PDA

View Full Version : QTI taken behind the 22m line



crossref
16-06-15, 11:06
We have discussed this a lot before -- but CJ seems to have a different answer from the majortiy view here.


Question: Green player on the 10 metre line kicks the ball which crosses the touch line on the full, the line of touch thus being abeam the kick. Blue player starting from inside his 22 executes a quick throw inside his 22. His kick goes out on the full at the half way line. Where is the subsequent line-out.

Craig Joubert: If the player gathered the ball behind the 22m line in touch and then threw it in he can gain ground, if he collects the ball in touch outside of the 22m line and then runs back into the 22m area while in touch before throwing the ball in, then no gain in ground.

The majority view on this site has been that what's important is the LoT -- if the LoT is outside the 22m, then a player taking a QTI inside his 22m has taken it back in, so can't kick for gain in ground.

Joubert is saying : No, what's important is is where the ball is retrieved.
http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-496--craig-joubert/2829628/

OB..
16-06-15, 14:06
We have discussed this a lot before -- but CJ seems to have a different answer from the majortiy view here.



The majority view on this site has been that what's important is the LoT -- if the LoT is outside the 22m, then a player taking a QTI inside his 22m has taken it back in, so can't kick for gain in ground.

Joubert is saying : No, what's important is is where the ball is retrieved.
http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-496--craig-joubert/2829628/
It was a common argument from SA that the 22m line extended into touch. It is now clear that it does not. The diagram in Law 1 (the diagrams are part of the laws) shows the area of the 22 as being entirely within the Field of Play.

It was always a nonsense anyway because of the difficulty in deciding if the ball had crossed the mythical extended 22m line when several metres away from the touch line.

crossref
16-06-15, 18:06
In this scenario the ball could have crossed the 22m inside the field of play... But because they kicked it straight out, the LOT is still way back on the 10m line, so by taking the QTI from inside the 22m line the defender could still be judged to have taken play into his own 22m.

Dixie
16-06-15, 18:06
Craig is extrapolating from Clarification 10 of 2004, and does not seem to be stretching the point too far:

Clarification 10 2004

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling10-2004
Union / HP Ref ManagerWRU
Law Reference19,21
Date24 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?

(2) ...
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.
(2) ... .

OB..
16-06-15, 23:06
In this scenario the ball could have crossed the 22m inside the field of play... But because they kicked it straight out, the LOT is still way back on the 10m line, so by taking the QTI from inside the 22m line the defender could still be judged to have taken play into his own 22m.If the ball crossed the line inside the 22, then it passed through the air over the 22. I treat that as the kicker putting the ball into the 22. I don't see why it is necessary for the ball to land there. It will be thrown into the 22 from touch in both cases, so that cannot be the distinguishing factor.

crossref
17-06-15, 09:06
If the ball crossed the line inside the 22, then it passed through the air over the 22. I treat that as the kicker putting the ball into the 22. I don't see why it is necessary for the ball to land there. It will be thrown into the 22 from touch in both cases, so that cannot be the distinguishing factor.

which is Joubert's logic.

It is the opposite logic from the other hoary problem of a FK being advanced 10m to be outside to the 22m:

- In the FK case, because the new mark is outside the 22m, even though the ball is inside the 22m, if the team declines to advance to the new mark, but takes the kick from where they are - inside the 22m - they are treated as having 'carried it back', so can't kick for gain in ground

- Contrast the QTI case : when LoT is outside the 22m, if the ball is inside the 22m, they CAN take the QTI from where they are, and get gain in ground. In this case it doesn't count as carried back.

OB..
17-06-15, 10:06
crossref - are you arguing that every time a team is awarded a lineout in their own 22, they are then responsible for putting the ball into the 22? Defending team takes ball into their own 22 at a scrum or lineout. When a defending team throws the ball into a scrum or lineout outside that team’s 22 [...] I think we have a satisfactory negative inference. "Outside" is specified so "inside" is OK and the gain in ground is permitted.

The FK case is simply a disconnect between laws 19 and 21, which was presumably not spotted.

crossref
17-06-15, 11:06
No, the opposite.

In the QTI option I think it's correct that if the ball reaches the 22m and goes out, then they can take the QTI behind the 22m and get gain in ground, even if the LoT is outside the 22m.

But I think this same logic should extend to the FK. A FK is given inside the 22m, and then - becasue of the actions of the opponent it's adavanced outside the 22m, I think that you should have the option to decline the extra 10m, stay within the 22m and kick for gain in ground.

Taff
17-06-15, 13:06
... In the QTI option I think it's correct that if the ball reaches the 22m and goes out, then they can take the QTI behind the 22m and get gain in ground, even if the LoT is outside the 22m.
I don't think so.

If the LoT is outside the 22, and the defending team opt to take a QTI inside the 22, then in my book they have "taken it back in" and don't get a gain in ground if they kick it to touch.

They are entitled to a LO at the LoT. The QTI is an option - nobody forced them to take a QTI inside their own 22.

crossref
17-06-15, 13:06
I don't think so.

If the LoT is outside the 22, and the defending team opt to take a QTI inside the 22, then in my book they have "taken it back in" and don't get a gain in ground if they kick it to touch.

They are entitled to a LO at the LoT. The QTI is an option - nobody forced them to take a QTI inside their own 22.

well see posts #1 and #4 .. it dosn't count as taken back.

Taff
17-06-15, 15:06
well see posts #1 and #4 .. it dosn't count as taken back.
Sorry, but this makes no sense.

Post 1 is Jouberts opinion. Post 4 is a Clarification from 11 years ago.

Effectively suggesting that they didn't take the ball "back in" to the 22 because the ball was already there is stretching the point a bit IMO. My argument would be "You are entitled to a LO outside the 22. OK, the ball may have ended up inside the 22 but you opted to take the QTI from inside the 22. Nobody forced you to take the QTI inside the 22 - you opted to do it."

OB..
17-06-15, 15:06
In the QTI option I think it's correct that if the ball reaches the 22m and goes out, then they can take the QTI behind the 22m and get gain in ground, even if the LoT is outside the 22m.I think we are at cross purposes somehow.

If the ball leaves the field before reaching the 22, it is dead and it cannot thereafter get into the 22. Therefore the kicking team did not put the ball into the 22. If a QTI is taken, that is what puts the ball into the 22, so there can be no gain in ground from a kick to touch. The actual location of the line of touch is not relevant, it is whether or not the kicking team put the ball into (or over) the 22.

But I think this same logic should extend to the FK.You can take a QTI behind the point it went out, but if that means you took the ball back into the 22, you cannot gain ground. The same applies to a FK: you can take it behind the mark, but if you take it back into your 22, you cannot gain ground.

A FK is given inside the 22m, and then - becasue of the actions of the opp
onent it's adavanced outside the 22m, I think that you should have the option to decline the extra 10m, stay within the 22m and kick for gain in ground.I would like to see the law amended to do that for a FK, but at present it doesn't. I see no reason to amend the law for a QTI.

crossref
17-06-15, 16:06
I think we are at cross purposes somehow.

If the ball leaves the field before reaching the 22, it is dead and it cannot thereafter get into the 22. Therefore the kicking team did not put the ball into the 22. If a QTI is taken, that is what puts the ball into the 22, so there can be no gain in ground from a kick to touch. The actual location of the line of touch is not relevant, it is whether or not the kicking team put the ball into (or over) the 22.

OB this isn't really a question about the ball rolling along in touch.

In the OP Green kick the ball out on the full, and in doing so the ball crosses the blue 22m, and then goes into touch inside the blue 22m.

Blue can take the QTI anywhere between where the ball went into touch, inside their 22m, and the LoT -- somewhere upfield outside the 22m, let's say on the half way line.

So the question is exactly parallel to the FK one.
- blue have the right to take a line out on the half way line
- instead they choose to take a QTI where the ball is - inside their 22m
- if they do the latter, have they - effectively - chosen to resume play inside 22m when they could have been outside at the LoT. the consequence being no gain in ground (which is the argument used in the advanced FK scenario). CJ says no - they get gain in ground. A big incentive to take a QTI.

OB..
17-06-15, 17:06
OB this isn't really a question about the ball rolling along in touch.
Craig Joubert: If the player gathered the ball behind the 22m line in touch and then threw it in he can gain ground,Craig joubert's reply does make that point, hence my challenge. I think he is wrong.


In the OP Green kick the ball out on the full, and in doing so the ball crosses the blue 22m, and then goes into touch inside the blue 22m.The OP does not specify where the ball goes into touch, which is why Craig Joubert covers two different scenarios.


So the question is exactly parallel to the FK one.No it isn't. The OP deals purely with the interpretation of Law 19. It is an argument South Africa espoused a few years back and IMHO it has subsequently been discredited by the change in the law book to show the 22 area. (The verbal description is defective.)

The FK location is governed by Law 21. Although the player is allowed to take it behind the nark, he was awarded the kick at the mark, so he is responsible for taking it back into his 22 if he kicks from there.

I agree that is unfair, and would like to see it rectified. As I said, I think the situation was overlooked - it is after all, very rare.

beckett50
17-06-15, 20:06
I hate to say this but IMO CJ is wrong on this point.

The LotG clearly stipulate the playing enclosure and that touch is touch once the ball crosses the plane and the lines across and along the pitch stop at Goal Line and the Touch Line.

If the ball is out it's out. If this means it closed the Touch Line outside the 22m then there can be no gain in ground from taking the QTI from within the 22m. Simples.

The Fat
17-06-15, 20:06
Just to stir the pot/stoke the fire etc etc etc,

This is an extract from ARU 2015 GMGs:

QUICK THROW AND LINEOUT
Put back into own 22m
• When a ball is passed into the 22 metre area and is touched by an opposing player, or a tackle, ruck,
scrum, maul or lineout is formed, then that team can now kick directly into touch and gain ground.
• The ball is considered to have been ‘taken back’ into a team’s 22m area in the following situations:
o When a team wins possession of a ball from a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout where the mark is outside
of the 22m area, even though the rear participants may have their feet within the 22m area
o When a quick throw-in is passed from in front of the 22m line, back across the 22m line and into the
22m area
o When a quick throw-in is taken within the 22m area after a player gathers it from in touch but in front
of the 22 metre line and then takes it behind the 22m line to throw.

Dickie E
18-06-15, 01:06
The ball is considered to have been ‘taken back’ into a team’s 22m area in the following situations:
o When a quick throw-in is taken within the 22m area after a player gathers it from in touch but in front
of the 22 metre line and then takes it behind the 22m line to throw.

So the corollary to that must be "The ball is considered to have not been ‘taken back’ into a team’s 22m area when a quick throw-in is taken within the 22m area after a player gathers it from in touch but behind the 22 metre line".

ARU GMG is my bible.

Ian_Cook
18-06-15, 03:06
I don't think so.

If the LoT is outside the 22, and the defending team opt to take a QTI inside the 22, then in my book they have "taken it back in" and don't get a gain in ground if they kick it to touch.

They are entitled to a LO at the LoT. The QTI is an option - nobody forced them to take a QTI inside their own 22.


Hang on a minute!

Gold player kicks ball in general play directly into touch from half way. The ball crosses the the Blue 22m in flight before going into touch 5m inside the 22m. This puts the the LoT back on the halfway. You are saying that because Blue take the QTi inside the 22m, they have carried it back!? Really!?

Surely, Gold have put the ball into Blue's 22m by kicking the ball through the corner of it. This is why you cannot use the LoT as a reference, you have to use the place where the ball ACTUALLY CROSSED the touchline, which is not always the LoT.,

irishref
18-06-15, 10:06
World Rugby - new clarification please. Obviously for us refs and it is easier to keep an eye on where the QTI is taken in relation to the 22m line.

From an AR perspective - would he or she be running back to the place of the kick to indicate the mark since it went out on the full and ergo have a distinct chance of missing the QTI?

crossref
18-06-15, 10:06
Hang on a minute!

Gold player kicks ball in general play directly into touch from half way. The ball crosses the the Blue 22m in flight before going into touch 5m inside the 22m. This puts the the LoT back on the halfway. You are saying that because Blue take the QTi inside the 22m, they have carried it back!? Really!?

Surely, Gold have put the ball into Blue's 22m by kicking the ball through the corner of it. This is why you cannot use the LoT as a reference, you have to use the place where the ball ACTUALLY CROSSED the touchline, which is not always the LoT.,

I agree with Ian - the Law here, which allows Blue to kick for gain in ground, is sensible.

Let's say, though that gold do the same kick, putting ball into the blue 22m but this time blue catch it and call a mark.

gold don't retreat from the mark as blue take it, and the referee blows and advances the mark 10m - outside the 22m

Now if blue remain inside the 22m and take the FK from inside - they are said to have 'carried' it back-- even though gold put the ball in the 22m and the ball has stayed inside the 22m ever since.

These two scenarios are contradictory.

e

Browner
18-06-15, 13:06
IMHO CJ has this wrong.

QTi ideology is encouraging game continuity.
The 22m line does not extend beyond the FoP.


I think the same methodology should exist as for QTI as it does all other facets of the game , there is no reason to make this more complicated than the "taken back" standard interpretation.

Reference , If a FK is firstly 'awarded' outside the 22 then anyone taking it quickly from ( say from behind the mark cos that's where he then gathered the ball from !) now within the 22 he's deemed to have been secondly taken it back in.

In the case of a QTi the same tactical/territorial decision should apply to the player. The throw is firstly awarded at the designated LoT , the player retrieves/catches the ball & now he is free (secondly) take it up to or back from behind the LoT and HE must factor in the tactical reasoning for executing a QTi.

Arguments centred around 'benefit' are IMO a distracting irrelevance.
In the subject case offered in post#18 the ball never lands in the FoP, so the bisecting of the 22 m line in the air is of course irrelevant.

Notwithstanding the above,
Any tactical decision from the player is his, IMO the trust of this QTi exception isnt designed to give him the a benefit to gain from returning the ball out of the FoP 'again' rather than continue game continuity.

The ideology for the QTi to create running game continuity ( yes please) , QTi to immediately boot it directly off the field again- no thanks, no gain in such circumstance.

Taff
18-06-15, 13:06
Hang on a minute! Gold player kicks ball in general play directly into touch from half way. The ball crosses the the Blue 22m in flight before going into touch 5m inside the 22m. This puts the the LoT back on the halfway. You are saying that because Blue take the QTi inside the 22m, they have carried it back!? Really?
Yes.

Gold kicked over the 22 (it never landed in the 22) and the ball is now dead. It is entitled to come back to life at the halfway line - using your example.

However, it's a "Zombie Ball" (copyright Crossref IIRC) and Blue choose to bring it back to life inside their 22. No problem - they're allowed to do that, but don't expect a gain in ground if you wellie it to touch.


I hate to say this but IMO CJ is wrong on this point.
I agree.

Ian_Cook
18-06-15, 13:06
Yes.

Gold kicked over the 22 (it never landed in the 22) and the ball is now dead. It is entitled to come back to life at the halfway line - using your example.

Sorry Taff, I disagree with that interpretation. It is completely at odds with commonsense, and the way the game is played.

The ball does not have to land in the 22m area, it only has to cross the 22m line for the kicking team to have put it there. The ball is only carried back in this situation if it crosses into touch outside the 22m line

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-CB.png...... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-NCB.png


By your interpretation if a player throws a 23m pass from outside his 22m to a team-mate in-goal, the player in goal is free to kick the ball into touch for a gain in ground because the ball didn't land in the 22m.

FlipFlop
18-06-15, 14:06
All of this is mute. CJ is right. I disagree but:

Clarification 10 2004


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling10-2004
Union / HP Ref ManagerWRU
Law Reference19,21
Date24 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?

(2) ....

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.
(2) .....

Taff
18-06-15, 14:06
Sorry Taff, I disagree with that interpretation. It is completely at odds with commonsense, and the way the game is played. The ball does not have to land in the 22m area, it only has to cross the 22m line for the kicking team to have put it there.
Except in that example the team didn't put it in the 22; they put it in touch - which happened to be next to the 22.


... By your interpretation if a player throws a 23m pass from outside his 22m to a team-mate in-goal, the player in goal is free to kick the ball into touch for a gain in ground because the ball didn't land in the 22m.
I wouldn't allow a gain in ground for that.

None of the examples lands in the 22 - that's the problem. If it had landed in the 22, there wouldn't be an issue.

Taff
18-06-15, 14:06
Sorry. Duplicated post.

Browner
18-06-15, 14:06
Oh no, not again !!!

This 'taken back' seemingly operates as an exception to the norm , & it was clarified 11 years ago but isnt yet clearly shown in the LoTG , how very helpful !!! , well spotted FF.

But hold on a cotton picking minute..... CJ also goes onto say this

Craig Joubert: if he collects the ball in touch outside of the 22m line and then runs back into the 22m area while in touch before throwing the ball in, then no gain in ground.

Directly contradicting this
. A defender gathers the ball, runs a few metres (still in touch) to a place behind his 22 metre line He gathers it and kicks direct to touch. What is the correct decision? ..... A line-out at the place where the ball went into touch from the defenders kick is the correct decision.
:confused:

crossref
18-06-15, 15:06
Sorry Taff, I disagree with that interpretation. It is completely at odds with commonsense, and the way the game is played.

The ball does not have to land in the 22m area, it only has to cross the 22m line for the kicking team to have put it there. The ball is only carried back in this situation if it crosses into touch outside the 22m line

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-CB.png...... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-NCB.png


By your interpretation if a player throws a 23m pass from outside his 22m to a team-mate in-goal, the player in goal is free to kick the ball into touch for a gain in ground because the ball didn't land in the 22m.

Ian your two diagrams are great : but wrong. Clarification 10 of 2004 states that NEITHER of these count as carried back, the Wales scenario describes exactly your left hand diagram!

OB..
18-06-15, 16:06
Law 1 contains diagrams showing that (a) the 22 does not extend beyond the touchlines, and (b) neither does the 22m line.

Dead: (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Dead)The ball is out of play.
Out of play: (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Out%20of%20play)This happens when the ball or the ball carrier has gone into touch or touch-in-goal, or touched or crossed the dead ball line.
The ball is therefore dead when it goes into touch.

It is being claimed that if the ball goes into touch and then crosses an imaginary extension of the 22m line, it has been put into the 22.

When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.
The original prohibition on taking the ball back was very simple. This paragraph is part of an expanded version from 2009.

The final sentence was a reaction to a recent tactic of picking the ball up in touch, running back to a point on the touchline inside the 22, and claiming this would allow a gain in ground. This change said it did not.

It is now being used to argue that because running back is specified, therefore not needing to run back means the ball was somehow inside the 22 and therefore not taken back. The fact that this does not fit with the definitions of the 22 and 22m line is being ignored.

Why does anyone want to introduce this complication? The default position for a throw-in is where the ball crossed the touchline. That can be hard to judge, but at least the line is real. How much harder to judge relation to an imaginary line a few metres into touch? Has anyone ever seen this interpretation used in practice?

I find the whole argument bizarre. I see no disadvantage in saying that what counts is where the ball crossed the touchline.

Perhaps we should counter that whenever the ball is thrown in from touch, it is necessarily from outside the 22. Then you have to draw an inference from 19.1 (d) to justify current practice.

crossref
18-06-15, 17:06
our collective problem is that we are discussing what we beleive the Law currently IS and what we think the Law SHOULD BE, all mixed up in the same conversation, which is why the thread becomes confusing.

Browner
18-06-15, 18:06
There needs to be a compelling argument to not have " taken back" as your default decision.

1) FF went for 10/2004,
2) OB uses 19.1(b) final sentence,
3) a 3rd contributor has tried to persuade that the 22m line (continues beyond the FoP)

#3 is clearly 'left field', so its dismissed . I'm happy sticking with my initial thought and #2 makes most sense and imo helps players and referees make logical 'gain' decisions.

The Fat
18-06-15, 22:06
I would love to hear the RFU's view on this. The ARU obviously take direction from WR so I don't think (or at least hope) that they would simply pull their approach out of their arse on this. Interested to know if RFU, ARU and CJ all agree that if a player retrieves the ball in-touch and from behind the 22, a gain in ground is allowed. That's the way I have to referee it as it is specifically noted in our GMGs.
Does the RFU produce a similar document?

Ian_Cook
18-06-15, 23:06
I would love to hear the RFU's view on this. The ARU obviously take direction from WR so I don't think (or at least hope) that they would simply pull their approach out of their arse on this. Interested to know if RFU, ARU and CJ all agree that if a player retrieves the ball in-touch and from behind the 22, a gain in ground is allowed. That's the way I have to referee it as it is specifically noted in our GMGs.
Does the RFU produce a similar document?

IMO, Taff is wrong because Clarification 10 of 2004 has been superseded by changes in the Laws.

In 2004, a QTi had to be thrown straight along the line of touch and had to be between the place where the ball crossed the touchline and that thrower's goal line. However, that Law has since changed twice

In 2009, Law 19.2 was changed to allow the QTi to be thrown either straight or towards that player's goal line.

In 2014 Law 19.2 was changed again to allow the QTI to be taken anywhere between the LoT and the thrower's goal line.

If 2004:10 were still valid, then we would have the following preposterous state of affairs....



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-NCB2.png.......https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-CB2.png

...............NOT CARRIED BACK.............................................. ...CARRIED BACK

FAT, does the ARU GMG's regard these two situations as identical?

ETA: Never mind, I found it, and they do...

Put back into own 22m
• When a ball is passed into the 22 metre area and is touched by an opposing player, or a tackle, ruck,
scrum, maul or lineout is formed, then that team can now kick directly into touch and gain ground.
• The ball is considered to have been ‘taken back’ into a team’s 22m area in the following situations:
o When a team wins possession of a ball from a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout where the mark is outside
of the 22m area, even though the rear participants may have their feet within the 22m area
o When a quick throw-in is passed from in front of the 22m line, back across the 22m line and into the
22m area
o When a quick throw-in is taken within the 22m area after a player gathers it from in touch but in front of the 22 metre line and then takes it behind the 22m line to throw.

Taff
19-06-15, 00:06
IMO, Taff is wrong because Clarification 10 of 2004 has been superseded by changes in the Laws.
I know what the 2004 Clarification says, but in 2015 I'm not agreeing with it.

If I am wrong (and it's possible) it seems quite a few agree with me.

I reckon this thread is getting confusing. What we need is a straightforward sketch showing a LoT and the ball going out on the full inside the 22 and 2 options- one allowing a gain in ground and 1 not.

Ian_Cook
19-06-15, 01:06
For mine, the simplest and most most commonsense approach is this;

In General play, if a ball that has been kicked into touch by an attacking player, crosses the touchline outside of the 22m, and a quick throw-in is taken, and the ball is thrown into any part of the playing area behind the 22m, then the ball has been taken back.

This could then be applied regardless of where the actual QTi is taken, inside or outside the 22m, or if it is thrown into in-goal

Of course its WR we are talking about, so commonsense doesn't necessarily apply.

The Fat
19-06-15, 02:06
For mine, the simplest and most most commonsense approach is this;

In General play, if a ball that has been kicked into touch by an attacking player, crosses the touchline outside of the 22m, and a quick throw-in is taken, and the ball is thrown into any part of the playing area behind the 22m, then the ball has been taken back.

This could then be applied regardless of where the actual QTi is taken, inside or outside the 22m, or if it is thrown into in-goal

Of course its WR we are talking about, so commonsense doesn't necessarily apply.

Of course I can see the merit in your suggestion but it is just as simple to use the ARU approach which I believe must have, at some stage, come from the old IRB.
Does NZ have a GMG document like the ARU?
Would like to see if it is mentioned in there if one exists.

Dickie E
19-06-15, 02:06
sure as eggs I'll be reffing tomorrow and this scenario will happen. Then I'll be racking my brain to remember which was the officially sanctioned outcome :(

Drift
19-06-15, 04:06
All of this is mute. CJ is right. I disagree but:

Clarification 10 2004


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling10-2004
Union / HP Ref ManagerWRU
Law Reference19,21
Date24 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?

(2) ....

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.
(2) .....


But this clarification came out before the "taken back" law was in place IIRC.

Ian_Cook
19-06-15, 04:06
Of course I can see the merit in your suggestion but it is just as simple to use the ARU approach which I believe must have, at some stage, come from the old IRB.

Would you see these two situations as the same or different in terms of a QTi and a defensive kick to gain ground?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-cb3.png....https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-cb4.png


1. A & B the same, both taken back

2. A & B the same, both NOT taken back

3. A & B different; A taken back, B NOT taken back


Does NZ have a GMG document like the ARU?
Would like to see if it is mentioned in there if one exists.

I haven't been able to find one. I suspect they use the ARU one (as they do LBYC)

Dickie E
19-06-15, 04:06
Would you see these two situations as the same or different in terms of a QTi and a defensive kick to gain ground?

1. A & B the same, both taken back

2. A & B the same, both NOT taken back

3. A & B different; A taken back, B NOT taken back



In Oz (which appears to be only jurisdiction to have made a clear statement), 3 is the correct answer.

Camquin
19-06-15, 11:06
19 (b) No Gain in Ground says "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch"

In A 19(b) clearly applies and is clearly opposed to the Clarification from 2004.

OB may know when 19(b) was last redrafted.
If this was before 2004, then why is the clarification still on the web site.
If before, why hasn't it been updated since the clarification overruled it.

crossref
19-06-15, 11:06
sure as eggs I'll be reffing tomorrow and this scenario will happen. Then I'll be racking my brain to remember which was the officially sanctioned outcome :(

unless you have an AR, you may not be able to easily tell whether it was A or B that happened!

OB..
19-06-15, 11:06
OB may know when 19(b) was last redrafted.2009 (See my #29).
This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.That was also when throwing back towards your own line was allowed. It was clear that throwing from a point on the touch line outside the 22 back into the 22 would not allow a gain in ground. This final sentence made it clear that one tactic which appeared in trials was not valid either.

The sentence fails to define "moves back behind the 22m line". It is not necessary to invent an extension of that line, you can simply take the natural meaning that it refers to the spot on the touchline that the throw is taken from. That means the thrower is constrained by the point where the ball went into touch.

It is also false logic to claim that because one thing is not allowed, its opposite is necessarily allowed; both might be disallowed.

I cannot understand why any referee would want to bring in the unnecessary complication of inventing an imaginary line.
How on earth do you apply19.1 (c) If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was stationary outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, so there is no gain in ground.to a spot a couple of metres into touch?!

Ian_Cook
19-06-15, 12:06
19 (b) No Gain in Ground says "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch"

In A 19(b) clearly applies and is clearly opposed to the Clarification from 2004.

OB may know when 19(b) was last redrafted.
If this was before 2004, then why is the clarification still on the web site.
If before, why hasn't it been updated since the clarification overruled it.

I presume you mean 19.1 (b)

2003 to 2008:
19.1 THROW-IN
NO GAIN IN GROUND
(b) Player takes ball into that team’s 22. When a defending player gets the ball outside the 22, takes or puts it inside the 22, and then kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground.
The law only applied if the player took the ball into his 22m himself, and kicked out, but he could still pass it to a team-mate who could kick to touch for a gain in ground.

2009 to 2015:
19.1 THROW-IN
NO GAIN IN GROUND
(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

The Law was changed in 2009 to close that loophole off so that a ball passed back to team-mate could not be kicked into touch for a gain in ground. The highlighted provision effectively overturned Clarification 10:2004

I also believe that this is where the ARU got their idea from and IMO, they are wrong.

I do not believe that where the ball is retrieved is of any relevance; what is of relevance is where the QTi is allowed to take place. IMO, this is what the Law is talking about when it says "...a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line.....". IMO, this means moving back from where the QTI is allowed to be taken, NOT moving back from where they have gathered the ball!.

No matter where the ball is retrieved, the throw in can be taken anywhere from where the ball crossed into touch back to their own goal line, but if they choose to take it back to a point behind their own 22m then they lose the benefit of a gain in ground from a kick to touch. For those who don't believe me, I posit this... what if the ball passes the imaginary extension of the 22m line, then strikes an advertising hoarding (which does not disallow a QTi) and bounces back across the imaginary extension again. The ball was already behind the 22m but now its going to be gathered in front of it. What if it bounces back into the field of play outside the 22m, or inside the 22m. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the viability of gain in ground to change depending on where the ball went or what happened to it after it went into touch!

crossref
19-06-15, 12:06
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the viability of gain in ground to change depending on where the ball went or what happened to it after it went into touch!

Let's take a different example -- red are attacking but last pass is poor, the winger misses it and the ball goes into touch just outside the blue 22m .. the hits an advertising hoarding and bounces back ..

the current state of the Law seems to imply that
- if the ball bounces back and stays outside the (extended) 22m, there is no way blue can take a QTI and kick for gain
- but if the ball happens to bounce back inside the (extended) 22m, then blue can take a QTI and kick for gain.

This doesn't seem very satisfactory to me -- what should matter is not the bounce in touch and where the player retrives the ball, but where the LoT is.

OB..
19-06-15, 13:06
This doesn't seem very satisfactory to me -- what should matter is not the bounce in touch and where the player retrives the ball, but where the LoT is.
Not the LoT (which might be level with where the kick was taken from) but where the ball went into touch.

crossref
19-06-15, 14:06
Not the LoT (which might be level with where the kick was taken from) but where the ball went into touch.

for me, the LoT

OB..
19-06-15, 14:06
for me, the LoTI think I see what you mean - you are referring to where a QTI can be taken. I am referring to what determines if the kick was put into the 22 or not.

ctrainor
19-06-15, 15:06
Anyway, I'm going with, there cannot be a gain in ground for a direct kick to touch if a quick throw in is taken behind the 22 when the ball has been put into touch by the opposition clearly in front of the 22.
I believe I could stand up and argue I'm right in any bar.

crossref
19-06-15, 15:06
Anyway, I'm going with, there cannot be a gain in ground for a direct kick to touch if a quick throw in is taken behind the 22 when the ball has been put into touch by the opposition clearly in front of the 22.
I believe I could stand up and argue I'm right in any bar.

and if Craig Joubert is in the same bar, I guess you'd be arguing with him...


Craig Joubert: If the player gathered the ball behind the 22m line in touch and then threw it in he can gain ground, if he collects the ball in touch outside of the 22m line and then runs back into the 22m area while in touch before throwing the ball in, then no gain in ground.

ctrainor
19-06-15, 15:06
would love to do that crossref!

The Fat
19-06-15, 15:06
I would love to hear the RFU's view on this. The ARU obviously take direction from WR so I don't think (or at least hope) that they would simply pull their approach out of their arse on this. Interested to know if RFU, ARU and CJ all agree that if a player retrieves the ball in-touch and from behind the 22, a gain in ground is allowed. That's the way I have to referee it as it is specifically noted in our GMGs.
Does the RFU produce a similar document?

Bump.
No responses yet on if the RFU produce a GMG document similar to the ARU.
If they don't, the challenge is out there now for some of you English gents to canvas those in higher places. See who can get an answer from the highest ranking RFU referees official.

Browner
19-06-15, 15:06
for me, the LoT

Agree.

Thereafter 'causation' can be a physical movement ( carrying/passing) , or a decision

OB..
19-06-15, 18:06
Agree.

Thereafter 'causation' can be a physical movement ( carrying/passing) , or a decisionI have no idea what this about. The crucial question in this thread is surely who put the ball into the 22. I do not see how that can depend on the LoT.

OB..
19-06-15, 18:06
would love to do that crossref!I have done already.

Dickie E
19-06-15, 22:06
The crucial question in this thread is surely who put the ball into the 22.

If you consider Ian's post #39 diagram B. In what way has the defending team put the ball into their own 22?

OB..
19-06-15, 22:06
If you consider Ian's post #39 diagram B. In what way has the defending team put the ball into their own 22?
The ball was not put into the 22 by the kicker. Law 1 shows clearly that the 22 does not extend into touch. Nor does the 22m line.

The imaginary extension of the 22m line is nonsense. It is not in the law book and relies entirely on a fallacious inference from the last sentence in 19.1 (b)

Do you, as a referee, really want to have to make a call on a ball a couple of metres into touch?

Taff
19-06-15, 22:06
Anyway, I'm going with, there cannot be a gain in ground for a direct kick to touch if a quick throw in is taken behind the 22 when the ball has been put into touch by the opposition clearly in front of the 22. I believe I could stand up and argue I'm right in any bar.

and if Craig Joubert is in the same bar, I guess you'd be arguing with him...
I'm with Ctrainor. It's 2 against 1. :biggrin:

Ian_Cook
19-06-15, 22:06
If you consider Ian's post #39 diagram B. In what way has the defending team put the ball into their own 22?

