More on our old favourite - the quick throw behind the 22

[TigerCraig]

Chopper will like this one from last weeks Super 14

Clip and discussion is from the SA refs website

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/1634681.htm

 

[Dixie]

Chopper will like this one from last weeks Super 14

Clip and discussion is from the SA refs website

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/1634681.htm

It's embarrassing to be scornful and wrong! nice

 

[Phil E]

I can see the logic they use to support their argument.
I could also provide logic to argue it the other way.

 

[Phil E]

Just re-read the article and the relevant law and I am sure they are wrong, hoisted by their own petard.

(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into that team’s 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22

The Waratahs did not cause the ball to go into touch where it did or to roll where it rolled. When Tuqiri picked up the ball he did not put the ball there - Mitchell did. Tuqiri did move back behind the 22-metre line to take the quick throw-in but not with the ball in his possession.

The law does not say play the ball into the 22 from another area of the field of play. When the player picked up the ball he was off the field of play and outside the 22, which is shown in green in the diagram, in the good book. When he took the QT he caused the ball to be put into that team's 22 and he did this from outside the 22.

The only relevant argument the SA lot could employ is that the 22 is bounded by the 22m line and the goal line, BUT NOT the touch line, but the 22 is in the field of play and the field of play is marked as green in the good book.

The Field of play is the area (as shown on the plan) between the goal
lines and the touchline's. 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 touchline's, touch-in-goal lines and dead ball lines are
not part of the playing area.

1.3 LINES ON THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
The touchline's which are outside the field of play.

So if the touchline's are outside the field of play, then the 22 cannot extend outside the touchlines.

 

[PaulDG]

I can see the logic they use to support their argument.
I could also provide logic to argue it the other way.

I just think they're wrong - the commentator was right.

If we keep this Law, this is something the Designated Members should sort out.

(I'm not holding my breath.)

 

[Simon Thomas]

Commentator right !

Effective LoT is where ball went out, but sounds very close to 22m.

Spirit of Game and all that, two long kicks, I find it hard to be critical of refereee or even AR decisions.

 

[ddjamo]

what is it to be scornful and right?

 

[Dixie]

Spirit of Game and all that, two long kicks, I find it hard to be critical of refereee or even AR decisions.

Mark inside own 22m, ball rolls into touch just outside opposition 22m. Distance travelled by ball: min. 46m. Reported distance of AR from the action: 40m. I'd find it less hard than Simon to criticise that, were I a performance evaluator.

 

[Dixie]

what is it to be scornful and right?

Simon Cowell

 

[Simon Thomas]

Mark inside own 22m, ball rolls into touch just outside opposition 22m. Distance travelled by ball: min. 46m. Reported distance of AR from the action: 40m. I'd find it less hard than Simon to criticise that, were I a performance evaluator.

Well Dixie - I am just preparing excuses for Saturday in case I am behind play - I am #2 AR for Reading v Newton Abbott level 5 play off.

 

[OB..]

I emailed the author of the comments. I suggested the IRB ought to issue a Ruling, and got the following reply:

"Originally I said the commentator was right. This caused protest, in
particular from Australia. I asked the IRB and they said the
commentator was wrong, the referee right.

This is the problem with local rulings. I am sure the IRB can clear the
matter up to make all happy!"

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Technically the commentator is right, but with the distances involved, difficult call fore the ref so no criticism.

 

[tim White]

Look at all the players trotting quietly over to the touch judge for the line out-they seemed to agree, or at least not disagree! :chin: so it was probably the right call in the circumstances

 

[chopper15]

Chopper will like this one from last weeks Super 14

Clip and discussion is from the SA refs website

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/1634681.htm

Thanks, Tiger. Just tell me, please, is the opinion (not the ref's decision) still; SH 'gain in ground' which I argued for, or did the RFU and WRU 'No gain' get it?

Ref. http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7220&page=11

 

[TigerCraig]

Thanks, Tiger. Just tell me, please, is the opinion (not the ref's decision) still; SH 'gain in ground' which I argued for, or did the RFU and WRU 'No gain' get it?

Ref. http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7220&page=11

Well, here we are playing it as gain in ground (and will keep doing so until we are told different)

 

[OB..]

Deciding if the ball is "in the 22" when in touch is significantly more difficult than deciding where it crossed the touchline.

Why make life difficult for ourselves?

But let's hope the IRB soon comes up with a decision, even if they get it "wrong" .

 

[PaulDG]

Thanks, Tiger. Just tell me, please, is the opinion (not the ref's decision) still; SH 'gain in ground' which I argued for, or did the RFU and WRU 'No gain' get it?

Chopper, as we understand it, there is no settled global view. Ours is no gain, theirs agrees with you.

As OB says, this may eventually get ruled on. Don't hold your breath.

 

[FlipFlop]

Question for those in favour of the gain in ground....

If the Team A execute a peach of a kick, which bounces, and then goes out on the 5m line, but the ball were to roll past the try line, and then be picked up, and a QT taken (into in-goal), and the catcher touched the ball down. Would you award the 22m drop out, deeming that the kicker had put the ball into in-goal?

 

[dave_clark]

can't take a quick throw in goal. without looking it up i can't give the precise law reference (which i will do later), but i've seen this pulled back a couple of times.

edit - 19.2 (b). there we go!

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.

 

[FlipFlop]

Fair call.