PDA

View Full Version : [Law] Question on Law 10.2



kid a
04-05-16, 14:05
10.2
(c) A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The law above states that a player must not intentionally knock the ball out. But what if a player tries to do this, but before the ball goes out of play, it first touches another player?

So in effect, the law then becomes semantical, as the ball actually never reached 'out of play' directly by the players actions, but the player did try to 'knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch'.

Thanks

Phil E
04-05-16, 15:05
If it went forward; Knock On.

If it didn't go forward; Play On.

If it didn't go out of play, then he can't be guilty of putting it out of play.

kid a
04-05-16, 15:05
If it went forward; Knock On.

If it didn't go forward; Play On.

If it didn't go out of play, then he can't be guilty of putting it out of play.

Thanks. I think that's in definite of a law rewrite then, as negative play like that is ruining the game.

In theory then you could pass the ball into touch to end the game if you make it come off an opposition player. As long as it goes level / backwards.

crossref
04-05-16, 15:05
good question!

1 If it was headed for touch, and merely bounces off another player on the way into touch -- I think give the PK.
2 If it's not clear whether the knock/throw actually would have gone into touch, but it hits a player and goes into touch - play on, lineout.
3 If the ball hit another player and remained on the pitch, then play on..



(I am assuming the throw/knock wasn't deliberately forward, which would be a PK anyway, whatever happens)

Rich_NL
04-05-16, 15:05
In theory then you could pass the ball into touch to end the game if you make it come off an opposition player. As long as it goes level / backwards.

If your tactic for last play of the game is to throw it behind your line towards an opposition player, you'll probably learn other tactics are less disappointing :)

kid a
04-05-16, 15:05
good question!

1 If it was headed for touch, and merely bounces off another player on the way into touch -- I think give the PK.
2 If it's not clear whether the knock/throw actually would have gone into touch, but it hits a player and goes into touch - play on, lineout.
3 If the ball hit another player and remained on the pitch, then play on..



(I am assuming the throw/knock wasn't deliberately forward, which would be a PK anyway, whatever happens)

What about this:

https://embed.gyazo.com/da238f07bb7ce7853bd1ea71401c7587.gif

didds
04-05-16, 15:05
Thanks. I think that's in definite of a law rewrite then, as negative play like that is ruining the game.

In theory then you could pass the ball into touch to end the game if you make it come off an opposition player. As long as it goes level / backwards.

Yes. But the risk would be that instead of going into touch off the oppo, they instead picked it up and played on.

didds

Phil E
04-05-16, 15:05
What about this:


I would give a PK for that against Red. I am guessing the showbiz ref didn't?

crossref
04-05-16, 15:05
What about this:

great question! What did the TMO give?

You could look at this and say that--

1) blue gets his hands to the ball first, and red manages to knock the ball out of his hands before he scores (It just happens to go into TIG, but that was incidental) Play on (so either a 22m or 5m scrum depending on how the ball got into the in goal.

OR
2) before blue can get his hands on the ball red deliberately knocks the ball into TIG to stop him - so PK and therefore a PT.

I am guessing the TMO said (1)

talbazar
04-05-16, 16:05
What about this:

https://embed.gyazo.com/da238f07bb7ce7853bd1ea71401c7587.gif

I would answer slightly outside of topic:
Red player knocking the ball forward on purpose into Blue player preventing Blue to score a probable try.
PT & YC

But I'm not using law 10.2.

Admitting Red knocked the ball backwards onto Blue player's hand then into touch-in-goal, I reckon the YC + PK would be right in spirit.
I'm not 100% sure it would be right in law... For all the reasons listed above.


It's always the same question: What was done on purpose?
The knock out of the to-be-scorer hands
or
The fact the ball goes into touch/touch-in-goal

And furthermore, does it actually matter?

kid a
04-05-16, 16:05
Yes. The referee gave a dropout 22m. If that is the law being officiated correctly then fair enough. But as far as I can see the red player deliberately tried to knock the ball out of play which directly affected play. The fact it came off something else first shouldn't come into it.

I don't see Blue getting his hands on it first. I see red tapping it away. Negative play, which if not against the laws is quite concerning.

