PDA

View Full Version : Is there a "Gain in Ground"?



Taff
07-06-11, 22:06
Just to clarify Ruling 2/2006 (http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2006/27).


Q: Following a penalty kick and after the ball was kicked, the ball hits the goal post and goes into touch without having been touched by another player. What decision should the referee give?

A:If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in. Law 21.4(d). ... The lineout ... may not be closer than 5 metres from the goal line.I can understand who gets the throw in, but if it goes directly to touch is a "gain in ground" allowed or is the throw in opposite where the ball was kicked? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

OB..
08-06-11, 00:06
I have never understood the logic behind that Ruling anyway.

If the kick is deemed an illegal kick for touch, then the sanction is a scrum at the mark. If it is accepted as a legitimate accident, I don't see why it loses its status as a penalty, which would give the throw-in to the kicking team.

chopper15
08-06-11, 01:06
But it didn't go 'directly' into touch so the 'gain in ground' issue doesn't arise, surely?:hap:

I most certainly agree with OB's reasoning on that one. It's so obvious I'm surprised that there's no appeal lodged on those grounds. Who's letting whom get away with that ruling?

Dickie E
08-06-11, 03:06
Just to clarify Ruling 2/2006 (http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2006/27).

I can understand who gets the throw in, but if it goes directly to touch is a "gain in ground" allowed or is the throw in opposite where the ball was kicked? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

the throw is where the ball goes into touch.

Dickie E
08-06-11, 03:06
I have never understood the logic behind that Ruling anyway.

If the kick is deemed an illegal kick for touch, then the sanction is a scrum at the mark. If it is accepted as a legitimate accident, I don't see why it loses its status as a penalty, which would give the throw-in to the kicking team.

It's to overcome 2 bites of the cherry. I unsuccessfully attempt a shot at goal - why should I then also get the throw-in? Agree or disagree but the logic appears clear.

Robert Burns
08-06-11, 06:06
I've never seen someone kick a ball at the posts so hard that it bounces off the posts and goes straight into touch.

And I don't think I ever will.

Simon Thomas
08-06-11, 08:06
It's so obvious I'm surprised that there's no appeal lodged on those grounds. Who's letting whom get away with that ruling?

I am not aware of any "appeal" process involved with IRB Law Rulings.

All Society & Club Referees, and affiliated Clubs' players have a vote at their AGM. Up through the CB and Home Union heirarchy Council / Management Committee members are elected, and eventually that leads to the various IRB decision makers. It is more complex than that, but in essence it is a democratic system that gives those elected decision making powers.

Davet
08-06-11, 09:06
I am happy to say that Chopper is correct - it is not direct to touch, therefore gain in ground is allowed.

As to why it is defending teams throw, well because that's the law. The reason why the Law is that way is unknown to me, but it seems reasonable, you've had a shot at goal, you missed, if it had gone dead tig they would have had a 22DO, since it's gone into touch they get the line out.

But as Robbie says it's probably a once in a lifetime incident - I have seen it yet. But when it happens we all now know what to do...

Taff
08-06-11, 10:06
I've never seen someone kick a ball at the posts so hard that it bounces off the posts and goes straight into touch. And I don't think I ever will.Neither have I, but I can easily imagine a kick for the posts ending up being kicked over the touch lines - especially at the level I referee. :D I think it's a badly worded question - why complicate it by mentioning anything about "bouncing off the posts"? It isn't going to happen, and just muddies the water. :(

Dickie E
08-06-11, 11:06
It has happened in a game I was reffing. And I got the restart correct :bday:

OB..
08-06-11, 11:06
As to why it is defending teams throw, well because that's the law. The reason why the Law is that way is unknown to meAnd apparently to the Designated Members as well. They say
If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in.
Law 21.4(d). but that bit of law says "The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch." The sanction is "Unless otherwise stated in law any infringement by the kicker's team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.". That does not contain any justification at all for the decision. (It is not the only time the Designated Members have introduced new law.)
but it seems reasonable, you've had a shot at goal, you missed, if it had gone dead tig they would have had a 22DO, since it's gone into touch they get the line out.If that really is their rationale it is a great pity they did not bother to say so. That would be by analogy because Law 22.8 does not mention touch.


But as Robbie says it's probably a once in a lifetime incident - I have seen it yet. But when it happens we all now know what to do...I thought it had actually occurred in a French game, hence the query?

chopper15
08-06-11, 19:06
And apparently to the Designated Members as well. They say but that bit of law says "The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch." The sanction is "Unless otherwise stated in law any infringement by the kicker's team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.". That does not contain any justification at all for the decision. (It is not the only time the Designated Members have introduced new law.) If that really is their rationale it is a great pity they did not bother to say so. That would be by analogy because Law 22.8 does not mention touch.