When they have taken the point of the throw in back from where the ball crosses the touchline, to a point behind 22m. IMO this is what the Law means when it says "...a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line.....". This is not from where they gather the ball, it is from the forward most place that the QTi is allowed.

In what way has the attacking team put the in the 22m when they clearly kicked the ball out outside of the 22m?

I believe whoever wrote the ARU GMG has misunderstood the meaning of Law 19.1 (b), because I do not believe the Lawmakers intended for the place where the ball is gathered to be relevant.

The Fat
20-06-15, 01:06
When they have taken the point of the throw in back from where the ball crosses the touchline, to a point behind 22m. IMO this is what the Law means when it says "...a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line.....". This is not from where they gather the ball, it is from the forward most place that the QTi is allowed.

In what way has the attacking team put the in the 22m when they clearly kicked the ball out outside of the 22m?

I believe whoever wrote the ARU GMG has misunderstood the meaning of Law 19.1 (b), because I do not believe the Lawmakers intended for the place where the ball is gathered to be relevant.

Again, I can see the merit in your argument, especially the bit I have highlighted, but it would seem that SA & Aus are aligned on this so maybe it is a SANZAR interpretation (if the RFU, WRU, IRFU etc etc disagree) and you may well find Ian, that NZ see it the same as SA & Aus. You must have some contacts you can run this by over there.

I don't think there is much point going round in circles until we can get some feedback from RFU, NZRU and/or others

Dickie E
20-06-15, 08:06
In what way has the attacking team put the in the 22m when they clearly kicked the ball out outside of the 22m?



The law does not ask about the actions of the attacking team. It only says no gain in ground if defending team has taken the ball back in.

Dickie E
20-06-15, 08:06
The ball was not put into the 22 by the kicker.

No but so what? Law only deals with defending team's actions. Feel free to answer my question.

Taff
20-06-15, 09:06
So, how did the ball get into the 22?

Dickie E
20-06-15, 09:06
So, how did the ball get into the 22?

don't know & doesn't matter. If it can't be demonstrated that it was the defenders then gain in ground applies

Ian_Cook
20-06-15, 10:06
...Feel free to answer my question.

I answered it in post #59

You asked "In what way has the defending team put the ball into their own 22?"

I answered" "When they have taken the point of the throw in back from where the ball crosses the touchline, to a point behind 22m."


don't know & doesn't matter. If it can't be demonstrated that it was the defenders then gain in ground applies

Law 1 DEFINITIONS
The Ground is the total area shown on the plan. The Ground includes:
The Field of play is the area (as shown on the plan) between the goal lines and
the touchlines. These lines are not part of the field of play.
The Playing Area is the field of play and the in-goal areas (as shown on the
plan). The touchlines, touch-in-goal lines and dead ball lines are not part of the
playing area.
The Playing Enclosure is the playing area and a space around it, not less than 5
metres where practicable, which is known as the perimeter area.
In-goal is the area between the goal line and the dead ball line, and between the
touch-in-goal lines. It includes the goal line but it does not include the dead ball
line or the touch-in-goal lines.
‘The 22’ is the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-
metre line but excluding the goal line.

So the 22m area is an area bounded by the 22m line, the goal line and the two touchlines. Since neither the playing area nor the field of play extend beyond the touchlines, it follows that the 22m area does not either.

"When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22...."

Technically any player throwing the ball in across the touchline behind their own 22m and in front of their own goal-line is putting the ball into their own 22m area.

Q.E.D.


Dickie. I have no personal objection to the concept that a QTi behind the 22m is not carried back, so long as it applies to ALL situations, regardless of where the ball is gathered, otherwise an extension of the 22m line beyond the touchline would be required. Such an extension of the 22m line does not exist in the Laws of the Game. Whoever wrote the ARU GMGs have effectively created such a Law out of whole cloth.

Browner
20-06-15, 13:06
I have no idea what this about. The crucial question in this thread is surely who put the ball into the 22. I do not see how that can depend on the LoT.

Consider the order of events
1) kicked out of play.
2) 1st LoT established.
3) Throw awarded to one team.
4) Team decides to throw from a position 'other than' the 1st LoT position and the ball is moved ( or retrieved from, an advertising ricochet, or even caught outside the FoP )
6) they throw from inside the 22

Therefore they have decided to move the 1st LoT to a point, and a 2nd ( new) LoT is established. .The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.

That repositioning is the Causation within
. (b)
When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22.

No one else caused that ball to be thrown in within the 22, they did.

Taff
20-06-15, 13:06
So, how did the ball get into the 22?

don't know & doesn't matter.
Sorry Dickie, but surely it's the one thing that matters most.

Dickie E
20-06-15, 14:06
Sorry Dickie, but surely it's the one thing that matters most.

as long as you can't confirm that it is not the defending team then gain in ground applies

OB..
20-06-15, 14:06
Browner - if you insist on taking that sort of approach, I have to point out that the person throwing in is legally required to be outside the field of play, so ANY throw into the 22 means the ball was put there by the thrower.

You also run into trouble with 19.1 (g)Ball put into a player’s 22 by the opposition. When the ball is put into a team’s 22 by the opposition, without having touched (or been touched by) a player of the defending team before crossing the 22 and the ball is then kicked into touch by the defending team, the throw-in is where the ball went into touch.We know the part in red is wrong because the team can elect to take a QTI, which does not have to be at that point.

Or how about 19.2 (e)An incorrect quick throw-in occurs when:
· [...]
· The ball is thrown in ahead of the line of touch, or
[...]
If the LoT is the point where the ball is actually thrown in, it is impossible to throw the ball in ahead of that point.

The diagram on p123 identifies the Line of Touch as where the player kicked from, not where the player is shown taking a QTI.

The Line of Touch is actually at the place where the law says a lineout would form.

Dickie E
20-06-15, 14:06
So the 22m area is an area bounded by the 22m line, the goal line and the two touchlines. Since neither the playing area nor the field of play extend beyond the touchlines, it follows that the 22m area does not either.

"When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22...."

Technically any player throwing the ball in across the touchline behind their own 22m and in front of their own goal-line is putting the ball into their own 22m area.

Q.E.D.




So Blue play into Red 22 and carry ball into touch. They have thus taken ball out of 22 based on your logic. Red throw ball in at subsequent lineout so have taken ball back into their 22 (again based on your logic). So no gain in ground from kick to touch?

OB..
20-06-15, 15:06
So Blue play into Red 22 and carry ball into touch. They have thus taken ball out of 22 based on your logic. Red throw ball in at subsequent lineout so have taken ball back into their 22 (again based on your logic). So no gain in ground from kick to touch?A good demonstration of the problems you get if you try to treat the laws as if they were in fact Acts of Parliament (I beat you to it by a couple of minutes :biggrin:). They are simply not written with that mind-set. You have to look wider than just at a particular set of words, and take a sensible view of the conflicts and ambiguities.

AIUI this whole problem comes from an inference based on this sentence in 19.1 (d)This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.It is argued that if he can move back behind the 22m line in touch, then the 22m line must extend into touch.

In reality the law is best understood as saying that taking the ball to a point on the touchline alongside the 22 is not in itself sufficient to permit a subsequent gain in ground from a kick. Players had been trying to get round the restrictions by catching the ball in touch after it had crossed the line outside the 22 and then running back to a point the other side of the flag before taking a QTI. This sentence simply clarified the issue.

For me it defies belief that anybody actually wants to import this curious complication into the game.

Browner
20-06-15, 16:06
Something must've been lost in translation OB, because I'm actually agreeing with your end decision.

albeit im seeing the 'decision to reposition' the LoT (such decision being their lawful perogative) still being by the key 'cause' of it qualifying to be a 'no gain achievable' situation.

As an aside,
The ideology behind QTi is IMO 'game continuity' rather that 'territory repositioning' and therefore gaining from repositioning the LoT to facilitate booting the ball back off the FoP doesn't support that continuity ideology.

OB..
20-06-15, 16:06
Something must've been lost in translation OB, because I'm actually agreeing with your end decision.

albeit im seeing the 'decision to reposition' the LoT (such decision being their lawful perogative) still being by the key 'cause' of it qualifying to be a 'no gain achievable' situation.

I don't think your idea of repositioning the LoT is necessary or justifiable. It is much more useful to keep it as referring to where the lineout would form. We are already in muddied waters. Next stop - confusion worse confounded?

Ian_Cook
20-06-15, 19:06
So Blue play into Red 22 and carry ball into touch. They have thus taken ball out of 22 based on your logic. Red throw ball in at subsequent lineout so have taken ball back into their 22 (again based on your logic). So no gain in ground from kick to touch?

No, because the ball was previously in the 22m before it went into touch. If the ball was taken into touch outside the 22m then it wasn't

Nothing you can say will convince me that the 22m line extends beyond the touchline. Law 1, specifically the plan, shows that the playing area does not extend beyond the touchlines, the touch in goal lines and the dead ball line......

Law 1 Definitions
....
The Plan, including all the words and figures on it, is part of the Laws.

Such an extension is an absolute pre-requisite if the ARU GMGs are to be accepted as a correct interpretation of Law 19.1 (b)

The statement in that Law, "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch." refers to the player moving back to take the QTi from where the ball crossed the touchline, NOT moving back from where he picked up the ball.

Where he picked up the ball is of no relevance whatsoever.

Rushforth
20-06-15, 19:06
Late to the party, and it seems many of you agree with me to disagree with CJ, but some posts are so full of jargon and 'explanation' (that doesn't) and legalese...

1) It is a rugby skill to kick the ball in to touch in such a way that ground is gained;
2) There is a reduced expectation of kicking skills when defending in one's own 22;
3) It is a rugby skill to keep the game flowing, and as such a quick throw is allowed instead of a full line-out.

My 'natural' understanding is that there is nothing wrong with taking a quick throw wherever is most convenient, but that the LoT as signalled by AR or even TJ determines where the line-out 'is'.

Dickie E
20-06-15, 23:06
But here's your problem: in the blue corner - a clarification, Craig J and the ARU GMG. In the red corner - a couple of community level referees and ex-referees. Can't end well.

I completely understand the red corner point of view and have much sympathy with it.

But during game time I not only need to follow the official ruling but be able to rationalise & explain it to any player who asks. "Don't ask me, mate, I'm just following orders" is not for me.

The best rationale for me is that the 22 DOES extend beyond the touchline and if the ball ends up south of that line following an attacker's kick then the defender has not put the ball into the 22.

But, as they say, YMMV.

The Fat
21-06-15, 01:06
A good demonstration of the problems you get if you try to treat the laws as if they were in fact Acts of Parliament (I beat you to it by a couple of minutes :biggrin:). They are simply not written with that mind-set. You have to look wider than just at a particular set of words, and take a sensible view of the conflicts and ambiguities.

AIUI this whole problem comes from an inference based on this sentence in 19.1 (d)This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.It is argued that if he can move back behind the 22m line in touch, then the 22m line must extend into touch.

In reality the law is best understood as saying that taking the ball to a point on the touchline alongside the 22 is not in itself sufficient to permit a subsequent gain in ground from a kick. Players had been trying to get round the restrictions by catching the ball in touch after it had crossed the line outside the 22 and then running back to a point the other side of the flag before taking a QTI. This sentence simply clarified the issue.

For me it defies belief that anybody actually wants to import this curious complication into the game.

The bit in bold could be seen to justify CJ's and the ARU GMGs in that the defending player is not collecting the ball in-touch and then moving behind the 22 (or any inferred extension of the 22), he is already behind the 22 and collects the ball there.

Personally, I have to referee it as per ARU GMGs but still waiting to see what RFU and NZRU directives are. Until then, the arguments will just go round and round.

Dickie E
21-06-15, 07:06
still waiting to see what RFU and NZRU directives are.

Just heard back from a referee development guy in NZ. They don't have a version of our GMG.

OB..
21-06-15, 10:06
The bit in bold could be seen to justify CJ's and the ARU GMGs in that the defending player is not collecting the ball in-touch and then moving behind the 22 (or any inferred extension of the 22), he is already behind the 22 and collects the ball there.The concept of an area and a line being extended into touch is so bizarre, that you would have thought it absolutely essential to spell it out clearly. Instead all we have is an erroneous piece of logic that claims to convert a prohibition into a permission.

If a referee tells a player "it is illegal to kick an opponent in the head" does that necessarily imply it is legal to kick him elsewhere? Of course not.

The law says that if you run back beyond the 22m line to throw the ball in, you are responsible for putting it into your 22. It does NOT say that there is some way in which the ball can be deemed to have rolled into the 22 while in touch. Indeed the law makes it clear that the 22 does not extend into touch. Even if the 22m line did (and it doesn't) we would have the odd situation that being behind the imaginary 22m line did not mean you were in the 22.

I refuse to believe that the IRB/WR intended to smuggle a radical development into the laws by such a backdoor route. They were obviously intent on stopping a mistaken view of the law, only to be told (by some enthusiastic verbal gymnasts) that they had necessarily invented a brand new concept.

It all turns on the phrase "back behind the 22 metre line". For me the obvious reading is that the player picked up the ball in touch and ran to a point on the touchline that bordered the 22. The actual phrase is neater and shorter. So much for trying to make the laws readable.


Personally, I have to referee it as per ARU GMGs I sympathise. Have you ever had to apply this guideline?
but still waiting to see what RFU and NZRU directives are. Until then, the arguments will just go round and round.When the RFU itself published the law book, it took the IRB laws but added all sorts of other information. There used to be Notes in the laws - were those unique to the RFU? At the back were Notes for the Guidance of Referees. Sometimes there were listings of various county bodies etc. As from 2000 the IRB determined the content of the law book, and all those extras disappeared. I am not aware of any comprehensive set of guidance notes produced by the RFU.

The Fat
21-06-15, 12:06
I sympathise. Have you ever had to apply this guideline?

Fortunately not but it is Murphy's law that the odds of it happening sometime this season just escalated considerably.

Just for the record, I do see your point. In the absence of a similar document to our GMGs, maybe some of the more "connected" English and NZ members on here can get the opinions of those further up the ladder in your respective countries.

Taff
21-06-15, 12:06
... In the absence of a similar document to our GMGs, maybe some of the more "connected" English and NZ members on here can get the opinions of those further up the ladder in your respective countries.
I'm not "connected" but I will bring this up as a "Law Query" with St Nigel at the next monthly Referees meeting.

I'll let you know what he reckons.

Ian_Cook
21-06-15, 20:06
Aussie Refs.

How would you deal with a situation where the ball kicked by an attacking player, bounces into touch crossing INSIDE the opposing 22m, then takes a odd bounce or strikes advertising, going back in front of your imagined extension to the 22m, where it is gathered by a defender and taken back over the imagined extension and thrown in, then kicked into touch directly.

Gain in ground or not... and justify you answer?

Rushforth
21-06-15, 21:06
How about a ball which has bounced both in field of play and in touch, and is still moving, according to the player in touch who claims to have a foot behind the imagined extension of the 22-metre line?

OB..
21-06-15, 21:06
Here we go again!!!
http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-497--stuart-berry/2829629/4. Name: Don Linde

Question: Blue team on their 10 metre line kick the ball into touch on the full. Red player starting from inside his 22 executes a legal quick throw inside the 22 and kicks the ball out on the full at the half-way line. Where is the line of touch for the subsequent line-out.

Stuart Berry: Hi Don. Thanks for your query. It’s a good one. If the ball from the 1st kicker goes across the line within the 22m line, then we’re good to play on as you suggest and the lineout is where the kicker then kicks out for the second kick.
(1) The Red player cannot be inside his 22 since Law 1 shows clearly that the 22 does not extend into touch.

(2) We are not told where the ball crossed the touchline. Obviously they don't care.

chbg
21-06-15, 22:06
Here we go again!!!
http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-497--stuart-berry/2829629/4. Name: Don Linde

Question: Blue team on their 10 metre line kick the ball into touch on the full. Red player starting from inside his 22 executes a legal quick throw inside the 22 and kicks the ball out on the full at the half-way line. Where is the line of touch for the subsequent line-out.