I actually think tapping the ball when 2 players are going for it should be outlawed completely (apart from lineout obviously). It's a completely negative play. Players should show they are attempting to catch the thing not tap it away.

https://embed.gyazo.com/e9ab7947d36558415b6d0130c098965b.gif

This one is 100% legal as the ball is knocked towards his own tryline. But the green player is never attempting a catch. Just to disrupt negatively. Juts a bugbear of mine.

DocY
04-05-16, 16:05
In the OP, surely you can ping him for intentionally offending? Then you just have to judge whether it was C&O and material.

In that clip, I'd give the PT - he was clearly trying to knock the ball out of play.

crossref
04-05-16, 16:05
This one is 100% legal as the ball is knocked towards his own tryline. But the green player is never attempting a catch. Just to disrupt negatively. Juts a bugbear of mine.

I think that's an unreasonable bugbear - I don't see anything against the spirit of the Laws in that one.

4eyesbetter
04-05-16, 16:05
That gif is exactly the kind of thing I imagine (except with the player facing the other way) when I write about "I don't understand why some people are so determined to see deliberate knock-ons instead of failed attempts at a spectacular intercept followed by a length of the field try". I've seen those stick in the hand more times than I can count.

DocY
04-05-16, 16:05
This one is 100% legal as the ball is knocked towards his own tryline. But the green player is never attempting a catch. Just to disrupt negatively. Juts a bugbear of mine.

I see what you mean with this one - definitely negative play. I'd be hesitant about saying that all knock backs should be penalised though - I have no problem with players trying to knock a kick or a bouncing ball back to a team mate.

OB..
04-05-16, 18:05
Yes. The referee gave a dropout 22m. If that is the law being officiated correctly then fair enough. But as far as I can see the red player deliberately tried to knock the ball out of play which directly affected play. The fact it came off something else first shouldn't come into it.

I don't see Blue getting his hands on it first. I see red tapping it away. Negative play, which if not against the laws is quite concerning.

I actually think tapping the ball when 2 players are going for it should be outlawed completely (apart from lineout obviously). It's a completely negative play. Players should show they are attempting to catch the thing not tap it away.

This one is 100% legal as the ball is knocked towards his own tryline. But the green player is never attempting a catch. Just to disrupt negatively. Juts a bugbear of mine.Surely all defensive play is negative in that it is aimed at preventing the opponents from scoring. I think negativity is a red herring. I have seen some brilliant attacking tip passes. If you are going to allow those for the attackers, you MUST allow them for the defenders as well.

I think the basic point was decided back in the nineteenth century. When England played Scotland in 1884, a Scot knocked the ball back from a lineout. An Englishman grabbed it and dived over the try line. The Scots claimed that knocking the ball in any direction was against the law, so play should have stopped at that point.

In those days, each side provided an umpire, and any offence had to be appealed. If the two umpires agreed, the scrum was awarded. If they disagreed, then a relatively new-fangled invention called the referee would adjudicate. The Scots claimed their umpire had agreed and that several players on both sides had stopped, thinking the English umpire had agreed. The referee was Irish (he had in fact played against both countries in the previous season).

It turned out that in Scotland they always treated any knock as an infringement. However the game was being played in England, so the RFU pointed out that their interpretation applied: knocking back had always been legal. The referee agreed and later said that he did not see why the Scots should be entitled to benefit from their own error - the first ever advantage call? (There was no advantage law at that time, because if you wanted advantage, you simply did not appeal).

A delightfully waspish correspondence ensued between the two union secretaries and Scotland refused to play England the next season. A year later in Dublin the Scots finally agreed to accept the decision "for the good of rugby", but this was one of the incidents that led both to the formation of the IRB, and to giving the referee power to make decisions without appeals, relegating the umpires to touch judge duties.

crossref
04-05-16, 18:05
I guess with the advent of the TMO to whom the on-field referee can appeal, and to whom he usually defers --- we've come full circle

Pegleg
04-05-16, 18:05
Going back to the OP the law is clear:

10.2
(c) A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A knock back does not fall under that law. So eg a line outjumper tapping the ball back which then evades capture and goes in to touch is correctly not ruled illegal inder the quoted law. Similarly a pass that is poorly directed, and which goes into touch is not considered to be deliberately thrown into touch.

I think if it is "C&O" that a player has thrown or knocked the ball with the intention of putting it into touch and it goes off another player on the way then rule it as deliberate. But you have to be very sure that it is C&O or you are going to look a prat.