I thought it had actually occurred in a French game, hence the query?

I like it, OB. :clap: :clap: . . and how can 'they' not have a 'democratic' appeal system, Simon? That's barefaced arrogance . . . or is it contempt for the game?

And why isn't a PK at goal taken with a DK similarly penalised if it ricochets off the post?

Ref management wouldn't allow a 22 restart should a DK be used to simply gain ground and it went on over the DBL, so why should the law lords insist that the kicker was the culprit and not the ricochet?:mad:

Simon Thomas
08-06-11, 20:06
and how can 'they' not have a 'democratic' appeal system, Simon? That's barefaced arrogance . . . or is it contempt for the game?

Perhaps you have to look at the history of rugby to answer that Chopper. The decision making structures are based on evolving constitutions and practical experience over well over 100 years.

Up to 1885 the RFU set the Laws of Rugby, but because of a try dispute in an England v Scotland match - England said it was a try as they made the Laws (interesting concept & definitely arrogant !).

The International Rugby Football Board was founded in 1886 by Scotland, Wales and Ireland (at a meeting in Dublin, hence it is based still in Dublin). England's RFU did not join until 1890, as they wanted more 'seats' as they had many more clubs. That got a bit changed when Rugby League was founded over broken-time payments !

It became the IRB over a century later in 1997. Now there are nearly a hunders full home union members.

The IRB Executive Council meets twice a year. It consists of eight Unions with two seats each: Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and France. Four unions have one seat each: Argentina, Canada, Italy and Japan. The six regional associations representing Europe, North America and the West Indies, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania also have one seat each. With the Chairman and Vice Chairman, this adds up to a total of 28 members. The full IRB membership meets at a General Meeting which is convened every two years. Below that are management and functional sub-committees. One of these is the standing Laws Committee, which is established by the IRB Council. The current chairman of the committee is Bill Beaumont I belieive. The Laws of the Game are formulated by the IRB, and are then circulated by the national Unions as a global standard.

The IRB does consult widely, holds regular meetings at broad and specific functional levels - the Lensbury Laws meeting is one such annual event.

Once the IRB makes a Laws decision / ruling of course there can be further application for review, through the home unions, but I am not aware of a formal appeal process.

In this case it is regarding a once in a lifetime event (if ever) for most players and referees (even Dickie), and really isn't worth wasting time on it - there are much greater priorities.

SimonSmith
08-06-11, 20:06
I like it, OB. :clap: :clap: . . and how can 'they' not have a 'democratic' appeal system, Simon? That's barefaced arrogance . . . or is it contempt for the game?

And why isn't a PK at goal taken with a DK similarly penalised if it ricochets off the post?

Ref management wouldn't allow a 22 restart should a DK be used to simply gain ground and it went on over the DBL, so why should the law lords insist that the kicker was the culprit and not the ricochet?:mad:
You can't really appeal against the House of Lords (unless to the ECJ)

It has to stop somewhere

chopper15
08-06-11, 23:06
Thanks for the history, Simon, very interesting and much appreciated, but still think it's a great pity 'they' didn't put the same professional effort into framing the laws as they have done for its presentation.:sad:

Dixie
09-06-11, 10:06
You can't really appeal against the House of Lords (unless to the ECJ)

It has to stop somewhere You've been away too long! The House of Lords no longer has a judicial function - that has been taken over by the Supreme Court. Its decisions can be appealed to the ECJ as you rightly mention - but let's not forget the role of the European Court of Human Rights, which is a supra-national court of last resort for those who feel their human rights have been infringed. Decisions are binding on the 47 members of the Council of Europe - which includes all 27 members of the EU, though not (I think) the EU itself.

So in theory at least, the ECHR can hear and overturn decisions of the ECJ - though this is well outside my area of law, and it would lead to complex legal conflicts. The EU states are bound by the fundamental European treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Lisbon) to respect the decisions of the ECJ, and by their signature to the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the decisions of the ECHR.

Fortunately, as Tony Blair proved, politicans are above the law and need consider nothing other than their personal wishes, in the certain knowledge that if there's any crud likely to arise further down the line, some other Scottish politician is likely to have to clean it up.

Davet
09-06-11, 10:06
But Simon's basic point remains.

At some point you run out of appeals, and once the Governor rejects your plea, you're toast.

crossref
09-06-11, 11:06
But Simon's basic point remains.

At some point you run out of appeals, and once the Governor rejects your plea, you're toast.

..but still free to thrash over the injustice of it all on rugbyrefs.com :biggrin: