PDA

View Full Version : QTI question



Dickie E
02-04-16, 12:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qBNX3mu2e3A#t=857

have a look from 11:55 (on the TV clock).

Blue #10 kicks long and ball bounces into touch 26 metres from Green goal line. Ball then bounces into Green 22. Green player picks up ball and moves to touch and takes QTI. No gain in ground from subsequent kick. Did Green take ball into 22?

Taff
02-04-16, 13:04
have a look from 11:55 (on the TV clock). Blue #10 kicks long and ball bounces into touch 26 metres from Green goal line. Ball then bounces into Green 22. Green player picks up ball and moves to touch and takes QTI. No gain in ground from subsequent kick. Did Green take ball into 22?
Bang on 100% correct as far as I can see. Well done the AR. :clap:

The relevant bit starts at 14:10 on the video. Green were entitled to a LO 26m out, but walked back into his own 22 to take a QTI. He is of course entitled to walk back into his own 22 if he wants, but if he does, he is not then entitled to a gain in ground.

If I am honest, I can't see why some find this a difficult one to grasp. :chin:

talbazar
02-04-16, 16:04
Bang on 100% correct as far as I can see. Well done the AR. :clap:
In that particular occasion, I fully agree.


The relevant bit starts at 14:10 on the video. Green were entitled to a LO 26m out, but walked back into his own 22 to take a QTI. He is of course entitled to walk back into his own 22 if he wants, but if he does, he is not then entitled to a gain in ground.
Actually, Green is entitled to a QTI anywhere between 26 m out and their own try line.

In that situation, the ball is inside Green 22n. Green player carries it out and then comes back inside the 22 --> CArried back inside the 22m, no gain in ground.


If I am honest, I can't see why some find this a difficult one to grasp. :chin:
Because if the ball is already in the 22m, Green player is not bringing it back into the 22m... It's already there... But maybe I'm too thick :horse:

crossref
02-04-16, 18:04
this one is very interesting, as the first time green pick up the ball it is actually, unequivocally, INSIDE the the 22m, so I tend to feel he should get gain in ground.

While he did walk up and down in touch, we all know that the 22m line does not extend into touch, so he didn't take it our of the 22m and back in again.

He gathered the ball inside the 22m, and then executed a QTI inside the 22m -- so gain in ground.

Ian_Cook
02-04-16, 18:04
Because if the ball is already in the 22m, Green player is not bringing it back into the 22m... It's already there... But maybe I'm too thick :horse:

This is a debate we have had before.

There is a view (predominantly held in Australia) that there is an imaginary line which extends the 22m line beyond the touchline indefinitely. This is despite the fact that it has no basis in Law. Law 1 clearly shows all transverse lines ending at the touch line or touch-in-goal line. In Australia, if the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22m and carries on in touch, and crosses the imaginary extension of the 22m, they deem it to have crossed into the 22m.

I disagree with that view. I might have more sympathy for it if Law 19.1 talked about "taking the ball behind the 22m line", but it doesn't; it talks about causing the ball to be put, taking the ball or putting the ball, into their own 22, implying an area as per Law 1, which shows the 22 as an area bounded by the 22m line, the goal line and the two touchlines. IMO, if the ball crosses into touch outside the 22m, and a defender picks up the ball anywhere in touch, and throws it into the 22m area, he has carried it back.

Dixie
02-04-16, 19:04
this one is very interesting, as the first time green pick up the ball it is actually, unequivocally, INSIDE the the 22m, so I tend to feel he should get gain in ground. And if it had gone into touch inside the 22 but then bounced out and came to rest infield 23m from the goal line, would you follow your logic and feel that in all equity there should be no gain in ground from a kick following lineout?

crossref
02-04-16, 19:04
Ian have you actually watched the video -- this is NEW twist that we haven't discussed before.

The ball goes into touch, then bounces back INTO the fop, inside the 22m . So there is no imaginary line problem. The defender unequivocally gathers the ball INSIDE the 22m

crossref
02-04-16, 19:04
And if it had gone into touch inside the 22 but then bounced out and came to rest infield 23m from the goal line, would you follow your logic and feel that in all equity there should be no gain in ground from a kick following lineout?

my logic would say no gain in ground from a QTI.

a lineout is different, it's a new phase and a reset.