As for knock backs in general play, why not. OB sums it up well the whole point of defence is to NEGATE the attackers attack. Do you want to ban tacking as it is negative? Or competing for the ball in Rucks and mauls because it is stopping the nice man from scoring? Nonsense!

crossref
04-05-16, 18:05
I think if it is "C&O" that a player has thrown or knocked the ball with the intention of putting it into touch and it goes off another player on the way then rule it as deliberate. But you have to be very sure that it is C&O or you are going to look a prat.

what about where it is "C&O" that a player has thrown or knocked the ball with the intention of putting it into touch but it hits another player (or indeed the corner flag) bounces, and stays in field of play .... play on, right ? despite his intention?

OB..
04-05-16, 19:05
what about where it is "C&O" that a player has thrown or knocked the ball with the intention of putting it into touch but it hits another player (or indeed the corner flag) bounces, and stays in field of play .... play on, right ? despite his intention?Despite his intention, he has failed to commit an offence.

I would also include"reckless" under "intentional". In the clip, Red's main aim is to prevent Blue scoring, but realistically, the way he swings at the ball, he can only do that by knocking the ball into touch.

Blackberry
04-05-16, 20:05
I see it thus; the defender with no options left cleverly thumped the ball backwards / sideways out of the attacker's grasp, counting on the attacker touching it on its way to touch. If it works, 22 d.o., if it doesn't, PT. He is quite within his rights to do this, and if he fails to do it within the laws the attacker is compensated with a penalty try.

Ian_Cook
04-05-16, 21:05
What about this:

IMO, your clip is a PT and YC. Regardless of the fact that it finally came of the attacking player, the defender was attempting to knock the ball into touch, and it went into touch.

Same as this... (ignore the commentators and listen to the conversation between Joubert and his TMO)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYGgoCCyls

Pegleg
04-05-16, 21:05
what about where it is "C&O" that a player has thrown or knocked the ball with the intention of putting it into touch but it hits another player (or indeed the corner flag) bounces, and stays in field of play .... play on, right ? despite his intention?

Yes play on. No offence has occured.

Balones
05-05-16, 09:05
I think you have to take every incident on its merits. In #6 could the defending player have very skilfully knocked the ball back and onto the attacking players hands causing him to knock on and then the knock on causing the ball to go into touch? It is certainly not clear that he was trying to knock it into touch. There was a lot of upward movement by his arm. #22 is C&O.
If it is a C&O attempt to hit the ball to touch and it accidentally hits the player then by all means P.
Quite often in in situations that are not C&O or are open to interpretation I would support the referee if he could clearly and confidently support his decision. In #6 I would support a referee if he went for a PT but at the same time if another referee went for a play on/22 then I could support that. I personally based on the video viewpoint would have gone for the latter. If I was refereeing on my own like most of us do I would expect the referee to definitely go for the latter, especially if you see the AR's position in this clip. He could not possibly have seen precisely what had happened. (The ref probably had been in a similar or worse position than the AR.)

Dickie E
05-05-16, 09:05
Yes play on. No offence has occured.

I agree and it is black & white for me. Ball needs to go into touch directly for me to even consider a penalty. The road to hell is paved with intentions.

DocY
05-05-16, 10:05
I agree and it is black & white for me. Ball needs to go into touch directly for me to even consider a penalty. The road to hell is paved with intentions.

I'm not too keen on this interpretation - it leads to the situation where a non-offending player can 'save' an offending opponent from sanction and is worse off for doing so.

Taking the example of a situation like the first clip. Blue might pull out and deliberately not touch the ball, leading to a PT and YC, but in touching the ball he stops the infringement being committed and hands over possession (if he hasn't grounded it). At best he's awarded the try, but the conversion is out wide and there's no YC.

This doesn't sit very well with me.

collybs
05-05-16, 11:05
I'm not too keen on this interpretation - it leads to the situation where a non-offending player can 'save' an offending opponent from sanction and is worse off for doing so.

Taking the example of a situation like the first clip. Blue might pull out and deliberately not touch the ball, leading to a PT and YC, but in touching the ball he stops the infringement being committed and hands over possession (if he hasn't grounded it). At best he's awarded the try, but the conversion is out wide and there's no YC.

This doesn't sit very well with me.

