PDA

View Full Version : What am I missing re: question 270



RandybinSC
13-10-07, 16:10
Every few days i try to answer 20 or so questions and my goal is to always try to improve my score. Well I was going this morning and I came upon question number 270.

Question 8 - Type: Scenario Question
Question Reference Number: 270
Gold kicks-off and Blue #12 receives the ball. Blue #12 is immediately held by Gold #5 and a maul forms. The ball does not emerge. What do you do?
Incorrect - You answered C.
The correct answer is: D.
17.6h : If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent's kick (ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it), except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than five seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.


6 out of 8 Correct: 75%
A. Nothing; play on.
B. Award a penalty kick to Blue.
C. Award a scrum, with Blue throwing-in.
D. Award a scrum, with Gold throwing-in.

Now why was D the correct answer, if the law that they reference law 17.6 and that seems to state that the catching team gets to throw the ball in to the scrum.

Simon Griffiths
13-10-07, 17:10
17.6h : If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent's kick (ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it), except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than five seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

See bold.

And, welcome to the forums. :)

PeterH
13-10-07, 17:10
It is a weird one :)

David J.
13-10-07, 17:10
Anyone know the purpose of this law? I find it makes it easier to understand and explain. (Like the purpose of the scrum up option on a kick through goal was in response to Austrailian tactics a few years ago.) I suppose OB can come up with a date.

Simon Griffiths
13-10-07, 17:10
I suppose it's to make the team chasing Garryowens attempt to catch/play the ball, rather than just stand around waiting for the opposition to catch it so that they can wrap him up and get a scrum - 30m gain, no effort.

Dixie
13-10-07, 19:10
I remember playing when this changed - probably late 70's or early '80's. It was felt that the player under the high ball had not failed in any way - he just never had a chance to make the ball available, and so shouldn't be penalised by turning the ball over. A kick off is somewhat different, however, in that the receivers are aware of all the kicking side's options, and have failed to counter a good kick. Consequently, they SHOULD turn over ball as a result of their failings

Emmet Murphy
13-10-07, 21:10
I was told by a senior member of my society that it was to reward good kick-offs / drop outs.

RandybinSC
14-10-07, 01:10
Thanks for the clarification, appreciate the help. I read that a few times and I guess I missed the "except" part of that sentence.

Davet
14-10-07, 10:10
deleted by author on the basis that I was talking rubbish

OB..
14-10-07, 12:10
The turnover law was introduced in 1992, for both ruck and maul. In 1994 the kick-off exemption was brought in (and the ruck turnover abolished).

Mat 04
14-10-07, 14:10
I was told that it was because the 22m dropout and the kick off require the team to kick, meaning they were made to kick the ball away. Every other kick is optional by the kicking team.

Gareth-Lee Smith
14-10-07, 14:10
Don't listen to Mat, he's only Level 1 ;)

Mat 04
14-10-07, 23:10
Don't listen to Mat, he's only Level 1 ;)

Not to mention my 9 different personality disorders :P