PDA

View Full Version : Ball in touch rolls past the 22m, and defenders take a QTI



crossref
22-01-16, 14:01
it's a scenario that we have discussed many times here

- ball goes into touch outside the 22m, but rolls past the (imaginary, extended) 22m line, and defenders take the QTI from behind the 22m and kick to touch -- was it carried back in to the 22m? or do they get gain in ground...

We now have an answer. From next season in SA the defenders would get gain in ground. Which implies that, currently, it would be counted as carried back.


6. Quick throw-in

a. The ball is kicked by an attacking team and the ball rolls into touch outside the defending team's 22 and keeps on rolling. If it then rolls beyond the imaginary extension of the defending teams' 22-metre line and a defender picks up and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks directly into touch outside of his 22, the line-out will be where the ball went out.

b. The ball is kicked by an attacking team and the ball rolls into touch outside the defending team's 22 and a defender picks up, runs back behind the imaginary extension of the 22-metre line and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks directly into touch outside of his 22, the line-out will be opposite the place where the kick was made.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/slight-law-changes/2830586/

Thunderhorse1986
22-01-16, 15:01
Is it me or does this make it more complicated?

So currently: where ball went into touch matters - if taken back into 22 either during the QTI or before, then it counts as taken back by defending team in both counts and line out is inline with the kick:

New (to SA): depends on where the ball was picked up by the QTI taker? If they pick it up on their side of an imaginary, extended 22 outside the field of play then it doesn't count as taken back so they get the gain in ground. But if they pick it up the other side of the imaginary extended 22 line then run back behind the imaginary 22, then they don't get the gain in ground? I also assume this latter one applies if they throw in the QTI backwards into the 22?

For me the old law - based only on where the ball went into touch, not on imaginary lines etc - seems simpler...

crossref
22-01-16, 15:01
I guess from where a referee is standing it's easier to judge where the ball was picked up, than exactly where it went into touch.

Thunderhorse1986
22-01-16, 15:01
For a ball in the air I would probably agree, for a ball rolling into touch I would disagree. The proximity of the 22 and the touch line intersection, and the 22m flag to when the ball is rolling should make it quite obvious. But if it then rolls further away from those markers by the time the player picks it up it may be harder to know, especially if for example he is running back towards his tryline at some speed, for example. But in general I just think the idea of having 2 different decisions is what is confusing. So my argument is more based on any time the LOT is outside the 22 and it is then moved into the 22 then it counts as taken back in. For me that is an easier explanation.

DocY
22-01-16, 15:01
If I found myself in this situation (I haven't done so yet), I'd have applied the current law as SA referees describe (i.e. for the purposes of the kick to touch, treat the throw in as though it had happened in the field of play).

Are there any advisors (or anyone else) on here who would object to that?

I see the points made above about it making the law more complicated, but it seems like the natural solution to me.

Pegleg
22-01-16, 17:01
A natural solution to what problem?

Ball goes into touch outside the 22 and then the ball is passed back for the kick or "TAKEN BACK" behind the 22 for the QT = The ball is "TAKEN BACK" Therfore NO gain in ground.

Why do the Bok have to complicate a relatively simple scenario?

DocY
22-01-16, 17:01
Maybe 'problem' was the wrong word, but if the player picks up the ball his side of his (extended) 22m line, it's not obvious to me that he has taken it back with his 22, so I'd award the gain in ground (I'm struggling to find anything in law saying this is either right or wrong, but I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction).

This seems quite different to me than the player carrying the ball back past his 22 before taking a quick throw.

EDIT: the diagrams in the definitions for the ground do show the 22 as being bounded by the touch lines and 19.1 (b) only says 'plays the ball from outside the 22...' rather than back into the 22, so I think I was wrong!
The final part of 19.1 (b) muddies the waters slightly, though. It talks of the player 'moving' back before taking a quick throw - no mention of what happens if he doesn't move back and it strikes me that they wouldn't need this if my reading of 'plays the ball from outside the 22' above was right.
I'm unsure now!

OB..
22-01-16, 18:01
This idea was first introduced by SA some years ago and I objected strongly to Sarefs then. At the time a QTI had to be thrown straight, so the current law allowing it to be thrown towards one's own goal-line makes it far harder to cover. This latest effort does not say if it was approved by WR.

When it was first proposed, the law book did not contain a diagram of the 22 area, and the verbal description still does not say it ends at the touchlines. When that diagram was included I raised this with Sarefs, who did not seem interested.
If I found myself in this situation (I haven't done so yet), I'd have applied the current law as SA referees describe (i.e. for the purposes of the kick to touch, treat the throw in as though it had happened in the field of play).

Are there any advisors (or anyone else) on here who would object to that?We would discuss it. I would not necessarily blame you for initially reacting that way, but would strongly advise you not to take that line in future. I would also use it to raise the issue formally and hope to get the idea quashed.