OB..
02-04-16, 19:04
The ball is dead when it bounces into touch. It does not matter if it bounces back into the field of play - it cannot throw itself back in, so the ball is not live at the moment it is picked up. White are entitled to a QTI, but since the ball went into touch outside the 22, they cannot gain ground by kicking direct to touch.

I think South Africa also believes in the mythical extension of the 22m line.

crossref
02-04-16, 19:04
The ball is dead when it bounces into touch. It does not matter if it bounces back into the field of play - it cannot throw itself back in, so the ball is not live at the moment it is picked up. White are entitled to a QTI, but since the ball went into touch outside the 22, they cannot gain ground by kicking direct to touch.


law references ?
it's hard to say that it was carried back, when it was picked up inside 22m

RobLev
02-04-16, 19:04
Ian have you actually watched the video -- this is NEW twist that we haven't discussed before.

The ball goes into touch, then bounces back INTO the fop, inside the 22m . So there is no imaginary line problem. The defender unequivocally gathers the ball INSIDE the 22m

But it had gone zombie outside the 22.

Rushforth
02-04-16, 19:04
Ian have you actually watched the video -- this is NEW twist that we haven't discussed before.

The ball goes into touch, then bounces back INTO the fop, inside the 22m . So there is no imaginary line problem. The defender unequivocally gathers the ball INSIDE the 22m

It isn't a new twist at all. As OB.. says, once it is out it is out. The only thing that matters after that is if it is "handled" by non-players, or rather by anybody other than the player taking the QTI.

Ian_Cook
02-04-16, 19:04
Ian have you actually watched the video -- this is NEW twist that we haven't discussed before.

Yes I have


The ball goes into touch, then bounces back INTO the fop, inside the 22m . So there is no imaginary line problem. The defender unequivocally gathers the ball INSIDE the 22m

I was replying to Talbazar's final statement.

New twist or not, once the ball goes into touch it is "in touch". It does not matter where it goes after that; it can bounce back into the FoP for all I care, it is still dead. If it crossed into touch outside the 22m and is thrown into the 22m area, then it has been carried back.

ETA

I think we can all agree that this is not carried back.....

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

... and that these are carried back....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-CB2.png.....https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/Law19-CB3-nil.png

The bone of contention is this one

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


Australia (and perhaps South Africa) regard this as not carried back - requires an imaginary extension to the 22m line that does not appear in Law.

Everyone else regards it as carried back.

Dickie E
02-04-16, 21:04
threadjack: have a look at the state of the turf after the scrum at 7:00 (tv time). England v Wallabies will be on there on 18th June.

The Fat
02-04-16, 22:04
Australia (and perhaps South Africa) regard this as not carried back - requires an imaginary extension to the 22m line that does not appear in Law.

Everyone else regards it as carried back.

And that there is the problem.
In Aus, we are told that if the player retrieves the ball behind the "imaginary extension" of the 22m line, that player has not taken the ball back regardless of where the ball crossed the plane of touch.
Earlier this year, SArefs and Rugby 365 (same article by Paul Dobson) "claimed" that this situation had now been clarified by WR and that the Aus interpretation was correct and that the clarification brought SA into line with that way of thinking.

I requested a reference, presumably announced by WR, from the editor of the article via their forum. No response.

I then sent an email requesting same. I received an automated response thanking me for my enquiry and that I would receive an answer ASAP. No response forthcoming.

I sent another email reminding them that they had promised a reply to my original email. No response.

Conclusion:
SArefs/Rugby365/Paul Dobson or whoever, does not want to clarify where their clarification originated. If it had come from WR, why wouldn't they provide that info?
My feeling is that since Ian and I called Paul Dobson out on an offside article, that was obviously incorrect, last year, he has no intention of responding to my requests.

Article here:
http://www.sareferees.com/News/touch-made-clearer/2830603/

This from part of their article.