Stuart Berry: Hi Don. Thanks for your query. It’s a good one. If the ball from the 1st kicker goes across the line within the 22m line, then we’re good to play on as you suggest and the lineout is where the kicker then kicks out for the second kick.
(1) The Red player cannot be inside his 22 since Law 1 shows clearly that the 22 does not extend into touch.

(2) We are not told where the ball crossed the touchline. Obviously they don't care.

When SB states " If the ball from the 1st kicker goes across the line within the 22m line" I understand that to mean that he is commenting on the situation when the ball has gone out of play ("across the line") inside the 22 ("within the 22m line"); aren't we are all agreed that in this situation a QTI is NOT putting the ball into the defender's 22? Isn't this what SB means by "the lineout is where the kicker then kicks out", i.e. where the ball subsequently crosses the TL, not from where the ball is kicked. By extrapolation, if the ball does not go "across the line" "within the 22m line" then the subsequent line-out is not there. [But aren't we still "good to play on", if the defenders wish to give the attackers the throw-in within the defending 22?]

One could wish for more clarity from an answer.

The Fat
21-06-15, 23:06
Neither question or answer provide enough detail however, SB's answer does suggest that for a gain in ground to red from the 2nd kick, he expects the the 1st kick to cross the touch-line within red's 22. CJ's previous answer didn't require that, and only that the red defender retrieving the ball does so from behind the magical extension of the 22. Where the ball crossed the touch-line from the 1st kick by blue doesn't matter to CJ but does to SB. So now we have two elite level referees from SA at odds with each other over this one

Dickie E
22-06-15, 00:06
SB's answer does suggest that for a gain in ground to red from the 2nd kick, he expects the the 1st kick to cross the touch-line within red's 22.

No it doesn't. "If the ball from the 1st kicker goes across the line within the 22m line," is hardly to same as "The ball from the 1st kicker must go across the line within the 22m line,"

Dickie E
22-06-15, 00:06
Aussie Refs.

How would you deal with a situation where the ball kicked by an attacking player, bounces into touch crossing INSIDE the opposing 22m, then takes a odd bounce or strikes advertising, going back in front of your imagined extension to the 22m, where it is gathered by a defender and taken back over the imagined extension and thrown in, then kicked into touch directly.

Gain in ground or not... and justify you answer?

This happened to me recently. I was saved from making a decision when the ball exploded and a seagull flew off with the bladder.

Browner
22-06-15, 00:06
Maybe approach this slightly differently

Everyone agrees that the original LoT remains (say) the 10m line where the kicker booted it from.

. (b)
When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

Then who caused the ball to be thrown into play in the 22?
( for me , "causing" and/or "moving back" are part of the same decision process of the team/player that retrieve the ball)

A) the advertising hoarding or the floodlight that redirected it? ( clearly not)
B) the poorly executed kick?? , (No, the kicker only caused a LoT to be awarded where he booted it from, his heavy bootedness or poor direction is irrelevant if it lands outside the FoP ) if the catcher/retrieves it ( after all, he chose to catch /retrieve/recover the ball, and chose the location to throw it in.
D) ballboy ?
E) other ?

So, if its not 3) then who did ?? (???????:confused: ) because someone took it back into the defending 22 , maybe the waterboy!

Dickie E
22-06-15, 00:06
Maybe approach this slightly differently

Everyone agrees that the original LoT remains (say) the 10m line where the kicker booted it from.

. (b)
When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

Then who caused the ball to be thrown into play in the 22?
( for me , "causing" and/or "moving back" are part of the same decision process of the team/player that retrieve the ball)

A) the advertising hoarding or the floodlight that redirected it? ( clearly not)
B) the poorly executed kick?? , (No, the kicker only caused a LoT to be awarded where he booted it from, his heavy bootedness or poor direction is irrelevant if it lands outside the FoP ) if the catcher/retrieves it ( after all, he chose to catch /retrieve/recover the ball, and chose the location to throw it in.
D) ballboy ?
E) other ?

So, if its not 3) then who did ?? (???????:confused: ) because someone took it back into the defending 22 , maybe the waterboy!

Assuming 3) is halfway between B) and D) then that is what I'd go with.

Rule of thumb: if defender carries ball over 22 or extension of 22, then no gain in ground. If he doesn't, then gain in ground.

The Fat
22-06-15, 01:06
Rule of thumb: if defender carries ball over 22 or extension of 22, then no gain in ground. If he doesn't, then gain in ground.

Which brings you back to as per ARU GMGs

Browner
22-06-15, 01:06
Assuming 3) is halfway between B) and D)

Ooooopss!

Browner
22-06-15, 01:06
Maybe approach this slightly differently

Everyone agrees that the original LoT remains (say) the 10m line where the kicker booted it from.

. (b)
When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

Then who caused the ball to be thrown into play in the 22?
( for me , "causing" and/or "moving back" are part of the same decision process of the team/player that retrieve the ball)

A) the advertising hoarding or the floodlight that redirected it? ( clearly not)
B) the poorly executed kick?? , (No, the kicker only caused a LoT to be awarded where he booted it from, his heavy bootedness or poor direction is irrelevant if it lands outside the FoP
C) the catcher/retriever ( after all, he chose to catch /retrieve/recover the ball, and chose the location to throw it in.)
D) ballboy ?
E) other ?

So, if its not C) then who did ?? (???????:confused: ) because someone took it back into the defending 22 , maybe the waterboy!

Better????

Dickie E
22-06-15, 02:06
Which brings you back to as per ARU GMGs

Ed Zachary.

Consider this one: Blue kick from halfway into touch on the full 15 metres from Red goal line.

Red player catches the ball in touch and runs 10 metres towards halfway in readiness for lineout. He decides that a QTI might be a better option so he runs 10 metres back to where the ball went into touch.

If he then takes QTI I would not allow gain in ground.

Ian_Cook
22-06-15, 02:06
Assuming 3) is halfway between B) and D) then that is what I'd go with.

Rule of thumb: if defender carries ball over 22 or extension of 22, then no gain in ground. If he doesn't, then gain in ground.


Which brings you back to as per ARU GMGs

Which further brings you back to the that fact the ARU's implied extension to the 22m into touch is not supported in the LotG in any way shape or form. It is not even implied in the LotG, and even Clarification 10:2004 (superseded by the 2009 Law change) specifically does not support it.

Dickie E
22-06-15, 03:06
Which further brings you back to the that fact the ARU's implied extension to the 22m into touch is not supported in the LotG in any way shape or form. It is not even implied in the LotG, and even Clarification 10:2004 (superseded by the 2009 Law change) specifically does not support it.

This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.123

Well, while the wording isn't flawless, "moves back behind the 22 metre line" doesn't demand that a player steps over the 22. I can move behind a tree without having to climb the tree first.

And really, your contention that throwing the ball over the touchline into FoP counts as taking the ball into the 22, makes a Swiss cheese look rock solid.

Does anyone else get the feeling this is going nowhere?

Unfortunately the 3 videos attached to this law don't help us

crossref
22-06-15, 09:06
he he...

On this week's Duty Ref, SA Referees have asked exactly the same quesiton to Stuart Berry, who has answered it in a slightly different way


Question: Blue team on their 10 metre line kick the ball into touch on the full. Red player starting from inside his 22 executes a legal quick throw inside the 22 and kicks the ball out on the full at the half-way line. Where is the line of touch for the subsequent line-out.

Stuart Berry: Hi Don. Thanks for your query. It’s a good one. If the ball from the 1st kicker goes across the line within the 22m line, then we’re good to play on as you suggest and the lineout is where the kicker then kicks out for the second kick.
http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-497--stuart-berry/2829629/

Now, we can extend this thread another 97 posts, discussing whether SB's slightly different phrasing is significant or not, and whether SB and CJ are in complete agreement, or not...

For ease of reference here is CJ's reply


Question: Green player on the 10 metre line kicks the ball which crosses the touch line on the full, the line of touch thus being abeam the kick. Blue player starting from inside his 22 executes a quick throw inside his 22. His kick goes out on the full at the half way line. Where is the subsequent line-out.

Craig Joubert: If the player gathered the ball behind the 22m line in touch and then threw it in he can gain ground, if he collects the ball in touch outside of the 22m line and then runs back into the 22m area while in touch before throwing the ball in, then no gain in ground.


Off you go ....

OB..
22-06-15, 09:06
[LAWS]And really, your contention that throwing the ball over the touchline into FoP counts as taking the ball into the 22, makes a Swiss cheese look rock solid. I don't know about Ian, but I pointed out that anybody throwing the ball in is in touch and therefore not in the 22. However taking the view that this denies a gain in ground is in indeed so preposterous that nobody does. They judge by where the ball crossed the touchline, which also covers your question in #94


Does anyone else get the feeling this is going nowhere?Of course. You are constrained by the ARU GMG. (Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial.) I am not (but would still strongly oppose the concept even if WR came out clearly in support). None of us have any powers to change your GMG, but I feel no obligation to follow them.

Ian_Cook
22-06-15, 10:06
This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.123

Well, while the wording isn't flawless, "moves back behind the 22 metre line" doesn't demand that a player steps over the 22.

I read that wording as referring to moving the place where the QTi is taken back, not moving back from where the player gathers the ball. Law 19.1(b) says nothing about where the ball is gathered (that's an ARU addition made up from whole cloth).

Dickie E
22-06-15, 10:06
moving the place where the QTi is taken back,

not pulling your chain but can you reword that? I'm not sure what you mean

Dickie E
22-06-15, 10:06
None of us have any powers to change your GMG, but I feel no obligation to follow them.

The danger though is there is now likely to be a number of referees reading this thread totally confused about the right way to go

Ian_Cook
22-06-15, 10:06
not pulling your chain but can you reword that? I'm not sure what you mean

An attacking player kicks the ball and it crosses the touchline, say, 10m outside the 22m.

► If the ball was kicked directly into touch, the player may move the place where he takes the QTi anywhere between a position opposite where the opponent kicked it, and his own goal-line.

► If the ball was kicked indirectly into touch, the player may move the place where he takes the QTi anywhere between where the ball crossed the touchline, and his own goal-line

► If the player chooses to move the place where he takes the QTi to a position behind his own 22m, then he has taken the ball back.

The Fat
22-06-15, 11:06
19.1 Throw-in
No Gain in Ground

(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

I take this sentence (in bold) to mean when a defending player gathers the ball THEN moves to a point, in-touch, behind the 22 metre line.

crossref
22-06-15, 11:06
[/I]I take this sentence (in bold) to mean when a defending player gathers the ball THEN moves to a point, in-touch, behind the 22 metre line.

that doesn't work, though -- the ball could cross the 22m line, bounce on the ground, then go into touch, then bounce off back off an advertising hoarding to a position in front of the 22m.

clearly now the defender can retrieve the ball, carry back over the [extended] 22m line and take a QTI and kick for gain in ground.

So the place-gathered CANNOT be the sole defining point here. (although it could be one of the factors).

The three points that could possibly be important are
1 - the LoT
2 - the place where the ball crossed the touchline
3 - the place where the ball was gathered

1&2 could well be the same spot of course
3, because of the way a ball bounces, could be behind or in front of either 1 or 2

It would be easy (and better IMO) to define a Law that ignores (3), but CJ's answer, and other sources do indicate that you do have to take that into account.

Dixie
22-06-15, 13:06
Maybe approach this slightly differently

Everyone agrees that the original LoT remains (say) the 10m line where the kicker booted it from.

. (b)
When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

Then who caused the ball to be thrown into play in the 22?
( for me , "causing" and/or "moving back" are part of the same decision process of the team/player that retrieve the ball)

A) the advertising hoarding or the floodlight that redirected it? ( clearly not)
B) the poorly executed kick?? , (No, the kicker only caused a LoT to be awarded where he booted it from, his heavy bootedness or poor direction is irrelevant if it lands outside the FoP ) if the catcher/retrieves it ( after all, he chose to catch /retrieve/recover the ball, and chose the location to throw it in.
D) ballboy ?
E) other ?

So, if its not 3) then who did ?? (???????:confused: ) because someone took it back into the defending 22 , maybe the waterboy!


Which further brings you back to the that fact the ARU's implied extension to the 22m into touch is not supported in the LotG in any way shape or form. It is not even implied in the LotG, and even Clarification 10:2004 (superseded by the 2009 Law change) specifically does not support it.

Reading this thread again, I'm not sure that Browner's point has been properly addressed. If I have understood him correctly, he is pointing out a strong commonality between Stu Berry's response and Craig Joubert's - to wit, that in both instances the throwing-in team has elected to ignore the true LoT and to throw the ball back into play within the 22. If we now ask "who put the ball inside the 22", we ought to conclude that it was an election by the throwing-in team; otherwise, the ball would have been returned to play at the LoT, located on the 10m mark.

As many have mentioned, the only counter to this is the idea that the ball might already have been located within the 22, having crossed an extended 22m line while in touch. But this does not address Browner's point that even if that line existed and the understanding of the field were accepted, it is STILL the case that the election to ignore the LoT at the 10m mark caused the ball to re-enter the field of play within the 22. That would mean that there was no difference between the two scenarios - whenever the ball goes out on the full when kicked from outside the 22, and is returned to touch within the 22, that is the choice of the defending team.

Is there anything in Law that would authoritatively suggest otherwise? the relevant law is 19.1(b):

When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch. It seems to me that with the diagrams in law 1 clearly identifying the 22 as the area bounded by the touchlines, the 22 line and the goal line, the red and orange provisions now conflict. IMO, the red is more likely to be correct.


The danger though is there is now likely to be a number of referees reading this thread totally confused about the right way to go

True enough!

Ian_Cook
22-06-15, 13:06
19.1 Throw-in
No Gain in Ground

(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

I take this sentence (in bold) to mean when a defending player gathers the ball THEN moves to a point, in-touch, behind the 22 metre line.

That is only because you are told to do so by your union guidance. None of us are arguing with that. What we are arguing is that your guidance is wrong and that whoever wrote it has incorrectly interpreted the Law. I take the sentence (in bold) to mean when a defending player intends to take a quick throw-in after the ball has crossed into touch outside the 22m, if he moves to a position behind the 22m to do so, then he has carried the ball back, regardless of where he gathers the ball from. The ONLY things that are relevant to gain/no gain are

1. Where the the ball crosses the touchline.
2. Where the throw is taken.

I repeat, Law 1 CLEARLY shows that the 22m line does not extend beyond the touchlines or the touch-in-goal line (indeed NONE of the transverse lines on the pitch do so).

I repeat, Law 19 does not make ANY reference whatsoever to where in-touch the player gathers the ball from. Therefore, the place in touch where the ball is gathered has no relevance.

crossref
22-06-15, 14:06
Ian - browner's point, and indeed mine right at the start, is that even if the ball clearly crosses the painted 22m line, it's still the case the throwing team are electing to take the QTI inside the 22m, when they could be taking it upfield at the LoT.

The parallel I drew above is the advanced FK, where if the non-offending team decline to take the advance, and take the FK inside the 22m, they still don't get gain in ground as they are deemed to have elected to play from their 22m, when the mark was outside.

Ian_Cook
22-06-15, 21:06
Ian - browner's point, and indeed mine right at the start, is that even if the ball clearly crosses the painted 22m line, it's still the case the throwing team are electing to take the QTI inside the 22m, when they could be taking it upfield at the LoT.

I don't agree that is taken back.

They are entitled to take the QTi inside the 22m and get a gain in ground because the attacking team put the ball into the 22m; once the ball crosses the 22m line inside the FoP and then crosses the touchline inside the 22m, nothing can change this fact!

However, when the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22m and the defending team take the QTi inside the 22m then they are not entitled to get a gain in ground because the defending team have put the ball into the 22m.

Where the QTI is allowed to be taken and where the line-out would form is of NO relevance to the question of gain in ground. Those are only relevant to where the QTI is allowed to be taken.

Gain/No Gain is a separate issue. I repeat, yet again, The ONLY things (in these scenarios) that are relevant to gain/no gain are;

1. Where the the ball crosses the touchline.
2. Where the throw is taken.

So

Ball crosses into touch outside the 22m, QTI is taken outside the 22m = no gain
Ball crosses into touch outside the 22m, QTI is taken inside the 22m = no gain
Ball crosses into touch inside the 22m, QTI is taken inside the 22m = gain

No other factors need be taken intom account. How can I make it simpler than that!?