Much of the time it will be obvious if the ball has crossed the imaginary 22, but you can guarantee there will be close calls. Even worse will be cases where the player may (or may not) have one foot on either side of this imaginary line. At least on the pitch we have a real line to judge by. Even at the lowest levels there is usually a TJ to mark where the ball went into touch, whereas judging the imaginary line must be down to the referee, who may well be badly placed for that.

As the law stands I think the SA view is simply wrong. Who put the ball into the 22? Obviously the kicker did not (see Law 1 diagram), so it must have been the thrower; therefore no gain.

OB..
22-01-16, 19:01
I guess from where a referee is standing it's easier to judge where the ball was picked up, than exactly where it went into touch.
Why? After a kick he is unlikely to be in line with the 22. He will usually have TJs and will be used to judging where the ball crosses the touchline. I think any benefit is likely to be trivial and not worth the complication.

Dickie E
22-01-16, 21:01
might be a SANZAR thing. This is how we've always done it here. Never been a problem to my knowledge.

Chris_j
22-01-16, 23:01
Afaik Law Clarification 10 of 2004 still stands

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling 10-2004

Union / HP Ref Manager
WRU

Law Reference
19,21

Date
24 December 2004

Request

The WRU has requested a ruling with regard Law 19-Touch & line-out and Law 21 Penalty and Free Kicks
(1) A player of the attacking team kicks the ball indirectly into touch just outside the defenders 22 metre area. A defender gathers the ball, runs a few metres (still in touch) to a place behind his 22 metre line where he throws the ball straight infield. He gathers it and kicks direct to touch. What is the correct decision?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
(1) The defender is allowed to take the quick line-out in the manner specified. A line-out at the place where the ball went into touch from the defenders kick is the correct decision.

OB..
23-01-16, 13:01
If this "slight change" is confirmed, it will encourage a defending team to kick for touch and thus stop the game and give the lineout throw to their opponents.

Without it, the team will still have the option of possession via a QTI or via a lineout on their own throw.

Will having the lineout further from their goal line compensate for giving away the throw-in (and at the expense of complicating life for referees)?

ChrisR
23-01-16, 14:01
I guess from where a referee is standing it's easier to judge where the ball was picked up, than exactly where it went into touch.

Crossref, put down that glass. Step away from the bottle.

When the ball goes indirectly into touch the TJ/AR must mark the LOT so there really isn't the need for the referee to make that judgement call except in unusual circumstances.

As the ball can now be thrown (for a QTI) toward the thrower's goal the 2004 clarification needs to be updated to reflect that.

The concept of a virtual 22 extending beyond touch is problematic to say the least.

Example: If the ball comes to rest before the virtual 22 and a player with one foot beyond virtual 22 picks it up has that player taken the ball into the 22?

Virtual extension of the 22? Nonsense.

crossref
23-01-16, 22:01
In my games the TJ is often miles behind play :-(
If there is a long kick, and then a QTI, it's perfectly possible that the whole event has taken place before the TJ ever reaches the LOT!

DocY
25-01-16, 11:01
Afaik Law Clarification 10 of 2004 still stands



Are you sure this still stands? I think 19.2(b) has been amended since this ruling so it now explicitly states that in this situation the defending team put the ball into the 22.

crossref
25-01-16, 11:01
Are you sure this still stands? I think 19.2(b) has been amended since this ruling so it now explicitly states that in this situation the defending team put the ball into the 22.

that clarification covers the scenario where a defender gathers the ball beyond his 22m, and runs back and throws the ball inside the 22m.
I don't think anyone would dispute that this would count as carried back in, therefore if he kicks for touch there is no gain in ground. The clarification merely states the obvious.

the more tricky scenario is where the ball goes out beyond the 22m, and then rolls along the ground in touch, and rolls past the 22m, following which a defender first picks it up behind the 22m and throws from where he gathered it, inside the 22m

.. in that scenario did he carry it back or not? people's intuitions differ.

DocY
25-01-16, 15:01
My reading of the above clarification was actually that it was stating the opposite of the obvious: "..A line-out at the place where the ball went into touch from the defenders kick..." hence thinking that the law must have changed since.

Agreed though, a ruling on what happens in the second scenario you describe would be good. Personally, I like the SA referees' idea - I expect you'd get a bit of grief from the defending players for awarding the lineout in line with the kick, but no grief from the attacking team for doing the opposite!

crossref
25-01-16, 16:01
oops. you are quite right.

on the rolled-back scenario, I think that a referee who would count that as carried back (which may well be the correct view in Law) should be yelling loudly 'carried-back!', so that the defender understands the situation..

Lee Lifeson-Peart
25-01-16, 18:01
Wasn't this one of Chopper15's pet subjects?:biggrin:

Chris_j
25-01-16, 22:01
Are you sure this still stands? I think 19.2(b) has been amended since this ruling so it now explicitly states that in this situation the defending team put the ball into the 22.

19.2 is unchanged. The clarification is still on the WR site unedited. Other clarifications have been annotated as "incorporated into law..." or "superceded by..." where that is the case.

I don't like the clarification, and share the concerns as to its effect, but it does seem very clear and it supports the SA refs view on this discussed at length on here last year.

