners]

I was watching London Irish V Harlequins earlier today on ESPN. Harlequins won the match in the dying minutes, by scoring a controversial try. The try was scored by a player, who failed to catch a pass. He did touch the ball with his hands, but the ball went backwards, hit off his leg and went over the try line. He then just fell on the ball with his chest. After a couple of minutes with the TMO, the try was awarded.

My question is, does the player have to have control of the ball when scoring a try? There was downward pressure, but the fact that at no stage, had control of the ball, would mean no try.

[fitzy73]

You don't need downward pressure anymore. See point b in this link.

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/6/22/...ding-the-ball/

[East Terrace]

More or less the same thing happened Munster away to Metro a few weeks ago. The Metro player had absolutely no control over the ball going over the line, but there appeared to be some downward pressure by his body on the ball after the line, and the try was awarded. So very curious myself on that rule as there was plenty discussion on it in the bar at that time, but no definitive answer..

[shanners]

You don't need downward pressure anymore. See point b in this link.

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/6/22/...ding-the-ball/

OK, but do you need control?

[Speedee]

When you are holding the ball, you just need to touch the ball off the ground.

When you are not holding the ball (i.e. the ball is loose) you need to press down on the ball with your hands, arms or upper body.

I didnt see the try you are talking about, but if the player fell on the ball, then he would have pressed down on the ball with his upper body. Thats a try. No need for control or anything like that.

[fitzy73]

OK, but do you need control?

Afaik no. Just falling on it would appear to be enough (as long as you fall on it between you waist and your shoulders).

Open to correction on that.

[shanners]

Afaik no. Just falling on it would appear to be enough (as long as you fall on it between you waist and your shoulders).

Open to correction on that.

So no need for downward pressure or control?

[Ruck Em]

More or less the same thing happened Munster away to Metro a few weeks ago. The Metro player had absolutely no control over the ball going over the line, but there appeared to be some downward pressure by his body on the ball after the line, and the try was awarded. So very curious myself on that rule as there was plenty discussion on it in the bar at that time, but no definitive answer..

It reminded me more of POC's disallowed try in Paris. Similar circumstances but different interpretation from TMO

[Balla Boy]

So no need for downward pressure or control?

No.

The confusion comes from two different things being conflated.

A ball carrier must have control of the ball in the act of scoring - otherwise he has knocked on, as he had control and then lost it.

If the ball is loose, and you fall on it, then by definition you are exerting downward pressure.

The ball is in contact with the floor, you're in contact with the ball = try, to my understanding.

[nuke]

So no need for downward pressure or control?

If he fell on to it there would of course be downward pressure, regardless of what part of the body was applying it this would consitute a try. There is no need to have control or possession of the ball though. As an aside and pet hate there are no rules in Rugby

[Knights of Thomond]

from watching the try what struck me was that the ball hit just above the try scorers knee and then he dived on it. Should that not have been a knock on? if it was in play and a pass hit off there it would have been a knock on.

[fitzy73]

If the ball is loose in goal, then as long as you fall on it between your waist and shoulders my understanding is that a try is awarded.

[Piquet]

from watching the try what struck me was that the ball hit just above the try scorers knee and then he dived on it. Should that not have been a knock on? if it was in play and a pass hit off there it would have been a knock on.

it's not a knock on unless " the player hits the ball forward with his hand or arm" see here

[Thomond78]

There is no need for control to score a try. It is not in the Laws at all. The idea you have to have control is like a bloody zombie: it keeps getting back up, no matter what you do to kill it.

[nuke]

There is no need for control to score a try. It is not in the Laws at all. The idea you have to have control is like a bloody zombie: it keeps getting back up, no matter what you do to kill it.

Like the belief that you have to let a player up when they go to ground to collect a ball. If I had a € for every time i heard someone trying to claim a penalty because "he didn't let him up ref" GRRRRRRRR

[Intercept]

So, if the above is the case, and I've been asking this Q since 2008 Final, why didn't leamy get awarded the try when he stretched over the ruck, ball was dislodged but in my opinion backwards and he then got downward pressure on with his fore arm....?????

[Thomond78]

So, if the above is the case, and I've been asking this Q since 2008 Final, why didn't leamy get awarded the try when he stretched over the ruck, ball was dislodged but in my opinion backwards and he then got downward pressure on with his fore arm....?????

God knows, we won, how bad.

[shanners]

Like the belief that you have to let a player up when they go to ground to collect a ball. If I had a € for every time i heard someone trying to claim a penalty because "he didn't let him up ref" GRRRRRRRR

If a player with the ball is tackled and brought to the ground, the tackler must release the player. The tackler or any other player can then play for the ball after that.

[Balla Boy]

Like the belief that you have to let a player up when they go to ground to collect a ball. If I had a € for every time i heard someone trying to claim a penalty because "he didn't let him up ref" GRRRRRRRR

At the risk of infuriating you further - I don't have to let a man up after he's gone to ground to secure a ball?

[Speedee]

At the risk of infuriating you further - I don't have to let a man up after he's gone to ground to secure a ball?

My understanding is that you don't have to let the man up. 14.2 says you can't fall on top of a player who is on the ground (which is often penalized), but there doesn't seem to be any law requiring you to let the man up. As far as I'm aware, you would be perfectly entitled to stay on your feet and attempt to strip the ball from him.

[dannybzr]

My understanding is that you don't have to let the man up. 14.2 says you can't fall on top of a player who is on the ground (which is often penalized), but there doesn't seem to be any law requiring you to let the man up. As far as I'm aware, you would be perfectly entitled to stay on your feet and attempt to strip the ball from him.

But if he goes to ground and plays the ball he is off his feet?

[cajjac]

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forum.php here is another site I lurk on, have not looked but would imagine they will have a thread on the try, plenty on "you have to let him up". Mainly English refs and some seem to be at a pretty high level.

[mtcmolloy]

So, if the above is the case, and I've been asking this Q since 2008 Final, why didn't leamy get awarded the try when he stretched over the ruck, ball was dislodged but in my opinion backwards and he then got downward pressure on with his fore arm....?????

I don't recall precisely, but what you are describing constitutes a knock-on

[Thomond78]

I don't recall precisely, but what you are describing constitutes a knock-on

Not if it was backwards.

[Munsterboy]

My understanding is that you don't have to let the man up. 14.2 says you can't fall on top of a player who is on the ground (which is often penalized), but there doesn't seem to be any law requiring you to let the man up. As far as I'm aware, you would be perfectly entitled to stay on your feet and attempt to strip the ball from him.

Interesting. Letting a player up if he dropped on a ball was something I have always thought was in the laws, and something I have seen penalised at pretty much every level. Almost certain I saw a penalty given to Munster for it in a recent game in fact.

[nuke]

If a player with the ball is tackled and brought to the ground, the tackler must release the player. The tackler or any other player can then play for the ball after that.

Completely different scenario

[nuke]

At the risk of infuriating you further - I don't have to let a man up after he's gone to ground to secure a ball?

No, you just have to keep your feet yourself and you can compete for the ball. If you are quick enough and there just as he gathers it then he has to release as he's on the ground and you on your feet

[Balla Boy]

No, you just have to keep your feet yourself and you can compete for the ball. If you are quick enough and there just as he gathers it then he has to release as he's on the ground and you on your feet

Did that change, or was it never the law?

[nuke]

Did that change, or was it never the law?

Never in the law as such but the interpretation may have changed over the years