2. This is about the ball going into touch outside the 22 and rolling on.

a. Blue kick a rolling kick into touch just outside the Red 22. The ball rolls in touch beyond where the 22-metre line would be if it continued in touch. A red player gets the ball and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks the ball out directly into touch on the Red 10-metre line.

Line-out to Blue on the Red 10-metre line.

b. Blue kick a rolling kick into touch just outside the Red 22. A Red player picks up the ball outside of what would be his extended 22, runs back to behind what would be the extended 22 and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks the ball out directly into touch on the Red 10-metre line.

Line-out to Blue opposite where the Red player kicked the ball




AFAIK, we are yet to get any clarification from RFU or WR on this issue

crossref
02-04-16, 23:04
So all that 'imaginary line' stuff was irrelevant in the end?

Ian_Cook
02-04-16, 23:04
And that there is the problem.
In Aus, we are told that if the player retrieves the ball behind the "imaginary extension" of the 22m line, that player has not taken the ball back regardless of where the ball crossed the plane of touch.
Earlier this year, SArefs and Rugby 365 (same article by Paul Dobson) "claimed" that this situation had now been clarified by WR and that the Aus interpretation was correct and that the clarification brought SA into line with that way of thinking.

I requested a reference, presumably announced by WR, from the editor of the article via their forum. No response.

I then sent an email requesting same. I received an automated response thanking me for my enquiry and that I would receive an answer ASAP. No response forthcoming.

I sent another email reminding them that they had promised a reply to my original email. No response.

Conclusion:
SArefs/Rugby365/Paul Dobson or whoever, does not want to clarify where their clarification originated. If it had come from WR, why wouldn't they provide that info?
My feeling is that since Ian and I called Paul Dobson out on an offside article, that was obviously incorrect, last year, he has no intention of responding to my requests.

Article here:
http://www.sareferees.com/News/touch-made-clearer/2830603/

This from part of their article.

2. This is about the ball going into touch outside the 22 and rolling on.

a. Blue kick a rolling kick into touch just outside the Red 22. The ball rolls in touch beyond where the 22-metre line would be if it continued in touch. A red player gets the ball and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks the ball out directly into touch on the Red 10-metre line.

Line-out to Blue on the Red 10-metre line.

b. Blue kick a rolling kick into touch just outside the Red 22. A Red player picks up the ball outside of what would be his extended 22, runs back to behind what would be the extended 22 and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks the ball out directly into touch on the Red 10-metre line.

Line-out to Blue opposite where the Red player kicked the ball




AFAIK, we are yet to get any clarification from RFU or WR on this issue

Fat, I'd be quite happy to go with ARU GMG on this, but FFS why can't WR get their act together and make it Law and then everyone can be singing off the same songsheet.

Same applies to the "lost possession forwards then batted backwards is not a knock forwards" situation. We saw it again the other night with a TMO clearly stating that possession of the ball was lost forwards and then batted backwards by the same player, so no knock on.

If WR want these scenarios ruled that way, then why not change the bloody law book to reflect that?

Dickie E
02-04-16, 23:04
So all that 'imaginary line' stuff was irrelevant in the end?

how so? it remains an unanswered question.

Taff
02-04-16, 23:04
But it had gone zombie outside the 22.
Exactly.

I love this site, but hell we can over-complicate things at times. I reckon the only things that matter are:

Where would the normal LO be? Eg inside or outside the 22?
Was the QTI still on?
If the QTI was still on, did the thrower either carry the ball back or throw it back into his own 22?

Dickie E
03-04-16, 00:04
Exactly.

I love this site, but hell we can over-complicate things at times. I reckon the only things that matter are:

Where would the normal LO be? Eg inside or outside the 22?
Outside
Was the QTI still on?
yes
If the QTI was still on, did the thrower either carry the ball back or throw it back into his own 22?
No, it bounced there


So gain in ground or not?

Taff
03-04-16, 01:04
So gain in ground or not?
No gain in ground.