OB..
23-06-15, 10:06
Ian - browner's point, and indeed mine right at the start, is that even if the ball clearly crosses the painted 22m line, it's still the case the throwing team are electing to take the QTI inside the 22m, when they could be taking it upfield at the LoT.I pointed out earlier that it would be possible to argue that since the thrower is necessarily in touch, he might be regarded as always responsible for putting the ball into the 22. However nobody takes that view since it would clearly be silly.

The LoT is only relevant to a QTI as being one of the limits. The thrower is specifically allowed by law to throw in from some place other than the LoT.


The parallel I drew above is the advanced FK, where if the non-offending team decline to take the advance, and take the FK inside the 22m, they still don't get gain in ground as they are deemed to have elected to play from their 22m, when the mark was outside.Different situations, different criteria, different laws. Why compare the two jusrt because of one possible similarity?

If the FK is advanced the consequential loss of the gain in ground seems to be an oversight, following from the fact that what counts is where the FK is awarded, not where it is taken from. It can be easily corrected by a law change. The conservative one would simply declare that if a FK is advanced, the right to a gain in ground is not lost (but the opposition still get the throw-in of course). The more radical option would be to allow a gain from all FKs.

The QTI case is different. The SA/ARU view invokes a totally new concept - that the 22m line and area can be deemed to be extended into touch. This has arisen because of the wording used to stop one particular ploy, and is now claimed to imply that such imaginary things MUST be valid. It would be really extraordinary for the IRB/WR to introduce such a radical change in such an oblique fashion. Much more likely is that their shorthand form of words has been misinterpreted.

crossref
23-06-15, 10:06
In the FK [..]] what counts is where the FK is awarded, not where it is taken from. .

conversely in the QTI it's the opposite : what counts is NOT where the throw is awarded (the LoT), but where where the throw is taken from, and where the ball crossed the touchline.

OB..
23-06-15, 18:06
conversely in the QTI it's the opposite : what counts is NOT where the throw is awarded (the LoT), but where where the throw is taken from, and where the ball crossed the touchline.The SA/ARU argument is that what matters is where in touch the ball is collected, whereas I am arguing for where it crosses the touchline to be the deciding factor.

crossref
23-06-15, 18:06
The SA/ARU argument is that what matters is where in touch the ball is collected, whereas I am arguing for where it crosses the touchline to be the deciding factor.

yes, I know, and discarding the possiblity that the LoT could be - in fact - the best deciding factor, following the logic used for FK.

Browner
23-06-15, 19:06
Re:
I don't agree that is taken back.

They are entitled to take the QTi inside the 22m and get a gain in ground because the attacking team put the ball into the 22m; :nono: once the ball crosses the 22m line inside the FoP and then crosses the touchline inside the 22m, nothing can change this fact!

Its not a Fact, ....Its fairly clear to everyone that the ball never went into the 22 'area', it may have momentarily flown over the plane of the 22m line and/or then bounced off 3 advertising hoardings or floodlights or waterbottles, or been caught directly by a player in touch , but that isnt sufficient to qualify it as ever having been in the 22 area.

The kicker who punted the ball out caused it to be deemed out at the LoT.
The throwers tactical location selection caused it to be lobbed into the 22 area

And thats sufficient to rule out a Gain in Ground.


The 22m line does not extend beyond the 22 area into the perimeter area, on the Plan
Dont believe me, see. http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1

Ian_Cook
23-06-15, 20:06
Re:

Its not a Fact, ....Its fairly clear to everyone that the ball never went into the 22 'area', it may have momentarily flown over the plane of the 22m line and/or then bounced off 3 advertising hoardings or floodlights or waterbottles, or been caught directly by a player in touch , but that isnt sufficient to qualify it as ever having been in the 22 area.

The kicker who punted the ball out caused it to be deemed out at the LoT.
The throwers tactical location selection caused it to be lobbed into the 22 area

And that's sufficient to rule out a Gain in Ground.

Complete and utter garbage!

Attacking team kicks directly into touch from 10m outside the opponents 22m where it is caught by a defender in touch 10m from the corner flag. That player immediately takes a QTI to a team-mate who kicks the ball back to halfway.

You call that taken back so no gain in ground? If so, then your interpretation of this is unique to you and flies in the face of practice world-wide. Even the Aussies wont agree with you...

Clue. Your assessor will call that a Law error

The ball enters the 22m area when it crosses the 22m in flight. Don't believe me?

Law 18 DEFINITIONS
To make a mark, a player must be on or behind that player’s 22-metre line. A player with one foot on the 22-metre line or behind it is considered to be ‘in the 22’. The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent’s kick and at the same time shout “Mark”. A mark cannot be made from a kick-off, or a restart kick except for a drop-out.

A kick is awarded for a mark. The place for the kick is the place of the mark. A player may make a mark even though the ball touched a goal post or crossbar before being caught.

A player from the defending team may make a mark in in-goal.

For a player to make a mark in-goal, the ball must have entered the 22m in the air without ever touching the ground or a player inside it.

An exception to the ball crossing into the 22m area in the air might be when a player catches the ball with his feet outside the 22m, in which case the ball is not considered to be in the 22m even if it momentarily crossed it, but this is just the same reasoning as a ball crossing the plane of touch but being caught by a player with both feet in the field of play, then the ball is not in touch.


The 22m line does not extend beyond the 22 area into the perimeter area, on the Plan
Dont believe me, see. http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1

The only thing you have said so far that makes any sense.

Rushforth
23-06-15, 21:06
Complete and utter garbage!

I happen to agree that Browner has misinterpreted the law.

Could you please moderate yourself, however?

Dickie E
23-06-15, 21:06
Please, God, make it stop :(

The Fat
23-06-15, 22:06
Re:

Its not a Fact, ....Its fairly clear to everyone that the ball never went into the 22 'area', it may have momentarily flown over the plane of the 22m line and/or then bounced off 3 advertising hoardings or floodlights or waterbottles, or been caught directly by a player in touch , but that isnt sufficient to qualify it as ever having been in the 22 area.

The kicker who punted the ball out caused it to be deemed out at the LoT.
The throwers tactical location selection caused it to be lobbed into the 22 area

And thats sufficient to rule out a Gain in Ground.


The 22m line does not extend beyond the 22 area into the perimeter area, on the Plan
Dont believe me, see. http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1

Blue kick from red's 10m line. The ball bounces 1m outside the red's 22 and 1m inside the FoP, crosses the 22m line in the air then crosses the plane-of-touch approximately 20m from red's goal line before bouncing 1m outside the FoP.
Where is the line of touch if the ball only ever crossed the air space above the 22 area?
Same for a PK.

Ian_Cook
23-06-15, 23:06
Please, God, make it stop :(

There's always the channel switch or the off button


I happen to agree that Browner has misinterpreted the law.

Could you please moderate yourself, however?

I call it as I see it, and I saw garbage.


Blue kick from red's 10m line. The ball bounces 1m outside the red's 22 and 1m inside the FoP, crosses the 22m line in the air then crosses the plane-of-touch approximately 20m from red's goal line before bouncing 1m outside the FoP.


According to browner's logic, that's a no gain scenario as well!. Go figure!


Where is the line of touch if the ball only ever crossed the air space above the 22 area?

On the Moon, 15m to the north of the LM descent stage!

Browner
24-06-15, 01:06
Blue kick from red's 10m line. The ball bounces 1m outside the red's 22 and 1m inside the FoP, crosses the 22m line in the air then crosses the plane-of-touch approximately 20m from red's goal line before bouncing 1m outside the FoP.
Where is the line of touch if the ball only ever crossed the air space above the 22 area?
Same for a PK.

By the ball landing/bouncing in the FoP, the LoT is now 20m from the Red Goal line.
Any subsequent QTi by Red won't have involved them 'taking the ball into the 22' ( causing) as Blue did that for them.
GiG for a subsequent Red kick is perfectly legitimate.

PK is a LoT exception where it crosses the plane of Touch , but as were discussing QTi it becomes irrelevant as a QTi following your own PK to touch is so rare ive never seen one.

Dickie E
24-06-15, 02:06
Ball carrier 22.5 metres from his own goal-line. Runs to touch line and leans over touchline with ball in out-stetched hand. Flicks the ball towards his own goaline and into 22 but ball never travels across the 22 line (noting that imaginary 22 line does not exist).

Gain in ground from subsequent kick?

Are we still having fun?

Ian_Cook
24-06-15, 04:06
Ball carrier 22.5 metres from his own goal-line. Runs to touch line and leans over touchline with ball in out-stetched hand. Flicks the ball towards his own goaline and into 22 but ball never travels across the 22 line (noting that imaginary 22 line does not exist).

Gain in ground from subsequent kick?

No.

Regardless of his clever gymnastics and manipulation of the prolate spheroid, the player has put the ball into his own 22m area unless browner is the referee of course

Are we still having fun?

Shit yes!!

Dickie E
24-06-15, 07:06
No.

Regardless of his clever gymnastics and manipulation of the prolate spheroid, the player has put the ball into his own 22m area

How has he put the ball into his own 22? You discount the extended 22 (which would've given you an easy way out) and we know simply throwing the ball over the touchline isn't putting the ball into 22 otherwise every lineout would be no gain in ground.

Dickie E
24-06-15, 07:06
New scenario (just for the fun of it).

Red player in possession of ball 15 metres from his goal line kicks towards touch. The ball strikes a Blue player then goes directly into touch on the 10 metre line.

Red player picks up ball, runs back into his own 22, takes QTI. Gain in ground?

Ian_Cook
24-06-15, 08:06
How has he put the ball into his own 22? You discount the extended 22 (which would've given you an easy way out) and we know simply throwing the ball over the touchline isn't putting the ball into 22 otherwise every lineout would be no gain in ground.

He was the last player to touch the ball before the ball ended up in the 22m ergo he put it there.

Ball crossing the 22m line is ONE way the ball.goes into the 22m but its not the ONLY way.

Dickie E
24-06-15, 08:06
He was the last player to touch the ball before the ball ended up in the 22m ergo he put it there.



But doesn't that happen at every lineout?

crossref
24-06-15, 08:06
New scenario (just for the fun of it).

Red player in possession of ball 15 metres from his goal line kicks towards touch. The ball strikes a Blue player then goes directly into touch on the 10 metre line.

Red player picks up ball, runs back into his own 22, takes QTI. Gain in ground?

[Definitely having fun now!]

This has to be taken back - he has taken the throw
- behind the the LoT,
- behind the place the ball crossed the line,
- behind the place retrieved
which are all outside the 22m

The Fat
24-06-15, 10:06
Blue kick on red's 10m line and the ball goes directly into touch 23m from red's goal line where it is caught by Red #11 who then turns and taking a small step, which places his back foot where an extension of the magic extendable 22m line would be, takes a QTI to his #15 who is on the 15m line and 20m out from his goal line. Red #15 kicks directly into touch on the half way line. Gain in ground or no gain in ground.
Just for fun of course.

Ian_Cook
24-06-15, 10:06
But doesn't that happen at every lineout?

Irrelevant. Law 19: Touch and Line-out is divided into two distinct TITLED sections , each of which has its own set of definitions

TOUCH - (19.1 to 19.7) deals with
Who and how a ball is put into touch
Who and how the ball is thrown in
Quick throw ins
Gain/No Gain
Incorrect throw ins

LINEOUT - (19.8 to 19.15) deal with
Formation and execution of a Line-out
What is allowed and not allowed in a line-out
Peeling off
Offside


Gain/No Gain is a part of the TOUCH law, not a part of the LINE-OUT law.
A line-out is a formal restart of play, so issues such as carried back, gain in ground and quick throw-ins are no longer relevant.

Browner
24-06-15, 10:06
New scenario (just for the fun of it).

Red player in possession of ball 15 metres from his goal line kicks towards touch. The ball strikes a Blue player then goes directly into touch on the 10 metre line.

Red player picks up ball, runs back into his own 22, takes QTI. Gain in ground?

What distance from the Goal line was the LoT? That's the crucial consideration.

Browner
24-06-15, 10:06
Blue kick on red's 10m line and the ball goes directly into touch 23m from red's goal line where it is caught by Red #11 who then turns and taking a small step, which places his back foot where an extension of the magic extendable 22m line would be, takes a QTI to his #15 who is on the 15m line and 20m out from his goal line. Red #15 kicks directly into touch on the half way line. Gain in ground or no gain in ground.
Just for fun of course.

Obviously No gain.
LoT was 23m, Red caused ball to go into 22 area, can't gain from that decision/execution. ( by hook or by crook)

This is getting too easy!

Browner
24-06-15, 11:06
Ball carrier 22.5 metres from his own goal-line. Runs to touch line and leans over touchline with ball in out-stetched hand. Flicks the ball towards his own goaline and into 22 but ball never travels across the 22 line (noting that imaginary 22 line does not exist).

Gain in ground from subsequent kick?

Are we still having fun?

No Gain.
He caused the ball to go into the 22 area.

Use this ....

Cause
verb
to be the cause of; bring about.

For this ....
19.1(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22.

No , It's not much fun when it's this easy!

OB..
24-06-15, 15:06
Q&A with my RFU Area Training Manager (a national panel referee).

Q. Blue 10 kicks the ball direct into touch from outside his 22 and it crosses the touchline a metre outside the Green 22. The ball bounces forward and is gathered in touch by the Green winger who runs to the touchline alongside his 22 area. He takes a valid quick throw-in to his full back who kicks directly into touch just beyond half way.
Is that gain in ground allowed?

A. No gain in ground allowed, the ball is in touch outside of the 22 and has been played back into the 22 regardless of where the person throws the ball from.

OB..
24-06-15, 15:06
[...] following the logic used for FK.The FK logic is that a decision by the referee has changed the place for the FK with the (probably unintended) side effect that a gain in ground is no longer allowed. The law is clear and nobody is disputing the interpretation.

The QTI problem is not caused by the decision of an official. The law covering the problem is anything but clear.

crossref
24-06-15, 15:06
The FK logic is that a decision by the referee has changed the place for the FK with the (probably unintended) side effect that a gain in ground is no longer allowed. The law is clear and nobody is disputing the interpretation.

The QTI problem is not caused by the decision of an official. The law covering the problem is anything but clear.

I agree that the Law for the FK is clear, and that the Law for the QTI is unclear .. which is why we could usefully look to the clear Law applying to the FK for guidance on what to do in the unclear situation. Just saying!

Anyway: in a FK it's clear that where the ball is fetched from, and where the kick is actually taken is irrelevant - all that matters is where the FK is awarded.

but oddly - for a QTI the consensus is that it's irrelevant where the Line Out is awarded...

Here's the diagram in the Laws.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/images/laws/quick-throw-in-post-en.png

It would not be at all strange to say here that the player is freely choosing to throw inside his 22m, when he could throw along the LoT.

Taff
24-06-15, 16:06
Q. Blue 10 kicks the ball direct into touch from outside his 22 and it crosses the touchline a metre inside (my suggested question) the Green 22. The ball bounces forward and is gathered in touch by the Green winger who runs to the touchline alongside his 22 area. He takes a valid quick throw-in to his full back who kicks directly into touch just beyond half way.
Is that gain in ground allowed?

A. No gain in ground allowed, the ball is in touch outside of the 22 and has been played back into the 22 regardless of where the person throws the ball from.
I can't help wonder if the same answer applies if the kick went out on the full but inside the 22.

OB..
24-06-15, 17:06
I can't help wonder if the same answer applies if the kick went out on the full but inside the 22.
Is anybody claiming that if the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22 the ball had NOT been put into the 22 by the kicker? The line of touch from a PK or kick that had first bounced in the FoP is clearly inside the 22, and we know a gain in ground is allowed from a line-out there. How could a legitimate QTI possibly be different?

OB..
24-06-15, 17:06
but oddly - for a QTI the consensus is that it's irrelevant where the Line Out is awarded.. The only significance of the Line of Touch where a QTI is concerned is that it provides one of the limits on where it can be taken. If the LoT was back where the kick had been made, the QTI location has a far wider range. There is nothing to suggest that a QTI should be deemed to have been taken at the LoT. SA/ARU are definitely not taking that line! Can we please just drop this? I do not see that it helps at all.

crossref
24-06-15, 18:06
Shrug, the mark for a FK is the limit of a line behind which a FK may be taken anywhere. Same thing

Yes will drop it!

The Fat
24-06-15, 21:06
Q&A with my RFU Area Training Manager (a national panel referee).