How are you going to "sell" the penalty if the ball does not go into touch? (No offence committed as the the offence is propelling the ball INTO touch

crossref
05-05-16, 11:05
I'm not too keen on this interpretation - it leads to the situation where a non-offending player can 'save' an offending opponent from sanction and is worse off for doing so..

it's just part of rugby, isn't it -- it's like the kick off that was heading directly into touch, for options, except that it hits a defender on the way - for an attacking line out !

Not 'fair' or deserved, just luck...

Dan_A
05-05-16, 11:05
I can't help thinking that what the red player did was actually very clever and skillful - the more I look the more I think he was intending to do exactly what he did (i.e. legally push the ball sideways onto blue, causing a knock on and saving a try).

If he had failed in his attempt and ended up knocking the ball into touch, then PT and card. But I can think of many examples of something that is either well played or a penalty depending on the skillfulness of execution.

L'irlandais
05-05-16, 12:05
linked article (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/pro12/glasgow-blast-munster-away-to-claim-first-major-title-1.2232397) has short match highlights. Nigel Owens says it was a fair contest and not a deliberate attempt to knock the ball into touch.

So the correct answer to that post is 6.A.4(a)
The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.Nigel Owens is a consistent ref, restart with a drop out, is a good call; there are a lot more controversial calls made in TV rugby. That's just splitting hairs, to decide otherwise at the grassroots, as neither match ref nor AR were close enough to see what's happening.

DocY
05-05-16, 12:05
How are you going to "sell" the penalty if the ball does not go into touch? (No offence committed as the the offence is propelling the ball INTO touch

Deliberate infringement - I'm of the opinion that this covers attempted infringement. Sorry for invoking a straw man, but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

crossref
05-05-16, 12:05
but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

well, you might give a PK to make a point, but you wouldn't give the RC that would be deserved if it connected.

DocY
05-05-16, 12:05
it's just part of rugby, isn't it -- it's like the kick off that was heading directly into touch, for options, except that it hits a defender on the way - for an attacking line out !

Not 'fair' or deserved, just luck...

On a point of pedantry, a kickoff into touch isn't an infringement, but would you consider a deliberate, low, hard kick off aimed at a player on the touchline (which bounced off him into touch) OK? I don't think I would and I think that situation is closer to an intentional knock into touch than a misplaced kick off.

crossref
05-05-16, 12:05
a kick off directly into touch is an infringement

collybs
05-05-16, 12:05
Deliberate infringement - I'm of the opinion that this covers attempted infringement. Sorry for invoking a straw man, but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

Deliberate infringment of what law? (There is no law that says attempting to knock the ball into touch is an infringement.)



(10.2.a)
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.

L'irlandais
05-05-16, 12:05
I agree with Dan #29, the defender has skillful prevented a try.
No offense was committed (see #25), in which case it would be very wrong to award a PT and YC

Compare NO's fair decision here to the controversy of Mike Phillip's try awarded following the QTLO, which denied Ireland a deserved Grand Slam. There is zero controversy in NO's awarding a 22 drop out. You may not agree with his decision, but he was the match referee, so your agreement in Not required.

DocY
05-05-16, 12:05
. You may not agree with his decision, but he was the match referee, so your agreement in Not required.

I think we can still discuss whether we think the decision is right or not - it won't change the match, no, but will help us make consistent decisions.

The discussion is whether an attempted deliberate knock into touch could be penalised. NO said he didn't think such an attempt was made in this case, fair enough, but that makes it a simple decision doesn't advance the debate much.

L'irlandais
05-05-16, 12:05
Only Keith Earls did NOT deliberately knock the ball into touch.
He skillful tapped the ball off the attacking player who knocked on into touch.

Restart 22 drop out. Good call. Rugby laws are about creating a fair contest for the ball.
If the newbie wishes to advance the debate, then he will need a better example. That clip doesn't show any cynical infringement.

crossref
05-05-16, 12:05
Only Keith Earls did NOT deliberately knock the ball into touch.
He skillful tapped the ball off the attacking player who knocked on into touch.

Restart 22 drop out. Good call.

well, NO ! It's a bad call : as we all know: a knock on in the in-goal is always a 5m scrum 12.1(d) .

(let's not go there again!)