Given this ruling, the scenario of the ball rolling past the "extended 22" whilst in touch must also result in gain in ground.

OB..
25-01-16, 23:01
I am still at a loss to understand why this is thought to be of benefit to the game. Overall it is a significant complication for the referee for a relatively insignificant benefit to the defenders. It does not improve continuity of play for the spectators.

Dickie E
26-01-16, 00:01
I am still at a loss to understand why this is thought to be of benefit to the game.

Let me preface my comments below with:
1. I am not an advocate either for or against this ruling, and
2. as such I have no interest in entering into an argument.

Back in the day a player could run or pass the ball back into his 22 and then kick the ball out for a gain ground.

The powers that be decided that this led to overly negative defensive play so 2 changes were made at various times:
1. player was prohibited from running ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground, and
2. player was prohibited from passing ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground.

We saw the same type of thing in soccer. A ball passed back to the goal keeper can't be picked up.

The principle here then is this: a player is not able to benefit by playing negatively and putting the ball back into his/her own 22.

So the question here is this: is a defender who picks up the ball in touch 15 metres from his own goal line and takes a QTI breaking the principle outlined above?

I'll leave readers to come to their own answer.

Like it or not, that is the logic.

Pinky
26-01-16, 01:01
Let me preface my comments below with:
1. I am not an advocate either for or against this ruling, and
2. as such I have no interest in entering into an argument.

Back in the day a player could run or pass the ball back into his 22 and then kick the ball out for a gain ground.

The powers that be decided that this led to overly negative defensive play so 2 changes were made at various times:
1. player was prohibited from running ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground, and
2. player was prohibited from passing ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground.

We saw the same type of thing in soccer. A ball passed back to the goal keeper can't be picked up.

The principle here then is this: a player is not able to benefit by playing negatively and putting the ball back into his/her own 22.

So the question here is this: is a defender who picks up the ball in touch 15 metres from his own goal line and takes a QTI breaking the principle outlined above?

I'll leave readers to come to their own answer.

Like it or not, that is the logic.
Don't think a qti 15m from goal line would be seen as carried back, but do agree that the clarification seems to limit the loss of gain in ground to running the ball or passing it or I presume kicking it back into the 22.

OB..
26-01-16, 12:01
So the question here is this: is a defender who picks up the ball in touch 15 metres from his own goal line and takes a QTI breaking the principle outlined above? Wrong question. The QTI is fine. The question is who put the ball into the 22. That is what defines whether or not a kick to touch can gain ground. Unless the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22, it was NOT put into the 22 by the kicker (see the diagram in Law 1). Not according to the law book anyway.

Thunderhorse1986
26-01-16, 12:01
The question is who put the ball into the 22. That is what defines whether or not a kick to touch can gain ground. Unless the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22, it was NOT put into the 22 by the kicker (see the diagram in Law 1). Not according to the law book anyway.

What he said :biggrin:

Dickie E
26-01-16, 13:01
Wrong question. The QTI is fine. The question is who put the ball into the 22. That is what defines whether or not a kick to touch can gain ground. Unless the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22, it was NOT put into the 22 by the kicker (see the diagram in Law 1). Not according to the law book anyway.

The old "that tree has fruit that aren't lemons. Therefore they must be bananas" routine. Sure to work on the simple folk.

Thunderhorse1986
26-01-16, 13:01
That's not the same logic. In this scenario one team has to have put the ball into the 22. It is a binary option. Not with fruit trees where there are multiple "non-lemon" options outside of bananas. In effect we are in a binary world where there are only trees with bananas or lemons. So if the fruit on the tree is not a lemon is must be a banana.

If the kicking team did not put the ball into the 22, the throwing in team must have done, and vice versa. There is no middle ground here, surely?

TigerCraig
26-01-16, 13:01
Is this the wrong time to mention bananas don't grow on trees? ::frown:

crossref
26-01-16, 13:01
If the kicking team did not put the ball into the 22, the throwing in team must have done, and vice versa. There is no middle ground here, surely?

the middle ground would be that it doesn't matter who put the ball in the 22m, because this is a special case.

Viz
- when the ball is in touch and is carried past the 22m flag to take a QTI, you cannot get gain in ground when you kick
- when the ball is in touch and rolls past the 22m flag and a QTI is taken you can get gain in ground when you kick

Thunderhorse1986
26-01-16, 13:01
I guess so - but this, as I mentioned before, seems to add an extra complication to an already complicated game. If that's what WR/IRB/other refs etc want, then that is fine and I can understand the argument for it. I just think it is simpler to go off the LOT rather than add in this complication.

ChrisR
26-01-16, 14:01
I guess so - but this, as I mentioned before, seems to add an extra complication to an already complicated game. If that's what WR/IRB/other refs etc want, then that is fine and I can understand the argument for it. I just think it is simpler to go off the LOT rather than add in this complication.

As stated above in bold. When the ball is kicked to touch the one unambiguous spot that must be marked is the LOT. All subsequent actions, in one way or another, reference this point. To introduce another virtual point that offers no real value to the game is simply stupid.