Here's an interesting one......

[pricci]

Real scenario. Happened to me two weeks ago in a Level 12 League Game.

Black hands in ruck. Penalty on the 22. Blue elect to kick at goal.

Ball hits the right hand upright and bounces straight into touch (Not touch in-goal) just inside the 5m.

Your decision.

[Robert Burns]

I would have to say Lineout on the 5m to Black. My interpretation would be that only a direct kick into touch gets the linout on the side of the blues, and I think you can safely say he didn't play for it, if he did, then he's playing at the wrong level!

[pricci]

I would have to say Lineout on the 5m to Black. My interpretation would be that only a direct kick into touch gets the linout on the side of the blues, and I think you can safely say he didn't play for it, if he did, then he's playing at the wrong level!

Exactly what I gave Robert. However, a senior ref in my society said it should have been counted as a kick directly into touch and blue should have had the put in at the lineout. Unless, as you say, it was done on purpose in which case he would have called a scrum with black put in.

[Robert Burns]

Any of our senior members want to comment?

[Plod]

Exactly what I gave Robert. However, a senior ref in my society said it should have been counted as a kick directly into touch and blue should have had the put in at the lineout. Unless, as you say, it was done on purpose in which case he would have called a scrum with black put in.

What a cracker. No problems on this, it is a line out and it is to the kicking side blue. Reasons = In scenario mentioned it is clearly obvious it was an intentional goal kick and not an attempt to place kick for touch which is not permissible in law and would have if deemed wilful resulted in a scrum back to black from the place of kick. I have seen the same happen when a player kicking in a strong cross wind saw his kick blown into touch. At the time I allowed touch. The decision was referred to the RFU Laws committee and was deemed correct by a Clive Leeke former RDO for the Midlands.

[pricci]

What a cracker. No problems on this, it is a line out and it is to the kicking side blue. Reasons = In scenario mentioned it is clearly obvious it was an intentional goal kick and not an attempt to place kick for touch which is not permissible in law and would have if deemed wilful resulted in a scrum back to black from the place of kick. I have seen the same happen when a player kicking in a strong cross wind saw his kick blown into touch. At the time I allowed touch. The decision was referred to the RFU Laws committee and was deemed correct by a Clive Leeke former RDO for the Midlands.

Hello again Plod. Just been replying to you on the Scrum Forum.

In this case, I bow to your better judgement and experience.

Having had a few more days to consider it, it all makes perfect sense.

Another notch of experience gained.

Thank you.

[Robert Burns]

Lol, We all disagree at times, thats what makes it good to be able to share our experiences!

[didds]

Real scenario. Happened to me two weeks ago in a Level 12 League Game.

Black hands in ruck. Penalty on the 22. Blue elect to kick at goal.

Ball hits the right hand upright and bounces straight into touch (Not touch in-goal) just inside the 5m.

Your decision.

No brainer surely? PKs can be kicked directly into touch, so no problem there. L/os within 5m of a goal line are taken on the 5m line. There was no intent to "deceive" the officials/oppo by nominating goal and then kicking for touch deliberately (the kick at goal was clear), so no problem there.

Decision = lineout to blue, on 5m line, on touchline that the ball crossed.

didds

[didds]

Exactly what I gave Robert. .

where in the laws would it support the black lineout?

Its a kick to touch from a PK, deliberate or not is surely irrelevant? Otherwise... what about garryowens that drift/roll into touch? What about cross-field kciks ("kick-pass") that the winger misses and enters touch?

It has to be blue's lineout.

didds

[Robert Burns]

Not entirely, of course we can see it now, but I would have still originally stated that the penalty was a failed attempt at goal and so the lineout should go to the oposition.

And if Plod had a team refer it to the RFU when similar had it happen to him, it can't be that much of a no brainer.

However, I am glad pricci brought this up as it happened to me last week, and because of this thread, I knew what to give