PDA

View Full Version : interesting scenario



openyoureyesref
06-01-07, 11:01
Our full back at our club asked me this question last week which I am still seeking the right answer for,

Red kick the ball into the in goal. Blue full back makes a good catch and calls mark. he then taps it off and grounds it. Ball has never left the in goal area.
Whats the decision?
Any help from you guys will be most appreciated.
RM

Deeps
06-01-07, 11:01
As red were responsible for the ball going into in goal where blue made it dead I would have no problem awarding a drop out.

beckett50
06-01-07, 12:01
Why not just make it dead straight away?:confused:

Emmet Murphy
06-01-07, 12:01
Would the actual mark for the FK not be 5m infield - ie not in the in-goal area?

Bryan
06-01-07, 12:01
I'm going to disagree.


Law 21.4 (g) Out of play in the in-goal. If a penalty or free kick is taken in in-goal and the ball goes into touch-in-goal, or on or over the dead ball line, or a defending player makes the ball dead before it has crossed the goal line, a 5-metre scrum is awarded. The attacking team throws in the ball.

The FK laws apply to HOW a mark is taken. Once that ball is tapped, the mark has been taken. If it is then grounded, then a 5m scrum to the attacking team should be awarded.

Bryan
06-01-07, 12:01
Would the actual mark for the FK not be 5m infield - ie not in the in-goal area?
Not in the case where a Mark is awarded:


Law 18 Definitions:
A kick is awarded for a mark. The place for the kick is the place of the mark....A player from the defending team may make a mark in in-goal.

18.3 KICK - WHERE
The kick is taken at or behind the mark on a line through the mark.

HOW the kick is taken comes under FK laws. WHERE the kick is taken comes under Law 18.

-Bryan

Davet
06-01-07, 13:01
I agree, The mark for the FK would be the place where the mark was made. Even though red took the ball in-goal initially the FK supercedes that and the action described would result in a 5m scrum as per 21.4.g

OB..
06-01-07, 16:01
This happened in a TV game a while back. Matt Burke made the Mark in in-goal and there was a brief conversation with the ref, following which Burke kicked for touch from the in-goal mark.

Subsequent discussion revealed that he had been advised that if he tapped and touched down, it would be a 5-metre scrum. Bryan has given the relevant bits of law and the correct explanation.

Why go for a Mark? To avoid the danger of having the ball stolen from you before you can ground it.

ex-lucy
06-01-07, 21:01
"Why go for a Mark?"

ignorance/ smarty pants

the times i have had to explain a law ... "but i thought ....."
"wrong"

Deeps
06-01-07, 22:01
I'm going to disagree.

Thanks Bryan, difficult to speak with mouthful of foot.

Very interesting though, I suppose the theory is that the kick from the mark resulting in a touchdown shows inept skill on the part of the defender or good skill by the attackers in forcing the ineptitude.

Emmet Murphy
07-01-07, 00:01
Yep ... sorry!! Scrum 5m Attacking ball. I replied on the hoof without checking the law book - that'll learn me!! :D

What is interesting in the law book (which I have now looked at!) is the terminology that is used ... after a mark a player is awarded a "kick" and not an actual "Free Kick". I hadn't seen that distinction there before! I can't see any difference between a "kick" and a "Free Kick" other than the fact that one can be awarded in the in-goal area and the other can't.

Out of interest, can someone tell me what happens if a Free Kick is awarded just outside a team's 22 and the kicker takes the kick in line with the mark but just inside the 22 and the ball goes directly into touch? I'd been meaning to ask on here for a few weeks now and kept on forgetting!

Mike Whittaker
07-01-07, 00:01
Sorry,ignore posting, thread jumped and I got wrong question....

....but line out where ball went into touch is, I think, the answer to the latest question.

SONA
07-01-07, 00:01
Out of interest, can someone tell me what happens if a Free Kick is awarded just outside a team's 22 and the kicker takes the kick in line with the mark but just inside the 22 and the ball goes directly into touch? I'd been meaning to ask on here for a few weeks now and kept on forgetting!
No gain in ground: Law 19.1 b.