L'irlandais
05-05-16, 13:05
Do forgive me for over simplifying, but from a grassroots perspective the referee will not see a clear and obvious knock on in goal, given his position. Nor will he have the benefit of a TMO
22.11 Ball dead in in-goal
(a). When the ball touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was played into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.12

crossref
05-05-16, 13:05
Do forgive me for over simplifying, but from a grassroots perspective the referee will not see a clear and obvious knock on in goal, given his position. Nor will he have the benefit of a TMO

In a grass roots game, with no AR and no TMO, yes indeed, no one would argue with a ref who gave a 22m

but in that game they DID have a TMO ! So it should have been a 5m scrum, really.

DocY
05-05-16, 13:05
Deliberate infringment of what law? (There is no law that says attempting to knock the ball into touch is an infringement.)

10.2(c). IF you work from the premise (and it might be wrong) that attempting but failing to infringe should be counted as deliberate infringement. I think that is in the spirit of the law.

DocY
05-05-16, 13:05
Only Keith Earls did NOT deliberately knock the ball into touch.He skillful tapped the ball off the attacking player who knocked on into touch.

I think you're missing the point. We're discussing what would happen if a player attempted, but failed, to knock the ball into touch. It's a discussion about law more than a specific incident. The clip was picked (I expect) because it looked like the sort of situation where this might have happened.

If you believe that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to knock the ball out, then there's no question of how the law applies. The debate is around what would happen if a player DID try to knock it out.

crossref
05-05-16, 14:05
I think you're missing the point. We're discussing what would happen if a player attempted, but failed, to knock the ball into touch. .

In general terms - no offence took place. play on. have a quick word after ("I saw what you tried to do there - you were lucky you ddin't succeed !")

beyond that, you'd need a video of a specific event to call.

Ian_Cook
05-05-16, 14:05
Deliberate infringment of what law? (There is no law that says attempting to knock the ball into touch is an infringement.)

OK, so

1. Attempting to trip an opponent , but he manages to maintain his feet is play-on?

2. Attempting to kick a player on the ground and missing is play-on?

3. A player on the ground attempting to tackle an opponent is play-on?

4. A player attempting to kick the ball out of an opponents hands when the opponent is attempting to score a try is play-on

5. You're the referee, and a player takes a swing at you. That's play-on is it?


Too many people forget this bit of the Law Book

"SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit
of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it
involves coaches, captains, players and referees."

IMO, trying to knock the ball into touch, whether directly or off an opponent, to prevent a try being scored (even if the attempt fails) is definitely against the spirit of the Laws of the Game.

crossref
05-05-16, 14:05
IMO, trying to knock the ball into touch, whether directly or off an opponent, to prevent a try being scored (even if the attempt fails) is definitely against the spirit of the Laws of the Game.

what if they miss the ball completely --- intention 100% there, but they missed. Still to be penalised?

didds
05-05-16, 14:05
well, you might give a PK to make a point, but you wouldn't give the RC that would be deserved if it connected.


warning: potential de-rail...

would you give a RC for every connected punch?

didds

DocY
05-05-16, 14:05
what if they miss the ball completely --- intention 100% there, but they missed. Still to be penalised?

Good point - I think in that case there's an argument that it's not material and TBH, I think that's the route I'd take (and a quick word with the player soon afterwards). EDIT: Sorry, crossref, didn't see your previous post.

I don't think this applies in the cases Ian lists, though - those actions are likely to 'inflame passions', so should be penalised.

crossref
05-05-16, 14:05
no I wouldn't.

But for instance if a player ran 30 metres to kick someone in the head ... and the kick missed ...

DocY
05-05-16, 14:05
warning: potential de-rail...

would you give a RC for every connected punch?

didds

I had a bollocking from an advisor before Christmas for not RCing a punch. I still don't think it was merited - the most pathetic punch I've ever seen!

leaguerefaus
05-05-16, 14:05
On a point of pedantry, a kickoff into touch isn't an infringement, but would you consider a deliberate, low, hard kick off aimed at a player on the touchline (which bounced off him into touch) OK? I don't think I would and I think that situation is closer to an intentional knock into touch than a misplaced kick off.
How do you manage to referee such a physical game when you want to penalise things like this...

"Penalty for what ref?"
"You kicked the ball too hard."

Pegleg
05-05-16, 14:05
Deliberate infringement - I'm of the opinion that this covers attempted infringement. Sorry for invoking a straw man, but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

A punch is very clear and obvious to assess. "Did he or didn't he try to knock it into touch?" that is far more difficult to judge. And yes there are circumstances where I'd red him even if he missed!