In your OP, the thrower clearly moved to the LoT, so I assume you're question is more about what if he hadn't moved towards the LoT and outside the 22? It's still no gain in ground for me. I reckon where the ball ended up is irrelevant; it's where the Lot is and where the thrower opted to take the QTI that counts. My logic is if the LoT is outside the 22, there can be no gain in ground.

The Fat
03-04-16, 01:04
No gain in ground.

In your OP, the thrower clearly moved to the LoT, so I assume you're question is more about what if he hadn't moved towards the LoT and outside the 22? It's still no gain in ground for me. I reckon where the ball ended up is irrelevant; it's where the Lot is and where the thrower opted to take the QTI that counts. My logic is if the LoT is outside the 22, there can be no gain in ground.

Unfortunately, WR and AFAIK the RFU, have been silent on this issue.
Australia and apparently SA (see my earlier post) have actually addressed the situation in print.
In the OP, had Smith collected the ball and taken the QTI from where he first walked outside the touch line, Andrew Lees would have allowed a gain in ground. Because Smith then walked forward to the line of touch and then went back behind the 22, he forfeited that opportunity to get a gain in ground.
This is wholely consistent with the current ARU guidelines and, as I haven't seen anything raised by SANZAR since the Rebels v Highlanders game, one would assume it is also consistent with SANZAR interpretations (Ian will disagree:biggrin:)

We need to hear from the powers that be in the NH on this. I will follow this up again with ARU to see if they have received something on the quiet from WR/IRB which was central to formalising their interpretation.

Ian_Cook
03-04-16, 04:04
Unfortunately, WR and AFAIK the RFU, have been silent on this issue.
Australia and apparently SA (see my earlier post) have actually addressed the situation in print.
In the OP, had Smith collected the ball and taken the QTI from where he first walked outside the touch line, Andrew Lees would have allowed a gain in ground. Because Smith then walked forward to the line of touch and then went back behind the 22, he forfeited that opportunity to get a gain in ground.
This is wholely consistent with the current ARU guidelines and, as I haven't seen anything raised by SANZAR since the Rebels v Highlanders game, one would assume it is also consistent with SANZAR interpretations (Ian will disagree:biggrin:)

We need to hear from the powers that be in the NH on this. I will follow this up again with ARU to see if they have received something on the quiet from WR/IRB which was central to formalising their interpretation.

Well, I don't actually. I am aware that the SANZAAR refs (including the NZ ones) are all using the same interpretations, but I am also aware that ITM Cup referees aren't.

As I said earlier, WR need to take a strong hand on this issue and get everyone using the same guidelines; I don't care which way they go, just pick one and make everyone use it.

Dickie E
03-04-16, 05:04
the attached appears to apply to all Super rugby games

http://www.ruggaworld.com/2016/01/21/slight-law-changes-for-2016-super-rugby/

The Fat
03-04-16, 06:04
the attached appears to apply to all Super rugby games

http://www.ruggaworld.com/2016/01/21/slight-law-changes-for-2016-super-rugby/

Unfortunately Dickie, they still don't say if the part about the QTI is consistent with current law and is how WR want it to be refereed or if it is just Sanzar's interpretation.
I would expect that, seeing the other items mentioned will be adopted into the LoTG in 2016, this clarification is how WR see the Law

crossref
03-04-16, 08:04
In the OP, had Smith collected the ball and taken the QTI from where he first walked outside the touch line, Andrew Lees would have allowed a gain in ground. Because Smith then walked forward to the line of touch and then went back behind the 22, he forfeited that opportunity to get a gain in ground
So the 22m line DOES extend into touch after all

The Fat
03-04-16, 08:04
So the 22m line DOES extend into touch after all

Just saying how it is interpreted by Sanzar.
At the moment, all quiet from NH & WR which would seem to be the whole problem. "Who'd have thunk it", WR failing to be clear on something

OB..
03-04-16, 12:04
At least in the OP we do not have to judge if the ball crossed the imaginary extension, since it thoughtfully bounced back in-field and crossed the real line.

The status of this law change at present appears to be that is is being trialled in SANZAR matches, but is not generally applicable. The aim seems to be to reduce the opportunities for a team to gain ground by kicking to touch.