Bryan
07-01-07, 00:01
SONA posted the above 2 minutes before me. I wasnt trying to repeat anything. But the actual relevent law for FREE KICKS is 19.1(f).


Out of interest, can someone tell me what happens if a Free Kick is awarded just outside a team's 22 and the kicker takes the kick in line with the mark but just inside the 22 and the ball goes directly into touch? I'd been meaning to ask on here for a few weeks now and kept on forgetting!

This one surprised me. In any case, no matter where the kick is TAKEN, it only matters where it is AWARDED. If it's outside the 22m area, then it makes no difference if the kicker steps back into the 22m area to kick it. That'll teach him for trying to be clever!


Law 19.1(f) Outside the kicker’s 22, no gain in ground.
When a free kick awarded outside the 22 goes directly into touch, the throw in is in line with where the ball was kicked, or where it went into touch, whichever is nearer the kicker’s goal line.

Emmet Murphy
07-01-07, 02:01
Thanks for that! Just to be clear then - the lineout would be in line with where the ball was kicked and not in line with the original mark? (even though that would mean the line-out being inside the 22m)

I had an U.13 match several weeks ago and awarded a FK to the defending side just outside their 22. The kicker kicked directly into touch before I had a chance to remind him that it was not a penalty etc and so the lineout went to the attacking side in line with where he kicked it. The coach asked me afterwards if he had taken several steps back (into his 22) would he have been okay. I told him I wasn't sure & would need to check it out. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

Mike Whittaker
07-01-07, 08:01
So in future they will take a tap FK, pass it back into the 22 and then kick it into touch. Probably get a better angle anyway...

Glyndwr
07-01-07, 15:01
So in future they will take a tap FK, pass it back into the 22 and then kick it into touch. P

Not after the next bunch of law changes.

Glyndwr
07-01-07, 15:01
awarded a FK to the defending side just outside their 22. The kicker kicked directly into touch ....and so the lineout went to the attacking side in line with where he kicked it.

Go on. Tell me I am losing it.

I thought that a FK could gain the ground but not the put-in?????

PeterH
07-01-07, 16:01
Go on. Tell me I am losing it.

I thought that a FK could gain the ground but not the put-in?????

I think the fact it was awarded (AND TAKEN) outside the 22 is the key

and direct into touch - so line out where kick was taken

OB..
07-01-07, 17:01
As Bryan pointed out earlier, it is where the FK was awarded that matters, not where it was taken.

Mike Whittaker
07-01-07, 19:01
As Bryan pointed out earlier, it is where the FK was awarded that matters, not where it was taken.

So in future they will take a tap FK, pass it back into the 22 and then kick it into touch. Probably get a better angle anyway...

jboulet4648
07-01-07, 19:01
Until the laws change after RWC 2007 and kicking directly out behind the 22 does not lead to a gain in ground.

Mike Whittaker
07-01-07, 20:01
Until the laws change after RWC 2007 and kicking directly out behind the 22 does not lead to a gain in ground.


So even more long distance ping pong... Is this change definite?

jboulet4648
07-01-07, 21:01
I know its proposed....we shall see if it becomes a reality. It is one of the law changes I do not have a problem with personally.

oxped
07-01-07, 21:01
I thought the proposed change was that if you were outside the 22 and passed the ball back inside to another player, then that kick would not gain ground if kicked directly into touch. If you collect the ball inside the 22 then you would still gain ground? Or am I completely wrong??

jboulet4648
07-01-07, 21:01
It was something like that, and that is the scenario Mike had painted in post #21.....

although they would not have a freekick off of a mark outside of the 22, since you cannot have a mark outside of the 22, so that wouldn't make any sense.....but if a free kick was awarded outside the 22, and they passed into the 22, and the ball was kicked directly out, come next year, they would not have a gain in ground, if the new law is passed.

