DocP - thats so optimistic of you !It does look like there is a gap in the law book. I am sure it will get updated for the next iteration.
What would you like to see reworked for GLDO?My 2p...
50:22 can stay.
GLDO needs some work.
attacker kicks the ball over the ball line and thenWhat would you like to see reworked for GLDO?
well, i feel that a GLDO for being held up 2 inches over the line,is not that equitable for the attackersWhat would you like to see reworked for GLDO?
well, i feel that a GLDO for being held up 2 inches over the line,is not that equitable for the attackers
If a 5m scrum (old scenario is seen as unfair in the defenders for havng valiantly defended, then what about 10m scrum?)
In a different vein a GLDO for the attackers vaguely kicking the ball in goal and creating a minimum of pressure so that the defnse dot down and dont feel they have to start fraffinfg around in goal seems inqequitable for the defneding team - they werent under much presssure but the oppo are going to tget the ball back in their own half. Returning to a 22 DO seems reasonable to me.
and how often is that really practical? Its great and you still see it of course. But its not as if Blanco et al did it 5 times a game . More like once every 5 games - WHEN the options are right.
in that clip the French right wing was defended by mainly forwards in a haphazard pattern. Webb (think its webb?) has his back to play. England has no structured defence or pressed defensive line. Blanco et al saw that and fancied having a go, in the knowledge that save a knock on, they could run into touch if it got too pressured.
Would they have done that had england had a wide field trench defence with backs amongst the forwards to the French right? We wont know - but I suspect not...
I have emailed someone in the law department at World Rugby for a clarification.
Did you ask about marks and FK ? I wonder whether WR ever really thought about those eitherMy contact says it wasn't intended that you can get a 50-22 from a drop out.
The definition of a restart needs changing.
Something for the next re-write.
Did you ask about marks and FK ? I wonder whether WR ever really thought about those either
You are correct that the law book does not describe an attacking player simply stepping over the DBL, but law 21.4 points us in the correct direction:attacker kicks the ball over the ball line and then
- knocks on = GLDO
- regathers and steps over DBL = 2m DO (not in Law book, but it is)
- regathers and is held up = GLDO
- defender kicks it over DBL = GLDO-
- attacker kicks it over DBL = 22DO
- ball bounces over DBL = scrum or 22DO options
it's too complicated and too random (no overall logic or overall reason for the variations in outcomes)
When an attacking player holding the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously makes contact with the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball line (or anywhere beyond either), a 22-metre drop-out is awarded to the defending team.
?? Wrong thread?Error on my part -looking at defending player, still trying to find Attacking player Laws
There are number of in goal scenarios, not in the Law, that are a 22m DONo; I refer to "anything else not covered in law =scrum". Anything in goal can only be a 5m scrum.
Only because it is not covered in the "simplification"