What happens if the ball hits a spectator/hoarding/etc before reaching fairyland?
If a player picks up a rolling ball with one foot inside the 22, the ball is deemed to have been picked up in the 22. What happens if someone tries to emulate that when in touch?
Is it practicable to apply this law at lower levels?
What if a player picks up the ball and takes it out of fairyland before going back in again? (Is that what happened in the OP?)

Even though many cases will be fairly obvious, I still do not see sufficient benefit to justify the extra complexity and increased refereeing burden.

ChrisR
03-04-16, 14:04
Even though many cases will be fairly obvious, I still do not see sufficient benefit to justify the extra complexity and increased refereeing burden.

Agree with above. Where the ball crosses into touch can be vague in and of itself. To compound the problem by extending the 22 into touch in an attempt to influence how the game is played is pure folly.

Much simpler to remove the restriction on taking the ball back into the 22.

crossref
03-04-16, 15:04
I think OB wants the opposite to you, marauder

OB..
03-04-16, 15:04
Much simpler to remove the restriction on taking the ball back into the 22.


I think OB wants the opposite to you, marauder
I don't want the restriction on taking back removed.
I do want the imaginary extension of the 22m line dropped. (It is "imaginary" rather than "imaginative")

RobLev
03-04-16, 18:04
Even though many cases will be fairly obvious, I still do not see sufficient benefit to justify the extra complexity and increased refereeing burden.

Agree with above. Where the ball crosses into touch can be vague in and of itself. To compound the problem by extending the 22 into touch in an attempt to influence how the game is played is pure folly.

Much simpler to remove the restriction on taking the ball back into the 22.

Isn't it simplest to say that if the ball goes into touch outside the 22, taking a QTI inside the 22 is taking it back? ARs/TJs judge where the ball went into touch all the time, after all - indeed it's almost all a TJ's job.

Dickie E
04-04-16, 00:04
I do want the imaginary extension of the 22m line dropped. (It is "imaginary" rather than "imaginative")

In the OP, no imaginary or imaginative 22 extension applied. So gain in ground?

Thunderhorse1986
04-04-16, 08:04
I don't understand why this should be so difficult.
Surely the easiest thing is to look at when the ball is adjudged to have gone into touch (eg where the LOT is) and judge from there?

- If the LOT is outside the 22 there can never be a gain in ground from a QTI, no matter where the QTi is taken from, what happens to the ball after it goes into touch etc.
- If the LOT is inside the 22 then the QTI always results in a gain in ground (assuming the kick is taken inside the 22 as well, obviously!).

crossref
04-04-16, 08:04
Do you mean lot, or where ball went out?

Thunderhorse1986
04-04-16, 08:04
Do you mean lot, or where ball went out?

I did mean where the ball went into touch, or where the LOT would be if it was a normal line out (rather than a QTI). Apologies for confusion.

RobLev
04-04-16, 09:04
Even though many cases will be fairly obvious, I still do not see sufficient benefit to justify the extra complexity and increased refereeing burden.

Agree with above. Where the ball crosses into touch can be vague in and of itself. To compound the problem by extending the 22 into touch in an attempt to influence how the game is played is pure folly.

Much simpler to remove the restriction on taking the ball back into the 22.

I may have misunderstood you; do you mean remove the restriction for all purposes, or only in the context of kicks after QTIs?

Dickie E
04-04-16, 10:04
[QUOTE=Thunderhorse1986;314718]I don't understand why this should be so difficult.
Surely the easiest thing is QUOTE]

Easiest isn't always best.

It would be easiest to do away with QTIs altogether - just have lineouts. Easier for the ref, the AR and the opposition.

It would be easiest to do away with gain in ground too.

ChrisR
04-04-16, 11:04
I may have misunderstood you; do you mean remove the restriction for all purposes, or only in the context of kicks after QTIs?

When I said: "Much easier to remove the restriction ...." I was reflecting on OB's comment " The aim seems to be to reduce the opportunities for a team to gain ground by kicking to touch."