Q. Blue 10 kicks the ball direct into touch from outside his 22 and it crosses the touchline a metre outside the Green 22. The ball bounces forward and is gathered in touch by the Green winger who runs to the touchline alongside his 22 area. He takes a valid quick throw-in to his full back who kicks directly into touch just beyond half way.
Is that gain in ground allowed?

A. No gain in ground allowed, the ball is in touch outside of the 22 and has been played back into the 22 regardless of where the person throws the ball from.

Was this an email exchange or face to face discussion OB?
If the latter, what did he think of CJ's and ARU's GMG interpretations?

OB..
24-06-15, 21:06
Was this an email exchange or face to face discussion OB?
If the latter, what did he think of CJ's and ARU's GMG interpretations?It was an email exchange. I deliberately put it as a situation that could occur in a game without stating anybody's views.

Ian_Cook
24-06-15, 22:06
Q&A with my RFU Area Training Manager (a national panel referee).

Q. Blue 10 kicks the ball direct into touch from outside his 22 and it crosses the touchline a metre outside the Green 22. The ball bounces forward and is gathered in touch by the Green winger who runs to the touchline alongside his 22 area. He takes a valid quick throw-in to his full back who kicks directly into touch just beyond half way.
Is that gain in ground allowed?

A. No gain in ground allowed, the ball is in touch outside of the 22 and has been played back into the 22 regardless of where the person throws the ball from.

Well, this really is in line with my thinking, and after talking to three local referees, it appears that it is the same situation here NZ, at least at club, Heartland Championship and ITM Cup level. I haven't talked to an NZRU Super Rugby referee yet, but I'm going to do so on Saturday when I'm in Wellington for the Hurricanes v Brumbies semi-final (it has been arranged, and it is not any of the referees involved in the match)

It certainly is the least complex, i.e. where the ball crosses the touchline and where it is thrown in being the only criteria) and can be applied to any situation without knowing;

► whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch (which would change the LoT, and is why the position of the LoT is irrelevant)

► where the ball was gathered (which requires and extension of the 22m into touch, something that has no basis in Law)

NOTE:
(I actually told them about the extension of the 22m and showed them the wording of the ARU GMG's without making them aware of the source. None of the three I spoke to had ever heard of this, and one of them laughed and said... "Who dreamed up this crap, Steve Walsh?" (I just about choked on my sandwich!)

Dickie E
24-06-15, 22:06
Ah, the yoiks from across the ditch - always good for a laugh.

What are you doing eating a sandwich at half time in the local U13 match?

The Fat
24-06-15, 23:06
Well I am going to send an email to a group some of who are responsible for the drafting of the GMGs to get clarification from an ARU perspective.
As I've posted previously, my view is in line with OB's source and Ian's connections however, I must take guidance from our GMGs.
It may still be possible that the wording of the ARU GMGs is misleading and constitutes an unintended error by the authors.
I will report back hopefully in a day or so.

Dickie E
24-06-15, 23:06
It was an email exchange. I deliberately put it as a situation that could occur in a game without stating anybody's views.

It would be interesting to hear his/her view if he/she realised it was contrary to law clarification, ARU GMG and CJ

Ian_Cook
25-06-15, 00:06
It would be interesting to hear his/her view if he/she realised it was contrary to law clarification, ARU GMG and CJ


Stop trying to use Clarification 10:2004 to back up the ARU GMG's and support your case. It doesn't!

Your GMGs state that a ball gathered in touch in front of the 22m and taken back to behind the 22m then thrown in can NOT be kicked into touch with a gain in ground.....

Clarification 10:2004 states the exact opposite; a ball gathered in touch in front of the 22m and taken back to behind the 22m then thrown in CAN be kicked into touch with a gain in ground....

In any case, Clarification 10:2004 was superseded (and in fact was overturned) by the 2009 change to Law 19.1 (b) when the following sentence was added to the end if it

""This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch."

Ian_Cook
25-06-15, 01:06
Ah, the yoiks from across the ditch - always good for a laugh.

Yes, I agree. You are!


What are you doing eating a sandwich at half time in the local U13 match?

It wasn't at a match, it was in the cafeteria after a Premier team training session.

Dickie E
25-06-15, 01:06
support your case. [/I]

I don't have a case to be supported. Someone makes the rules, I apply them.

As opposed to lurking around rugby changing rooms, choking on sandwiches & trying to drum up unattributed corroboration of your hypothesis.

Dickie E
25-06-15, 01:06
In any case, Clarification 10:2004 was superseded (and in fact was overturned) by the 2009 change to Law 19.1 (b) when the following sentence was added to the end if it



OK I will concede that (there you go, being king of your school debating team has had some benefit) :)

TheBFG
25-06-15, 08:06
so after 147 posts, did we get an answer that we all "agree" on :chin:

RobLev
25-06-15, 09:06
Deleted

OB..
25-06-15, 09:06
It would be interesting to hear his/her view if he/she realised it was contrary to law clarification, ARU GMG and CJ
Yes. After getting his reply, I followed up with a summary of the argument here.

Dickie E
25-06-15, 11:06
Yes. After getting his reply, I followed up with a summary of the argument here.

Did he respond with "Who dreamed up this crap, Steve Walsh?" :)

OB..
25-06-15, 11:06
Did he respond with "Who dreamed up this crap, Steve Walsh?" :)
Not yet ...

Browner
25-06-15, 12:06
I agree that the Law for the FK is clear, and that the Law for the QTI is unclear .. which is why we could usefully look to the clear Law applying to the FK for guidance on what to do in the unclear situation. Just saying!

Anyway: in a FK it's clear that where the ball is fetched from, and where the kick is actually taken is irrelevant - all that matters is where the FK is awarded.

but oddly - for a QTI the consensus is that it's irrelevant where the Line Out is awarded...

Here's the diagram in the Laws.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/images/laws/quick-throw-in-post-en.png

It would not be at all strange to say here that the player is freely choosing to throw inside his 22m, when he could throw along the LoT.

This Diagrams purpose is to show the location 'range' for a QTi, as well as permit an unstraight thrown in at <90° to the touchline, not to deal with the GiG issue being discussed.

IIUC the major contention seems to be for a :

* A kick that goes out on the full (ie hasnt bounced/landed in the FoP anywhere)
* having been kicked from somewhere betwixt the two opposing 22m lines,
* this kick (whilst travelling through the air) crosses the plane of the opponents 22m line
* the ball ends up either being retrieved from (or indeed caught by a player who qualifies as being) in Touch
* This players retrieval position (or catching position) is within the perimeter of the Plan ( shown in Law 1) and alongside the touchline edge of "the 22" as shown in the plan
* The LoT remains where the kicker kicked it from.
* a Quick Throw In ( QTi) is actioned.
* The ball is then kicked directly to touch by the throwers ( defending) team.

In order to then be awarded a Gain in Ground under 19.1(b) it needs to be determined who caused the ball to go into the 22 ???

The options are:
a) the retriever (catcher) - having exercised his right to move the original LoT to a different throwing location to execute his QTi , therefore No Gain
b) the kicker - by his poorly directed kick (which may then be affected by a ricochete off an advertising hoarding) - therefore a Gain is permitted.

IIUC ,
Browner/OB/Taff + others say a) the retriever caused it.
CJ & Cook + others. say b)

I see no value in everyone now zipping off to 'dick wave' their preferred supporters group of the case they presented, it will acheive very little.

Law as written in 19.1(b) uses the word "Causes" to support a), but a WR clarification might be useful given that such rugby 'highest authority' is being challenged, and the law writers might have intended something different.

Ian_Cook
25-06-15, 13:06
The options are:
a) the retriever (catcher) - having exercised his right to move the original LoT to a different throwing location to execute his QTi , therefore No Gain
b) the kicker - by his poorly directed kick (which may then be affected by a ricochete off an advertising hoarding) - therefore a Gain is permitted.

IIUC ,
Browner/OB/Taff + others say a) the retriever caused it.
CJ & Cook + others. say b)


You don't understand correctly. I'm not in CJ's camp, I'm in OB's. To summarise, my position is, and always has been....

The ONLY things (in these scenarios) that are relevant to gain/no gain are;

1. Where the ball crosses the touchline.
2. Where the quick throw in is taken.

In all cases, regardless of whether the ball is kicked into touch directly or indirectly


Ball crosses into touch outside the 22m, QTI is taken outside the 22m = no gain in ground
Ball crosses into touch outside the 22m, QTI is taken inside the 22m = no gain in ground
Ball crosses into touch on or inside the 22m, QTI is taken inside the 22m = gain in ground

No other factors need be taken into account, so

1. Where the ball is gathered in touch has no bearing on anything at all
2. Where the LoT is has no bearing other than;

acting is the forward-most allowable limit for taking a QTI
being the location the line-out would be formed if a QTI option expires or not be taken.

Browner
25-06-15, 16:06
this thread discussion centres around how a Gain in Ground is established
*Where ball Gathered - CJ
*Where ball crossed touchline - IC
*Which player is responsible ( the causee' ) for it being lobbed into the 22 ( from where the GiG is now sought) - Browner

Let's examine what Law actually says for the subject discussion
. 19.1 (a)
Outside a team’s 22, a team member kicks directly into touch.Yes, this is our scenario.
Except for a penalty kick, when a player anywhere in the field of play who is outside the 22 kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground.(n/a, it wasnt a PK)
The throw-in is taken either at the place opposite where the player kicked the ball =LoT,
or at the place where it went into touch, whichever is nearer that player’s goal line n/a , as this means kicked backwards

Easy so far, so the thrown-in is to be taken at the LoT , and can only be taken by an opponent of who
. kicks/ed directly into touch .

So let's move onto 19.1(b)



When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22.

When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 **** STOP HERE ! **** Q?should this be taken to read "into the 22 of that player"? After all, its THE 22 that is defined in Law1 or in-goal area ( please note... Law defines In Goal, not In Goal AREA in Law 1 ) without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.

This applies when a defending player moves backbehind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in **** STOP HERE **** what does "moves back" mean? and then the ball is kicked directly into touch .

Moves back ??? means what ???
If it means " moves along the perimeter of the FoP as he's carrying the ball " , then NGiG
If it means " moves along the perimeter of the FoP whilst juggling the ball without holding it" , then NGiG
If it means " moves along the perimeter of the FoP whilst he's dribbling the ball with his feet, or doing keepy uppys " , then NGiG
If it means " moves the throw in position along the perimeter of the FoP away from the LoT ( as established in 19.1(a) ) " then NGiG
If it means " moves along the perimeter of the FoP whilst collecting a ball that has bounced off a waterbottle, hoarding,or floodlight " , then NGiG
If it means " moves along the perimeter of the FoP to catch a poorly executed direct kick to touch, then ...... NGiG either

So, the throw in CANT be taken by the kickers team, and the Throw-in IS to be taken at the Line of touch, so who causes the ball to move from this location if its not the thrower or his tactical decision ????

IMO 'moves back' means "does anything that moves the ball from the LoT to another position that results in it being thrown into ( and then played/caught inside the 22 Area by a player of his own team , or if to be expressed in a single word........ "causes" !

. ‘The 22’ is the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line. . The 22 does not include the perimeter area.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/images/laws/playing-enclosure-en.jpg

OB..
25-06-15, 18:06
Browner - what on earth was all that about? I make no apology for repeating my view that the laws of Rugby are not written in the style of Statute Law. They are written in everyday language for the benefit of everyday players and referees. It is a mistake to think that by forensic dissection of the wording you can uncover The True Meaning. The Laws contain ambiguities, gaps, and contradictions. You have to read them in the context of how the game is played and what makes most sense. When that still leaves the matter unresolved, it is for the authorities to make a decision.

A classic case is deciding who put the ball in touch when a player catches it with one foot jn touch. At first Australia and New Zealand took opposing views, but it has now been settled that the catcher did NOT put the ball into touch.

In this case SA and Aus have fallen into the forensic trap by drawing an inference from the last sentence of 19.1 (b) and claiming that forces us to accept a radically new concept which is not reflected anywhere else in the laws, and conflicts with Law 1.

I have given what I claim is a perfectly sensible explanation of the reason for the existence of that sentence and what it means in the context of the game: players tried to claim that if they got the ball after it had crossed the touchline outside the 22 and then ran back past the 22m flag to take a QTI, they were not responsible for putting the ball into the 22, so a gain in ground was possible. This was based in part on the universal understanding (still valid) that a player throwing in to a lineout inside the 22 , while in touch himself by definition, is not deemed to be throwing the ball into his own 22.

The simple, sensible, and natural interpretation is to say that the place where the ball crossed the touchline on its way into touch determines who put the ball into the 22. If the attacker didn't, then the defender did.

Rushforth
25-06-15, 18:06
I make no apology for repeating my view that the laws of Rugby are not written in the style of Statute Law. They are written in everyday language for the benefit of everyday players and referees. It is a mistake to think that by forensic dissection of the wording you can uncover The True Meaning. The Laws contain ambiguities, gaps, and contradictions. You have to read them in the context of how the game is played and what makes most sense. When that still leaves the matter unresolved, it is for the authorities to make a decision.

This is not only a nice sentiment to have, but the way we as referees are 'forced' to manage games. That said, it regularly leads to confusion and conflict, and "decisions by authorities" are often almost useless.

Fortunately players simply want to play, and will generally accept referee errors - at least as long as they feel the referee to be fair.

Fortunately authorities do actually state which areas they expect referees to be "hard" on, mostly relating to safety.

That said, is it to much to ask to have an unambiguous set of clarifications for ALL the laws?

Browner
25-06-15, 18:06
Yes OB, I have noticed how you are capable of oscilating between Law as written v Commonsense application, and then v Law as it should mean, depending on your own view.

I think the words "cause" & "the 22" were used deliberately, as opposed to 'put/taken ' or 'the 22 - to include the area beyond the touchline' , but hey, time will tell, well see a clarification one day. Until then.

Dixie
25-06-15, 21:06
That said, is it to much to ask to have an unambiguous set of clarifications for ALL the laws? Not too much to ask at all - as long as you can engineer the dismissal of everyone at World Rugby, and their replacement by intelligent people.

Dickie E
25-06-15, 22:06
Yes OB, I have noticed how you are capable of oscilating between Law as written v Commonsense application, and then v Law as it should mean, depending on your own view.



Well put

Dickie E
25-06-15, 22:06
I make no apology for repeating my view that the laws of Rugby are not written in the style of Statute Law. They are written in everyday language for the benefit of everyday players and referees. It is a mistake to think that by forensic dissection of the wording you can uncover The True Meaning. The Laws contain ambiguities, gaps, and contradictions. You have to read them in the context of how the game is played and what makes most sense.

I take the same view but in this case am able to come up with a different outcome.

Historically a player was allowed to take the ball into his own 22 (either carry or pass) then get a gain in ground.

A bit like passing the ball back to the goalie in soccer, this practice was seen as rewarding overly defensive play so restrictions were placed on it (firstly a pass back into the 22 was restricted to no gain in ground then a carry back followed suit).

So the whole intent of the law is and was to restrict, and not reward, overly defensive play.

Is a player who picks up the ball in touch 10 metres from his own goal line and takes a QTI guilty of the original sin of overly defensive play? In my mind he is not, irrespective of where the ball went into touch.

Dickie E
26-06-15, 01:06
The simple, sensible, and natural interpretation

Yes, most advocates of a position think this. That is why we'll never see peace in the Middle East.



If the attacker didn't, then the defender did.

There is likely a latin term for this type of argument and I don't accept it. The law restiction is on the defenders so the burden of proof is on you to show that the defenders put the ball into the 22.

Browner
26-06-15, 01:06
I take the same view but in this case am able to come up with a different outcome.

Historically a player was allowed to take the ball into his own 22 (either carry or pass) then get a gain in ground.

A bit like passing the ball back to the goalie in soccer, this practice was seen as rewarding overly defensive play so restrictions were placed on it (firstly a pass back into the 22 was restricted to no gain in ground then a carry back followed suit).

So the whole intent of the law is and was to restrict, and not reward, overly defensive play.

Is a player who picks up the ball in touch 10 metres from his own goal line and takes a QTI guilty of the original sin of overly defensive play? In my mind he is not, irrespective of where the ball went into touch.

Hi Dickie,

I came to my conclusion from a not dissimilar line of thinking, but nevertheless a different ideology 'continuity of attack' via running handling play.