Pegleg
05-05-16, 14:05
OK, so

1. Attempting to trip an opponent , but he manages to maintain his feet is play-on?

2. Attempting to kick a player on the ground and missing is play-on?

3. A player on the ground attempting to tackle an opponent is play-on?

4. A player attempting to kick the ball out of an opponents hands when the opponent is attempting to score a try is play-on

5. You're the referee, and a player takes a swing at you. That's play-on is it?


Too many people forget this bit of the Law Book

"SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit
of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it
involves coaches, captains, players and referees."

IMO, trying to knock the ball into touch, whether directly or off an opponent, to prevent a try being scored (even if the attempt fails) is definitely against the spirit of the Laws of the Game.

I completely agree. However, the problem is being 100% confident that the player is trying to knock the ball iinto touch. Some situations are C&O others are not.

Phil E
05-05-16, 14:05
Not sure how relevant this is to the 'is a missed offence still an offence' question, but in the Sarries v Newcastle game last week the AR stuck his flag in at a ruck for a player throwing several punches.

When they looked at the replay the player was punching the ball, which was being held by a player on the ground, to try and dislodge it.

Did he throw punches? Yes.
Did he hit anyone? No. Only the ball.

Ref and TMO decided that no offence had taken place.

You can see it in the Premiership full match replay at 01:02:10 on the slider time (pop up grey bar at the bottom with play controls in).

http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/?WT.mc_id=mpType:Display*Asset:Display_Ad*CmpID:PR TV*Other:Video

NB: what really riled me was the referee doing nothing about a Newcastle player who said "you have to give a red card", and the captain getting in his face and arguing at the end.

thepercy
05-05-16, 15:05
I had a bollocking from an advisor before Christmas for not RCing a punch. I still don't think it was merited - the most pathetic punch I've ever seen!

At least he didn't advise you to fabricate referee abuse so you could give the RC...

Ian_Cook
06-05-16, 05:05
what if they miss the ball completely --- intention 100% there, but they missed. Still to be penalised?


Referereing by increments huh?

If he takes a swipe and misses, the ball will not go into touch as a result of his intentded action, and the try would probably be scored, so your question is moot.

The only difference between the video posted by the OP in Post #6 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19717-Question-on-Law-10-2&p=315856&viewfull=1#post315856) and the one posted by me in post #22 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19717-Question-on-Law-10-2&p=315877&viewfull=1#post315877) is that the ball touched the attacking player before it went into touch. For mine, that is a difference that makes no difference. My chain of thought for both is...

1. Did the defending player intentionally propel the ball towards the sideline?
YES

2.Did the ball go ito touch as a result of this action?
YES

3. Did this action prevent a probable try from being scored?
YES

RESULT
Penalty Try
Yellow Card for the defending player

Balones
06-05-16, 09:05
1. Did the defending player intentionally propel the ball towards the sideline?
YES

Ian
I have said that I agree with the principle that you are applying to the situation. I.e. deliberate and obvious attempt to hit the ball in to touch that causes the ball to go into touch off another player then by all means apply a PT. In #6 - because on this forum we like to be pedantic and nit-picking - I am not convinced from what I saw that he was deliberately trying to hit the ball into touch. The angle of his arm movement and the palm of his hand would suggest that the attempt was to hit the ball more 'up' than 'across'. I would be prepared to reward the skill that this shows rather than penalise him heavily.

L'irlandais
06-05-16, 14:05
Thanks. I think that's in definite of a law rewrite then, as negative play like that is ruining the game.

In theory then you could pass the ball into touch to end the game if you make it come off an opposition player. As long as it goes level / backwards.i cannot imagine a situation, where to end the game, the ball carrier would do anything other than kick to touch, (especially if he is that close to the touch line) or pass to a teammate with the ability to kick to touch. Throwing the ball at an opposition player in the hope of passing it into touch would most likely end up simply giving away possession. Also in Rugby opposition players are generally in front of the ball carrier, so 9times out of 10 it'd have to be a forward pass, giving then opponents a PK. Hardly a good strategy for ending a match.

Also the example in your post #11 is not negative play. Passing the ball in the defensive line is a very risky play, the green player did NOT infringe any law. If you are going to rewrite the LOTG, please do so with the aim of improving them!