I am not advocating law change. Just thinking out loud that the restriction of 'no gain' if taken back really doesn't have that much of an impact in the game for the trouble it causes. If 'no gain' was simply determined from where the kick is taken it would be much simpler to judge and would still have the desired effect of keeping the ball in play.

The concept of the 22 extending into touch and gain or no gain a product of where the ball is retrieved instead of where it crosses the touch line is just silly.

Dickie E
04-04-16, 11:04
The concept of the 22 extending into touch and gain or no gain a product of where the ball is retrieved instead of where it crosses the touch line is just silly.

I infer from that comment that the logic behind this is unknown to you. I've explained it before, but happy to do so again if you want.

ChrisR
04-04-16, 11:04
I infer from that comment that the logic behind this is unknown to you. I've explained it before, but happy to do so again if you want.

Please do.

RobLev
04-04-16, 11:04
When I said: "Much easier to remove the restriction ...." I was reflecting on OB's comment " The aim seems to be to reduce the opportunities for a team to gain ground by kicking to touch."

I am not advocating law change. Just thinking out loud that the restriction of 'no gain' if taken back really doesn't have that much of an impact in the game for the trouble it causes.

Thanks - now understood. But I think I disagree - see below.


If 'no gain' was simply determined from where the kick is taken it would be much simpler to judge and would still have the desired effect of keeping the ball in play.

The concept of the 22 extending into touch and gain or no gain a product of where the ball is retrieved instead of where it crosses the touch line is just silly.

"No gain" if the ball kicked is kicked directly to touch prevents the kicker simply wellying it into Row Z; it forces him to bounce the ball in play, and hence to decide whether to kick for touch with a risk of the ball being caught and run back, or even simply to kick behind the opposition so the chasers will get there to "fix" the gain in ground.

Preventing gain in ground if the ball is taken back ensures that mindless wellying is confined to situations where the defence manages a turnover inside the 22.

ChrisR
04-04-16, 11:04
I totally agree that limiting gain of ground to kicks from inside the 22 is a plus for the game.

My thinking is that the restriction on taking it back doesn't buy you that much for the added complication.

Dickie E
04-04-16, 12:04
Please do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like it or not, that is the logic.

OB..
04-04-16, 12:04
In the OP, no imaginary or imaginative 22 extension applied. So gain in ground?If they are playing under that ELV, then the sequence was that the player collected the ball inside the 22, then took it outside before finally taking it back in again. No gain.

Dickie E
04-04-16, 21:04
If they are playing under that ELV, then the sequence was that the player collected the ball inside the 22, then took it outside before finally taking it back in again. No gain.

So if he had simply collected the ball inside the 22 and not then wandered out of the 22, then gain in ground?

OB..
04-04-16, 21:04
So if he had simply collected the ball inside the 22 and not then wandered out of the 22, then gain in ground?Under the ELV I assume that would be OK. The ball has rolled past the 22m line. Why would it only count if it did so outside the field of play?! (Crossing the touchline to take a throw-in does not count as leaving the 22 because the law requires you to do that.)

I just hope the whole idea dies a very quick death (like the ELV making an offside line at a tackle).

Ian_Cook
04-04-16, 22:04
Under the ELV I assume that would be OK. The ball has rolled past the 22m line. Why would it only count if it did so outside the field of play?! (Crossing the touchline to take a throw-in does not count as leaving the 22 because the law requires you to do that.)

I just hope the whole idea dies a very quick death (like the ELV making an offside line at a tackle).

Ever since the "taken back no gain", I have always regarded the 22m as a "closed box" (which is exactly how the Law defines and draws it in Law 1). If the ball goes into touch without first going into, or crossing through that box, and you throw the ball into the box, you are responsible for putting it there, so no gain.

This ELV is obviously someone's BS agenda at SANZAAR. IMO, if an attacking player is skilful enough to put in a grubber/wipers kick that crosses the touchline just outside the 22m, the defence should not be allowed to get around it by taking the ball into the 22m through some harebrained loophole involving imaginary lines outside the field of play that have no basis, either by fact or implication, in any of the touch laws.