I see the QTi as a way for a team to gain permission to have freedom to attack with ball in hand by sacrificing/trading territorial position.

Re: The subject case ( direct kick crosses touchline that abounds the 22 behind the 22m line )
It makes no game sense to reward a team with a GiG for their choice of not taking the original throw-in at the LoT further upfield in favour of opting to Throw the ball into their 22 to then boot it straight out of the FoP again ( the only circumstance where a GiG becomes relevant)

In all other cases a QTi will not see the ball directly booted straight back off the FoP.

Aside from any tactical misjudgement by their opponents now having the next throw ( probably near where the pre QTi LoT was!) my main reasoning is that rewarding someone for kicking the ball off the pitch when they'd just been given 'special permission' to return it into play from somewhere other than the LoT, just doesnt allign with the ideology of QTi's per se' , why would Law give any encouragement (GiG) to do that?

Ian_Cook
26-06-15, 01:06
A bit like passing the ball back to the goalie in soccer, this practice was seen as rewarding overly defensive play so restrictions were placed on it (firstly a pass back into the 22 was restricted to no gain in ground then a carry back followed suit).

Other way around

Prior to 1996 (OB..?) player could carry or pass the ball back and get a gain in ground

Then the Law changed so that a player could not carry it back or knock or throw it back and retrive it himself and kick for touch, but he could still could still pass the ball back to a team-mate who could then kick for touch and get a gain in ground

Law 23 I.R.F.B. Ruling from the Notes of the 1996 Law book (Law 23 was the Touch and Line-out Law in 1996)

In reference to (5)(b) , if a player has received the ball outside his 22 metre line then throws, knocks or kicks the ball back over that line, retrieves it himself and then kicks for touch, his team cannot gain ground if the ball pitches directly into touch.


In 2009 the law was changed to restrict any causing of the ball to go back into the 22m. This effectively ruled out the knock, pass or kick back to a team-mate.

Ian_Cook
26-06-15, 01:06
Yes OB, I have noticed how you are capable of oscilating between Law as written v Commonsense application, and then v Law as it should mean, depending on your own view.

Yes I find that too, but if you have bothered to look carefully, you will see that OB tends to go with the Law "as writ" when that Law is clear and unambiguous, while he takes the commonsense approach when the Law is confusing and lacking clarity. This is something I think we can all learn from, and a lead we should follow!!

The Touch Laws of rugby union are anything but clear!!!

Dickie E
26-06-15, 02:06
Other way around



Yeah, OK, whatever

Rushforth
26-06-15, 08:06
There is likely a latin term for this type of argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle (principium tertii exclusi/tertium non datur)

OB..
26-06-15, 11:06
That said, is it to much to ask to have an unambiguous set of clarifications for ALL the laws?While there is indeed much that could be done to improve the laws, I doubt if it is possible to produce a version that is both definitive and readable. About 100 years ago there was an attempt to produce a Statute consolidating the law on theft that the general public could understand. It failed, and after many problems of interpretation in court, was replaced.

Taff
26-06-15, 11:06
Is anybody claiming that if the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22 the ball had NOT been put into the 22 by the kicker?Well ... yes, I was if I'm honest. Although I am starting to lean towards Ian Cooks more recent summary.


.. The line of touch from a PK or kick that had first bounced in the FoP is clearly inside the 22, and we know a gain in ground is allowed from a line-out there. How could a legitimate QTI possibly be different?
But I'm not talking of a ball which "bounced" into touch inside the 22 OB. I was querying a direct kick to touch that flew over the 22 and went straight to touch. What makes it different? The LoT .. one is inside the 22 (gain in ground allowed) the other is outside the 22 where I would argue there is no gain in ground.

OB..
26-06-15, 11:06
It makes perfectly good sense to discuss the various aspects of a gain in ground, some of which do indeeed need changing. If WR came out with clear law changes, I might or might not agree, but at least we would know where we stood.

In this case my objection is that the SA/ARU approach is based on an inference from the wording of one sentence that is claimed to introduce a radically new concept - that lines on the field can be considered to extend into touch. This also happens to conflict with the diagrams in Law 1. My argument is that the inference is not a necessary one; that if intended such a major change should be properly introduced; and that there is an alternative meaning to that sentence which fits well with both the game and other laws.

It occurs to me that if the 22m line was deemed to extend into touch, so would the goal line. If the ball rolled past that extension, a defender could presumably touch down for a drop-out. Could an attacker score a try?!! I would hate to see this innovation ratified, but would not necessarily object to proper law changes affecting gain in ground.

Browner
26-06-15, 12:06
The term 'Quick Throw in' is part of the problem, its only a 'right' that exists subject to conditions.

A fuller description might be " a Throw that is permitted to be moved from the LoT to a different location ( providing its done before a Lineout is formed) from which a Gain in Ground isnt allowed if by moving the original position of the throw the throwing team contrive to get the ball into their own 22 area and kick directly to touch without touching an opposition or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed "

The Fat
26-06-15, 12:06
The term 'Quick Throw in' is part of the problem, its only a 'right' that exists subject to conditions.

A fuller description might be " a Throw that is permitted to be moved from the LoT to a different location ( providing its done before a Lineout is formed) from which a Gain in Ground isnt allowed if the throwing team contrive to get the ball into their own 22 area without touching an opposition player and then a player from the defending team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed "

Ya gonna need a bigger book

Browner
26-06-15, 12:06
Yep, sobeit, my perception is that the book has grown noticeably since professionalism started squeezing ever drop of interpretation into results!

Ian_Cook
26-06-15, 14:06
The position of the LoT is NOT relevant, the place where the ball crossed the touchline is.

This is a case where, among competing interpretations that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected... i.o.w. Occam's Razor.

I've offered a SIMPLE interpretation that aligns perfectly with Law, that works for every possible permutation and that requires nothing more than knowing TWO things;

where the ball crossed the touchline
where the quick throw in was taken

Why are some people here so ****ing hell-bent on making this issue more complex than it needs to be?

OB..
26-06-15, 14:06
The position of the LoT is NOT relevant, the place where the ball crossed the touchline is.

This is a case where, among competing interpretations that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected... i.o.w. Occam's Razor.

I've offered a SIMPLE interpretation that aligns perfectly with Law, that works for every possible permutation and that requires nothing more than knowing TWO things;

where the ball crossed the touchline
where the quick throw in was taken

Why are some people here so ****ing hell-bent on making this issue more complex than it needs to be?Agreed, though in answer to your final question, the difficulty is that SA and ARU have officially created the problem and some of our posters are constrained by that.

Rushforth
26-06-15, 15:06
While there is indeed much that could be done to improve the laws, I doubt if it is possible to produce a version that is both definitive and readable.

Ignoring criminal law, where the penalties are far greater, I beg to disagree. Also, common law differs from the continental system in that precedent is important; where the law is not clear, a specific case may settle the argument.

Rugby law needs to be determined and applied at lightning speed, usually by a single referee, and classically with a TJ from each side assisting him in Corinthian spirit as to whether the ball (carrier) crosses the touch-line and if so, where.

Also, the law should serve PLAYERS rather than spectators. So, for example, where there are two possible interpretations (as per forward pass) where one is more restrictive, and the looser one is preferred to keep the game continuous, then if players (from pro down) are happy, play that. This is perhaps even more obvious in the use of the word "immediately" in the Laws of Rugby: if anything the lower level players will need more time to do things like place a ball.

These forums are valuable, but there are probably many referees (think coaches at youth levels) who will know never have guidance other than what is 'clearly' available in the Laws. My thinking is that the Laws should be kept roughly as they are, but with "condensed" and "with notes" versions also available.

The condensed Laws would be limited to about 15+15 pages, of which the latter 15 are expectations per position (1&3 how to bind, 2 when foot can go up, etc.) These would be essentially "how to play if everyone plays like they are golf/bridge players", and by being explanatory/proscriptive ("don't do this", "you are allowed to ...") could be more easily translated to more languages.

The Laws "with notes" would be similar to the current Laws plus a global equivalent of the Australian Guide (not that I have access to that, nor need to, but the higher the level the more we would like to see consistency). It might include not only current rulings of interpretation, but also "tips".

Finally, although I agree that it seems to be adding unnecessary complication, the CJ/ARU interpretation is not "wrong" as such. It is no less of an arbitrary decision than the ARU forward pass interpretation. However, it doesn't have the added benefit of making the game more continuous.

OB..
26-06-15, 18:06
Ignoring criminal law, where the penalties are far greater, I beg to disagree. I don't know what your experience is of Statute Law, but mine, as a law student many years ago, encompassed more that just criminal law. Here, for example, is the first paragraph of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947Right to sue the Crown.
Where any person has a claim against the Crown after the commencement of this Act, and, if this Act had not been passed, the claim might have been enforced, subject to the grant of His Majesty’s fiat, by petition of right, or might have been enforced by a proceeding provided by any statutory provision repealed by this Act, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, the claim may be enforced as of right, and without the fiat of His Majesty, by proceedings taken against the Crown for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Drafting statutes is specialist work. So is reading them!

I am not very familiar with codified law systems, but obviously there will be legal arguments over the meaning of some parts of the code which the drafters will have tried to cater for (but possibly failed).


My thinking is that the Laws should be kept roughly as they are, but with "condensed" and "with notes" versions also available.The laws have been published in various versions over the years. 1994/5/6 the IRFB published Laws in Plain English to go alongside the formal law booklet. When the RFU published the law books, their booklet included Notes in the laws and sections at the end on Guidance to Referees (plus some admin stuff).


Finally, although I agree that it seems to be adding unnecessary complication, the CJ/ARU interpretation is not "wrong" as such. It is no less of an arbitrary decision than the ARU forward pass interpretation. However, it doesn't have the added benefit of making the game more continuous.Technically it is not formally "wrong" at the moment, but I do hope it becomes so.

thepercy
26-06-15, 19:06
@Ian, Why do you get so upset when someone disagrees with your OPINION? If it was as clear and obvious as you declare, there would likely be less discussion.

Ian_Cook
26-06-15, 20:06
@Ian, Why do you get so upset when someone disagrees with your OPINION? If it was as clear and obvious as you declare, there would likely be less discussion.

Its not my OPINION!

This how gain/no gain is ruled in EVERY rugby playing country in the world except South Africa, Australia and Canada (who simply copied the ARU GMG's wholesale, and they acknowledge as much)

And I'm not upset, I don't give a fat rat's arse whether people agree with me or not. I'm just annoyed that in a game where consistency of refereeing world-wide is supposedly being strived for, that individual National Unions seem to be allowed to make up their own Laws.


The Laws "with notes" would be similar to the current Laws plus a global equivalent of the Australian Guide (not that I have access to that, nor need to, but the higher the level the more we would like to see consistency). It might include not only current rulings of interpretation, but also "tips".

All the NZRFU Law Books that were in use when I was an active referee used to have "Notes on the Laws" These used to take the form of "pink pages" which appeared after each numbered Law. These pink pages were explanations of how each Law was to be interpreted and were numbered using the same numbering system as the Law itself, so for example in the 1996 Law Book

LAW 10. KICK-OFF
Kick-off is (a) a place kick taken from the centre of the half-way line by the team which has the right to start the match or by the opposing team on the resumption of play after the half-time interval or (b) a drop kick taken at or from behind the centre of the half-way line by the defending team after the opposing side has scored.

10 (4) If the ball crosses the opposing team's goal line from a kick-off, without touching or being touched by a player, the opposing team has the option of grounding the ball, making it dead, or playing on. If the opposing team grounds the ball or makes it dead or the ball becomes dead by touch-in-goal or by touching or crossing the dead ball line, they will have the option of either having a scrummage formed at the center of the half-way line, with the put-in, or having the other team kick off again.

Then the pink page immediately after Law 10 is

LAW 10. KICK-OFF
10 (4) This option of grounding the ball must be exercised without delay, and if a defending player, after gathering the ball in In-goal, runs with it or passes it, he has taken the option to play on.

These pink pages were a valuable tool but they disappeared from the Law Books after the 2000 rewrite and rearrangement of the Laws.

I also like the Rugby League way of doing this. Their "notes" appear at the bottom of each Law page. You mentioned forward pass, so here, for example is RL single page, complete with notes on the knock on and forward pass...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Section%2010%20ARLLOTG.png

NOTE: Their definitions appear in the Glossary of Terms

KNOCK-ON: means to knock the ball towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball.

FORWARD PASS: is a throw towards the opponents’ dead ball line

Our Knock on and forward throw law - three pages containing two definitions, two exceptions, two diagrams and NO explanations. Despite the fact that it has been clearly established after much argument, that the momentum view is the correct, WR sanctioned view of the Forward Throw, there is still nothing about it in the Laws of the Game!!
WR, give yourself an uppercut :chair:

OB..
27-06-15, 11:06
Re: The subject case ( direct kick crosses touchline that abounds the 22 behind the 22m line )
It makes no game sense to reward a team with a GiG for their choice of not taking the original throw-in at the LoT further upfield in favour of opting to Throw the ball into their 22 to then boot it straight out of the FoP again ( the only circumstance where a GiG becomes relevant)
It occurs to me that the arguments for and against the SA/ARU view do not depend on the original kick going into touch on the full. If a well-placed kick bounces just before the touchline and goes into touch just outside the 22, a defender may well pick it up on the other side of the mythical 22m line extension. According to the SA/ARU view, he may then throw in to a team mate who could well make a considerable distance with his kick. Whether that is satisfactory compensation for the loss of the throw is a tactical choice.

However I remain convinced that the whole concept of lines extending into touch is a bad one.

Dickie E
27-06-15, 12:06
It occurs to me that the arguments for and against the SA/ARU view do not depend on the original kick going into touch on the full. If a well-placed kick bounces just before the touchline and goes into touch just outside the 22, a defender may well pick it up on the other side of the mythical 22m line extension. According to the SA/ARU view, he may then throw in to a team mate who could well make a considerable distance with his kick. Whether that is satisfactory compensation for the loss of the throw is a tactical choice.

However I remain convinced that the whole concept of lines extending into touch is a bad one.

Yes, I think you have made that point clear enough. Ad nauseum in fact.

OB..
27-06-15, 13:06
Yes, I think you have made that point clear enough. Ad nauseam in fact.
Why the sour response? The main point I made is a new twist, and was surely in your favour?

ddjamo
27-06-15, 14:06
personally I would handle this situation like I do most things: watch in unfold and deal with it based on the context.

I don't think we should play "gotcha" in this situation so if it's going to be an issue we better be there and prevent what we feel may be a turnover as best as possible.

it's not clearly covered in law - so we have to make the best of the situation. the last thing we want is to come up with some call that we construct in our own mind and nobody else in the park understands.

ChrisR
27-06-15, 16:06
The only time that this is an issue is when the LoT is not where the ball crossed into touch and the non-kicking team executes a quick throw in. Such is the case in the OP. CJ response that depends on where the ball is recovered by the player throwing in is absurd as it requires the extension of the 22 beyond the field of play. That, as OB has stressed, is not correct in law.

If a player kicks the ball directly into touch from in front of his own 22 then the LoT will be from where he kicked it and would be outside of the opponents 22. If the LoT was used as the reference point, any QT into/behind the 22 would be considered as taking the ball back into the 22 and any gain in ground would be disallowed. Clearly, this approach would disadvantage the team throwing in.

If, instead, the point where the ball goes into touch is used as the reference then should that point be in side the 22 then the ball has already been taken into the 22 by the ops and a kick taken behind the 22 would get the gain in ground.

I'm firmly in Ian's camp: Used the point where the ball goes into touch, not the Lot.

Browner
27-06-15, 18:06
The only time that this is an issue is when the LoT is not where the ball crossed into touch and the non-kicking team executes a quick throw in. Such is the case in the OP. CJ response that depends on where the ball is recovered by the player throwing in is absurd as it requires the extension of the 22 beyond the field of play. That, as OB has stressed, is not correct in law.

If a player kicks the ball directly into touch from in front of his own 22 then the LoT will be from where he kicked it and would be outside of the opponents 22. If the LoT was used as the reference point, any QT into/behind the 22 would be considered as taking the ball back into the 22 and any gain in ground would be disallowed. Clearly, this approach would disadvantage the team throwing in.