PeterTC
07-01-07, 22:01
Oxped is spot on with what is being trialled in Cambridge (and thus is roughly along the IRB lines of thinking).

Mike Whittaker
07-01-07, 23:01
Would this cover any situation where the defending team has taken the ball back over their own 22?

What currently unsatisfactory state of the game is this intended to correct?

Davet
07-01-07, 23:01
What currently unsatisfactory state of the game is this intended to correct?

TV viewing figures. It seems that the laws are too complex and difficult so rugby is going to be dumbed down in order to attract morons.

PeterTC
08-01-07, 01:01
To answer the question posed by Mike, while I do not have a copy of the exact wording of the ELV on me at this point in time, if the defending team take the ball into their own 22 (be it by passing it in, running it in, kicking it backward into their own 22) then if they are to kick it direct into touch, there would be no gain in ground. However, there have been a few slight variations looked at with regards to this within the Laws Lab, but in essence keeping the principle the same.

Again, (and I wish I had the ELV with me, as it indeed defines the reasoning behind the trial) the reasoning behind it as far as I remember was to encourage attacking rugby and to try and remove the what was seen as defensive option of a team passing the ball back into their 22 in order to kick away possession into touch downfield. However, I will try and dig out the exact ELV wording I have around and reproduce its purpose on here as I am unsure/unsatisfied that what I have told you is the full reasoning/exact truth.

Simon Thomas
08-01-07, 10:01
I am not going to be concerned with this possible change until such time as it becomes an implemented Law change for the whole Game.
I have enough to keep me confused, without worrying about possible new variations and changes, that may, or may not, come in at some future date.

didds
08-01-07, 11:01
all of which makes the receipt of a FK outside of a 22m area (whether attacking or defending) almost useless... even as an attacking award it is still reasonably toothless.

Just expect a lot more scrummages - really TV couch potato user friendly ...

didds

Pablo
08-01-07, 11:01
This one surprised me. In any case, no matter where the kick is TAKEN, it only matters where it is AWARDED. If it's outside the 22m area, then it makes no difference if the kicker steps back into the 22m area to kick it. That'll teach him for trying to be clever!

It surprised Tony Spreadbury yesterday at Wasps v Worcester too, Worcester were awarded a free kick from a scrum about 5m outside their 22, the kicker retired 10m and punted it straight out. Spreaders and his TJ awarded the line-out where it had gone into touch, which at the time I thought looked wrong. Bryan has now kindly confirmed that it was.

Incidentally, I noticed yesterday just how bad Spreaders is at making secondary signals. There were clear secondaries for only two penalties in the whole game, which made following some decisions from way up in the back row of the top tier pretty tricky. Just an aside.

Glyndwr
08-01-07, 11:01
Odd what one doesn't notice.

Only yesterday did I realise that if a team opts for a scrum instead of a FK, they still cannot score a drop-goal directly from it.

PeterTC
09-01-07, 02:01
To answer the question posed by Mike, while I do not have a copy of the exact wording of the ELV on me at this point in time, if the defending team take the ball into their own 22 (be it by passing it in, running it in, kicking it backward into their own 22) then if they are to kick it direct into touch, there would be no gain in ground. However, there have been a few slight variations looked at with regards to this within the Laws Lab, but in essence keeping the principle the same.

Again, (and I wish I had the ELV with me, as it indeed defines the reasoning behind the trial) the reasoning behind it as far as I remember was to encourage attacking rugby and to try and remove the what was seen as defensive option of a team passing the ball back into their 22 in order to kick away possession into touch downfield. However, I will try and dig out the exact ELV wording I have around and reproduce its purpose on here as I am unsure/unsatisfied that what I have told you is the full reasoning/exact truth.

OK, I have the ELV with me. Ironically under the section "Problem to be Solved", it says:

To be identified by the IRB.
The problem is presumed to be too many lineouts and lack of continuity and counter attacking ideas by teams in defence.

Mike Whittaker
09-01-07, 10:01
Thanks Peter. I am sure they will think up a problem in due course!! :D