Technical Question
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:49 am
- Location: St Julien Les Rosiers, Le Gard.
Technical Question
Was just thinking (yes, dangerous).
Player dives into corner, and crosses the try line. No problem with being in touch. Tackler gets up, moves away. Attacking player, on back, gets up, but forgets to touch down. He kicks the ball away, thinking he's great, and the ball goes into touch. Referee notices no grounding, so can't award the try. What happens next?
Happy new year to everyone!!
Player dives into corner, and crosses the try line. No problem with being in touch. Tackler gets up, moves away. Attacking player, on back, gets up, but forgets to touch down. He kicks the ball away, thinking he's great, and the ball goes into touch. Referee notices no grounding, so can't award the try. What happens next?
Happy new year to everyone!!
I could agree with you...but then we'd both be wrong.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
- Location: coalville
Re: Technical Question
Attacking player has his contract terminated.Phil B wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:49 pm Was just thinking (yes, dangerous).
Player dives into corner, and crosses the try line. No problem with being in touch. Tackler gets up, moves away. Attacking player, on back, gets up, but forgets to touch down. He kicks the ball away, thinking he's great, and the ball goes into touch. Referee notices no grounding, so can't award the try. What happens next?
Happy new year to everyone!!
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
- Location: coalville
Re: Technical Question
Being serious for a moment. I'm assuming as it's "touch in goal" it would be a 22m dropout to the defending team. I'm ready to be corrected by those who understand the laws better.voice of the crumbie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:25 pmAttacking player has his contract terminated.Phil B wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:49 pm Was just thinking (yes, dangerous).
Player dives into corner, and crosses the try line. No problem with being in touch. Tackler gets up, moves away. Attacking player, on back, gets up, but forgets to touch down. He kicks the ball away, thinking he's great, and the ball goes into touch. Referee notices no grounding, so can't award the try. What happens next?
Happy new year to everyone!!
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:49 am
- Location: St Julien Les Rosiers, Le Gard.
Re: Technical Question
Yes, but my immediate thought in response is there has actually been no touch down.
My guess is that the Referee has a sudden hamstring injury, and hands over immediate responsibility to another of the officials.
My guess is that the Referee has a sudden hamstring injury, and hands over immediate responsibility to another of the officials.
I could agree with you...but then we'd both be wrong.
Re: Technical Question
Have the TMO review it, he's bound to come up with something.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
Re: Technical Question
No No No - he draws a non existent square after saying "Time off" and then goes the length of the field to watch the in-ground tv which isn't showing this weeks episode of "what's a deliberate knock on" so is left very confused. THAT MEANS HE IS A NORMAL REF
Hehehehehehehehe
Re: Technical Question
Option where ball entered into touch. Ball was never dead so kicked out on the full.
I'm not cynical just experienced
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:49 am
- Location: St Julien Les Rosiers, Le Gard.
Re: Technical Question
Slight problem - ball was kicked out by an attacking player, and not necessarily on the full.
I could agree with you...but then we'd both be wrong.
Re: Technical Question
Well clearly not an attack ball. If it was not direct then line out to defending team, if full option.
I'm not cynical just experienced
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:49 am
- Location: St Julien Les Rosiers, Le Gard.
Re: Technical Question
I am not sure whether anyone has replied who is a "Referee", but hope that if they do they announce themselves as such. After all, it's the Referee's problem.....
I could agree with you...but then we'd both be wrong.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 4109
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:13 am
Re: Technical Question
Hmmm... ...did it pitch outside leg stump and was he playing a shot?
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2067
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:37 am
Re: Technical Question
If the ball is kicked out behind the try line then it is a drop out on the twenty-two. If the ball is kicked direct in into touch by the attacking player then the line takes place level from where the ball is kicked but of course this would be on the five metre line. Of course I am just guessing but it seems logical so I am probably wrong.
Re: Technical Question
Its either a 22 drop out if he kicked it into touch in-goal, or a lineout to the defending team if the ball went into touch in the field of play. Its not direct into touch as attacker kicked in from in the in-goal area.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:49 am
- Location: St Julien Les Rosiers, Le Gard.
Re: Technical Question
My thoughts are:
1.As the attacking player simply kicked the ball away, and in doing so it crossed the touch line and out of play, then -
2. It surely must be a defensive line-out either on the 5m line, or beyond, if the ball crossed the line further down the pitch.
1.As the attacking player simply kicked the ball away, and in doing so it crossed the touch line and out of play, then -
2. It surely must be a defensive line-out either on the 5m line, or beyond, if the ball crossed the line further down the pitch.
I could agree with you...but then we'd both be wrong.