If, instead, the point where the ball goes into touch is used as the reference then should that point be in side the 22 then the ball has already been taken into the 22 by the ops and a kick taken behind the 22 would get the gain in ground.

I'm firmly in Ian's camp: Used the point where the ball goes into touch, not the Lot.

It hardly disadvantages them, they already have the option to throw the ball in (& unstraight !) without the opposition having a fair contest for that restart of play possession, now you want them to be able to get the ball back into play AND be able to kick it straight again AND gain whilst doing so, that is contrary to the spirit of QTi that aside from this example would never see the ball booted straight off the pitch for a gain.

I can see why 'where crossed' is easier for a referee and simpler for the players etc , but sometimes Law is there for balanced fairness and the ethos of the game to prevail.

I can see the ball hitting a floodlight directly from a kick, bouncing 5m upfield - being gathered by a player who runs back to 3m outside the 22 imagined line, lobs a diagonal pass to a teammate inside the 22 who now boots it to touch . This is supposed to mean a gain in ground under the "it crossed inside the 22 interpretation" - really?

Im firmly in the "its the throwers decision to relocate the throw from the LoT" that determines 'who caused' rather than a misdirected kick that doesn't land in the FoP.

It will indeed be an interesting clarification when it comes out.

OB..
27-06-15, 19:06
It will indeed be an interesting clarification when it comes out.
I hope that at the very least the referees will address the issue at their pre-RWC session(s). It would be very sad to have a crucial decision depend on the nationality of the referee.

Dickie E
27-06-15, 22:06
The only time that this is an issue is when the LoT is not where the ball crossed into touch

That is not true at all. I don't think I have the energy to explain again.

Dickie E
27-06-15, 22:06
Why the sour response? The main point I made is a new twist, and was surely in your favour?

How is this a new twist? The concept of the ball rolling into touch outside 22 and continuing to roll over the imaginary 22 extension is what this whole thread has been about ... hasn't it???

And yes, I know you don't accept the concept of the imaginary 22 extension. Happy to take that as read.

Ian_Cook
27-06-15, 22:06
Im firmly in the "its the throwers decision to relocate the throw from the LoT" that determines 'who caused' rather than a misdirected kick that doesn't land in the FoP.

So, think about this browner.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-browner.png

► An attacking player (Blue) kicks the ball from a point outside the opponent's 22m (opposite "B")

► It crosses the touchline on the full inside the opponent's 22m ("A") and is caught by a defending player (Gold) just outside the touchline

►He immediately throws the ball in at that point to a team-mate (Gold) who then kicks for touch

Is your stated position that you cannot allow a gain in ground because the player taking the QTI chose to move the LoT (at "B") to a point behind the 22m?

If so, then your position is totally unsupported in both Law and Application of Law.

Prior to 2014 the Law regarding the quick throw in stated this...

19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the
place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.
On the diagram, this means anywhere in the FoP behind "A" (so your stated position would not have been possible)

Then, in 2014 WR changed this to....

19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(b) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the
place where the ball would be thrown in from a formed lineout and the player’s goal line.
On the diagram, this means anywhere in the FoP behind "B"

Do you think that WR did this with the intention of restricting a gain in ground or are you justifying your position as a result of Merton's Law?

The Fat
27-06-15, 23:06
The concept of the ball rolling into touch outside 22 and continuing to roll over the imaginary 22 extension is what this whole thread has been about ... hasn't it???


That is what I thought.

OB..
27-06-15, 23:06
How is this a new twist? The argument had been made that the defending side would be better off taking the lineout because the LoT was back where the ball was kicked from. I pointed out that if the kick bounced before it went into touch, the 22m extension invention would allow a player to choose a kick to touch with gain in ground (but throw-in to the opposition) if that was preferred to having his own throw just near the 22.

crossref
28-06-15, 07:06
As offensive as you might find the idea of the 'imaginary extension' of the 22m line, the fact remains that of the unions who have explicitly addressed the concept, all three hacd concluded that it does exist. The other unions being so far silent on the matter..

Ian_Cook
28-06-15, 07:06
As offensive as you might find the idea of the 'imaginary extension' of the 22m line, the fact remains that of the unions who have explicitly addressed the concept, all three hacd concluded that it does exist. The other unions being so far silent on the matter..

Unremarkable if their silence is because they are already following the LotG.

The Fat
28-06-15, 12:06
Unremarkable if their silence is because they are already following the LotG.

Did your meet up with another Super Rugby ref eventuate last night in Wellington?

Dixie
28-06-15, 19:06
Did your meet up with another Super Rugby ref eventuate last night in Wellington? Are you just trying to piss off Dickie E? His dictionary is getting more work this month than it's had since he left school. I'm just enunciating.

Ian_Cook
28-06-15, 21:06
Did your meet up with another Super Rugby ref eventuate last night in Wellington?

No, as he was unable to travel to Wellington due to a family illness. However, I will be going to Wellington again for the final and we have arranged to meet after the game.

Tickets aren't on sale yet, thank heavens for corporate boxes aye!! :biggrin:

Dickie E
28-06-15, 23:06
Are you just trying to piss off Dickie E? His dictionary is getting more work this month than it's had since he left school. I'm just enunciating.

enunciate this, you sesquipedalian:

http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2006/04/study_using_big.php

OB..
29-06-15, 12:06
enunciate this, you sesquipedalian:

http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2006/04/study_using_big.phpToday's Times leader on Greece uses "unserious", "immiseration", and "fecklessness". (However it is basically a straightforward, hard-hitting analysis.)

Browner
29-06-15, 19:06
It would be very sad to have a crucial decision depend on the nationality of the referee.

Indeed,
not this threads scenario, but id argue that it's happened before! my wound healed, but the scar remains visible if searched for :chair:DB.

https://youtu.be/2AMbnEe66oI?t=404

hashtagneverforgetyour....

ps...mind you, had bumface had a crisp misspass in his toolbox then.... i gotta go, coz getting horrible flashbacks !

Ian_Cook
29-06-15, 21:06
...not this threads scenario, but id argue that it's happened before! my wound healed, but the scar remains visible if searched for :chair:DB.

https://youtu.be/2AMbnEe66oI?t=404



What? You're not suggesting that in Wales the act by Campese of knocking the ball forwards intentionally was not ruled as a penalty try, but it was in other countries? If so, then I disagree.

Firstly, there is this....

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19830810&id=vIZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ruYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6619,2683566&hl=en

1983, Clive Norling, a Welsh referee, ruled a penalty try in almost identical circumstances. The only difference was that in the 1991 RWC Final, there was plenty of cover coming across that would likely have prevented the try being scored. This was explained by the referee himself in a recent issue of The World Rugby Show. If you are signed up to Sky Sports, you can watch it it here

http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/9895378/world-rugby-show-25th-june

Ian_Cook
05-07-15, 02:07
Did your meet up with another Super Rugby ref eventuate last night in Wellington?

I just got back from Wellington.

What a game!!! These guys must be so fit to keep up the pace they went at. Highlanders thoroughly deserved their win, only the fifth time in 20 years that the away team won the final.

This time, I caught up with my referee acquaintance. I had a pre-printed sheet which I made from diagrams similar to those I posted earlier in this thread. I asked him to write G (for gain) or NG (for no gain) next to each scenario, for how he would be expected to rule in a match.

Here is a scan I just made....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsomzf4s49nyd90/IMG_20150705_0001%280%29.jpg?raw=1

He remarked that #2 and #4 looked the same.

I said that in #2 the ball was picked up in touch outside the 22m, and in #4, inside the 22m.

He replied "...makes no difference. What counts where the ball crossed the touchline."

I asked "What about the line of touch?"

He replied "The line of touch is only relevant to where the line-out will form, unless there's a quick throw in, then the line of touch is the point where the ball was thrown in" We had a bit of a discussion about this and I will post some more when I have time to check some of the Law references he gave me.

NOTE: I first got to know this man through business, and nothing to do with refereeing or rugby. His wife and I were in the same business at that time, and I met him at a Conference some years ago. He has asked me not to name, names, so I will respect that.

Dickie E
05-07-15, 03:07
did you tell him that CJ disgarees with him?

Also curious why he wishes to be anonymous

Ian_Cook
05-07-15, 05:07
did you tell him that CJ disgarees with him?

Not before I asked. I simply wanted get an NZRU referee viewpoint without preconceptions.

After he answered, I mentioned the SARU and ARU GMG's. He said he couldn't see how they could come to those conclusions from the way the Law is written.


Also curious why he wishes to be anonymous

I didn't ask, but I guess its he is expressing an official viewpoint without official approval (think Paddy O'brien, Stu Dickinson, San Siro)

Dickie E
05-07-15, 05:07
He said he couldn't see how they could come to those conclusions from the way the Law is written.



Rather myopic of him. Not even a "I can see the reasoning from both sides but reach a particular conclusion" from him?

Ian_Cook
05-07-15, 06:07
Rather myopic of him. Not even a "I can see the reasoning from both sides but reach a particular conclusion" from him?

I have trouble seeing past Law 1; the 22m does not extend into touch, either by the diagram (which IS a part of Law as stated in the Laws) or any description on Law 1. Nor is it even implied to be so anywhere in the Laws of the Game.

I see it as an example of Occams Razor;

On the one hand, you have the majority view, that 22m ends at the touchline, as specified in existing law,

On the other hand you have the minority view, that WR has intentionally created a dramatic and significant change in Law 1, the most fundamental of all the laws; , defining of the very ground upon which the game is played on, without actually changing Law 1, and without informing any of the member National Unions that they have changed Law 1.

I guess the rest of the world is myopic too!

Blackberry
05-07-15, 08:07
The rights/benefits of a throw in are determined by where it crossed the touch line. I'm sticking with that.

Browner
05-07-15, 11:07
The rights/benefits of a throw in are determined by where it crossed the touch line. I'm sticking with that.

& by doing so you may think its easier , but You've opened up a new scenario of potential dispute.

did/didn't it cross the 22 line?

how do you ever see if the catchers back foot has meant that ball has landed in this imaginary extended area??? When there isn't an extended 22m line to give you a visual indication & the catcher is stretching to have his foot back within the imaginary extended 22m area ????

At elite level it will require an AR to best guess ( and then TV technicians with on screen trajectory graphics will then prove him wrong ! ) Or we need to paint the 22m line beyond the FoP into the perimeter (& beyond) to avoid the AR having his eyes searching in two directions at once!, even then for 'below AR level rugby' it will be an impossible ask.

Aside from the fact that this interpretation is contrary to L1 or L19 , new arguments will no doubt follow ( good luck!) , take a slide ruler and a laser pen Blackberry !

Strict adherence to L1 & L19 ( 'cause' ) is a much easier "line to see".

& I expect, when tested, the lawmakers will agree.

OB..
05-07-15, 11:07
Also curious why he wishes to be anonymousPerhaps because he does not have control over how his views are presented?

Dickie E
05-07-15, 11:07
Perhaps because he does not have control over how his views are presented?

Well, it's only a yes or no question. "Here's my view but don't tell anyone it's my view". Hardly compelling, is it?

Dickie E
05-07-15, 11:07
On the one hand, you have the majority view, half a dozen community level refs on a chat room and mysterious un-named "elite ref" in Wellington

On the other hand you have the minority view, CJ (one of the top 3 in the world) and the ARU

(msf)

OB..
05-07-15, 12:07
Well, it's only a yes or no question. "Here's my view but don't tell anyone it's my view". Hardly compelling, is it?I don't see how that discredits his view, which confirms that there is a difference of opinion at high levels, and is in line with advice I got over here.

Dickie E
05-07-15, 12:07
I don't see how that discredits his view,

Surely someone who is prepared to put his name to his views is more credible than someone who isn't? I guess similar to your "un-named source"

OB..
05-07-15, 12:07
On the one hand, you have the majority view, half a dozen community level refs on a chat room and mysterious un-named "elite ref" in Wellington

On the other hand you have the minority view, CJ (one of the top 3 in the world) and the ARUCommunity level? Does that include National Panel ?

Why should we assume that the South African view is the official WR view when we know our own senior referees disagree, and do not referee that way?

It could be a tragedy in the making if WR does not make its position clear at least to those taking part in the RWC.

Ian_Cook
05-07-15, 12:07
Surely someone who is prepared to put his name to his views is more credible than someone who isn't? I guess similar to your "un-named source"

Well, will you put your name to your views?

I put my name to mine, I post here under my real name, not a pseudonym.

The Fat
05-07-15, 12:07
It could be a tragedy in the making if WR does not make its position clear at least to those taking part in the RWC.

Agree

Browner
05-07-15, 13:07
Well, will you put your name to your views?
I put my name to mine, I post here under my real name, not a pseudonym.

Dickie,

Re: above

Anyone who owns editorial control, or the power to remove/block/erase dissenting opinion or comment , or the power to threaten/ ban the poster Might feel amply protected to post in 'forums' under their real full name

Conversely, those that don't, probably wont..

RR.com Forum Moderators :
US/Canada:
Bryan
ddjamo
SimonSmith

Europe:
Davet
DrStu
Phil E
OB..
Simon Thomas

Oceana/Asia:
Robert Burns
Dickie E
Ian Cook
This list shows that only 4/11 (36%) choose to do this, so you are among the majority.

ChrisR
05-07-15, 13:07
Now I feel sneaky so I must confess that my real name is Deep Throat.

The Fat
05-07-15, 13:07
Now I feel sneaky so I must confess that my real name is Deep Throat.

And when the name don't fit, I'll change it:wink:

Blackberry
05-07-15, 14:07
& by doing so you may think its easier , but You've opened up a new scenario of potential dispute.

did/didn't it cross the 22 line?

how do you ever see if the catchers back foot has meant that ball has landed in this imaginary extended area??? When there isn't an extended 22m line to give you a visual indication & the catcher is stretching to have his foot back within the imaginary extended 22m area ????

At elite level it will require an AR to best guess ( and then TV technicians with on screen trajectory graphics will then prove him wrong ! ) Or we need to paint the 22m line beyond the FoP into the perimeter (& beyond) to avoid the AR having his eyes searching in two directions at once!, even then for 'below AR level rugby' it will be an impossible ask.

Aside from the fact that this interpretation is contrary to L1 or L19 , new arguments will no doubt follow ( good luck!) , take a slide ruler and a laser pen Blackberry !

Strict adherence to L1 & L19 ( 'cause' ) is a much easier "line to see".

& I expect, when tested, the lawmakers will agree.

Hi Browner, loved your mix of generations with your references (slide rule and laser pen)

Not so hard to decide where it went out (don't we have the same problem with touch near the try line?), its what we are trained to interpret.

Ian_Cook
05-07-15, 21:07
Anyone who owns editorial control, or the power to remove/block/erase dissenting opinion or comment , or the power to threaten/ ban the poster Might feel amply protected to post in 'forums' under their real full name

Except that most of us who post under our real names chose to do so BEFORE we became moderators, and there are others here who are not moderators who also post under their real names.

That rather cuts the legs out from under your argument, doesn't it!?

Browner
05-07-15, 23:07
Hi Browner, loved your mix of generations with your references (slide rule and laser pen)

Not so hard to decide where it went out (don't we have the same problem with touch near the try line?), its what we are trained to interpret.

Thanks BB Im bi-generational whenever possible!

But thats a key point Blackberry, if the catcher is outside the Goal Area [instead he's stood in the perimeter alongside it] , then his foot position [seeking to determine the ball being able to be kicked with 'Gain' ] doesn't ever become an issue. Its the 'Gain-ability' that makes this so important an issue.

The Fat
13-08-15, 12:08
Not really wanting to perform CPR on this thread however, whilst putting together a presentation focussing on ARs for our next education night, I came across the following in the ARU L2 AR Accreditation Course Workbook. It is in the Decision Making section in the sub-section Where Is The Lineout Formed In The Following Scenarios? Other Scenarios To Consider.
1. A ball in touch gathered in front of the 22m, run back behind the 22m line and thrown in quickly means no gain in ground from a kick out on full
2. A ball in touch gathered behind the 22m line, and thrown in quickly means gain in ground from a kick out on full allowed.

This is regardless of where the ball went into touch.

3. A quick throw passed from outside the 22m, across the 22m line and into the 22m area means no gain in ground from a kick out on full.

I guess the point of this post is to say that if we want a definitive answer to this thread, it will have to be from one of our NH friends pulling a few strings to get a view from someone at WR.