[2018 Super Rugby] Round 19: 13-14 July 2018

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I dont understand some of the rules anymore.
Lions vs Bulls

59sih min, ref says on field decision was lions' try, but wants to check grounding with TMO. He clearly states on-field decision was try.
TMO checks and says, not verbatim but close enough, "there is no clear evidence of grounding", after which the ref awards a 5 meter scrum for the lions.

As far as i understand once the ref states something is an on field decision the TMO has to find clear evidence of that NOT being the case to revert it.
In order to revert the call the TMO should have found "clear evidence of the ball NOT being grounded", which was not the case.

Might sound like a detail but trust me, it's not. That technicality cost the lions a try.

Question, maybe someone here might know: what constitutes "grounding", exactly? Is the grass part of the ground? I am asking because the grass could be 2-3 cm long and a ball could very well touch the grass and not the dirt, which is very close to what just happened. Intuitively i'd say it has to touch the birt but that's just an educated guess.

 

[argie]

Oops. Lions v Jaguares next week.

 

[FNS]

Your welcome, sharks =D!

 

[unrated]

Your welcome, sharks =D!

Thanks! We didn't need any help though .

Crusaders next week.. They will need some luck. They were the only NZ side fortunate enough to avoid the Sharks in the regular season games.

 

[smartcooky]

59sih min, ref says on field decision was lions' try, but wants to check grounding with TMO. He clearly states on-field decision was try.
TMO checks and says, not verbatim but close enough, "there is no clear evidence of grounding", after which the ref awards a 5 meter scrum for the lions.

As far as i understand once the ref states something is an on field decision the TMO has to find clear evidence of that NOT being the case to revert it.
In order to revert the call the TMO should have found "clear evidence of the ball NOT being grounded", which was not the case.

Might sound like a detail but trust me, it's not. That technicality cost the lions a try.

You are correct. The referee should have stood his ground.

It is entirely possible that the referee can see a grounding that no camera angle could pick up because no camera had the view angle he had, or he is in the way of the only camera from which it might have been possible to see a grounding.

Question, maybe someone here might know: what constitutes "grounding", exactly? Is the grass part of the ground? I am asking because the grass could be 2-3 cm long and a ball could very well touch the grass and not the dirt, which is very close to what just happened. Intuitively i'd say it has to touch the birt but that's just an educated guess.

There are two ways to ground the ball in the in-goal; the in-goal being the area including the goal line but not including the touch-in-goal or dead ball lines, and each way depends on whether the ball is loose, or in someone's possession.

LAW 21: GROUNDING THE BALL
1. The ball can be grounded in in-goal:
a. By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
b. By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the
player's body from waist to neck.

Mistakes commentators often make
"...there was no downward pressure". Justin Marshall, Phil Kearns & Greg Clark often come out with this but they are not always right. Downward pressure is only required if the ball is loose.

"...tt only has to touch a blade of grass". Often hear from Hugh Bladen & Grant Nisbett. This simply is not true. The ball has to touch the ground. Its down to the judgement of the referee, AR or TMO as to whether that has happened. (Grant Nisbett should know better given that he has called 300 test matches!)

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Thanks. I guess my second question wasn't clear. I wasn't asking about the act of grounding itself, but more about the exact limit of the place where the grounding has to happen.
Using this

LAW 21: GROUNDING THE BALL
1. The ball can be grounded in in-goal:
a. By holding it and touching the ground with it; or

I guess my question is, what constitutes "ground"? As silly as it sounds, i am not sure to be honest. Does the ball have to touch the grass or the dirt.
From your last paragraph i understand it must touch the soil/dirt.

I am asking because in today's game i am 100% sure it touched the grass but i am not sure it touched the soil (very difficult to tell sometimes).
Every now and then those 3 cm can make the difference.
Thanks again.