50:22 or not?

[Nilo]

I was recently watching Whistle Watch on YouTube (if you've not seen this, it is where Nigel Owens breaks down recent rugby in game decisions and answers fan questions, typically about refereeing).

During one of these videos Mr Owens stated that for the kicking team to get the put in for a 50:22, the ball has to bounce WITHIN the opponents 22 first before reaching touch.

However I wasn't sure what laws or application guidelines said this, as I can only see it state that the ball must indirectly go out to touch in the opponents 22. To me this doesn't imply bouncing in the 22, but bouncing anywhere (including outside the opponents 22) before going across the plane of touch in the opponents 22.

Have I misunderstood or missed anything?

Edit: the video is here

and the question is at 4:35 minutes in.

 

[crossref]

If that's what he said, he was wrong
NO was one of the world's best refs, but detailed Law knowledge wasn't the reason for that

 

[Nilo]

If that's what he said, he was wrong
NO was one of the world's best refs, but detailed Law knowledge wasn't the reason for that

This is what I thought. I found the video - I've attached it in my original post and it is about 4:35minutes. Nigel definitely says the ball must land in the 22 and then roll out to touch!

 

[Decorily]

If that's what he said, he was wrong
NO was one of the world's best refs, but detailed Law knowledge wasn't the reason for that

How was he wrong??

 

[crossref]

How was he wrong??

18.8.a
A player, in their own half, kicks the ball indirectly into touch in the opposition’s 22. Either the team did not take the ball into their half, or a tackle, ruck or maul took place within the half, or an opponent touched the ball within the half. This variation does not apply at a kick-off or any type of restart kick.

It has to bounce (that's what indirectly means) but it doesn't matter where it bounces. It just has to go into touch in the opponent's 22

 

[chbg]

It is universally accepted that he mis-spoke, but sadly did not correct himself the following week.

 

[SimonSmith]

Nigel Owens? Getting the law wrong? Criticizing other refs?

He's just Kaplan with a Welsh accent

 

[didds]

If that's what he said, he was wrong
NO was one of the world's best refs, but detailed Law knowledge wasn't the reason for that

and he has become rent a gob since hanging up his whistle.

 

[Nilo]

Nigel Owens? Getting the law wrong? Criticizing other refs?

He's just Kaplan with a Welsh accent

I mean in no way do I see that any professional referee is always right or correct, but it doesn't detract from the fact that he is ultimately still a vetted and well reputed authority on the application of the laws of the game, hence my question to make sure.

Experts can still be wrong. Doesn't mean they're not an expert though.

 

[crossref]

I mean in no way do I see that any professional referee is always right or correct, but it doesn't detract from the fact that he is ultimately still a vetted and well reputed authority on the application of the laws of the game, hence my question to make sure.

Experts can still be wrong. Doesn't mean they're not an expert though.

I think there is a big difference between a Law mistake on the field, committed on the field, which will have happened to all of us in the pressure of the moment, and making a Law Error in an official WR video to explain the Laws.

I mean, doesn't he check before he records the video ? Doesn't anyone else check afterwards? And why don't they correct themselves after

Anyway I would class NO as an expert ref , I mean he did a RWC final and 100 tests.
But I wouldn't class him as a Law expert

 

[Nilo]

I think there is a big difference between a Law mistake on the field, committed on the field, which will have happened to all of us in the pressure of the moment, and making a Law Error in an official WR video to explain the Laws.

Agreed 100%.

I mean, doesn't he check before he records the video ? Doesn't anyone else check afterwards? And why don't they correct themselves after

I also agree that would be logical. It does from our perspective still assume that:

• He self records, which perhaps he doesn't.
• That the people checking it also have the knowledge the vet it (I agree if it's a WR page then they should account for this).
• That they may have been specifically told to not correct it or not address it, or that the error was ever spotted (which may be out of the control of Nigel?).
• That there isn't something else that Nigel and the professional team are aware of in their scope or application that isn't explicit in the laws (doubtful as it does just seem like an error, but I can't say I am 100% without having direct conversation).

Not saying I disagree, I agree with all of your points, and that it should be addressed, I am just saying I can't know the answer to those questions nor know what control he actually has over those points.

None the less, this thread has confirmed what my thought was, that it was a mistake! Which for me was the most important bit!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

and he has become rent a gob since hanging up his whistle.

In fairness he is employed to comment by the WRU. That said, he does get a hell of a lot wrong for a former top referee.

 

[tim White]

Did anyone on the field complain at the time? Team of three, players, TMO? Easy to complain afterwards.

I have often commented to my son that there are 30 players at professional level, plus coaches etc. that would happily cheat to win, but they complain bitterly if an official makes an honest mistake.

 

[SimonSmith]

Agreed 100%.

I also agree that would be logical. It does from our perspective still assume that:

• He self records, which perhaps he doesn't.
• That the people checking it also have the knowledge the vet it (I agree if it's a WR page then they should account for this).
• That they may have been specifically told to not correct it or not address it, or that the error was ever spotted (which may be out of the control of Nigel?).
• That there isn't something else that Nigel and the professional team are aware of in their scope or application that isn't explicit in the laws (doubtful as it does just seem like an error, but I can't say I am 100% without having direct conversation).

Not saying I disagree, I agree with all of your points, and that it should be addressed, I am just saying I can't know the answer to those questions nor know what control he actually has over those points.

None the less, this thread has confirmed what my thought was, that it was a mistake! Which for me was the most important bit!

I do video coaching for some referees. The first thing I do before I criticize law is actually check the law. That's what I do before dealing with an individual community ref.

I'd like to think that kind of hygiene applies to someone broadcasting to the wider world via World Rugby.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[Volun-selected]

I do video coaching for some referees. The first thing I do before I criticize law is actually check the law. That's what I do before dealing with an individual community ref.

(I will check the laws before posting or answering questions on the forum, even if I’m pretty certain I know how I’d answer on a pitch. I may *think* I know an answer but I’m still going to check before I put my neck out.)

Maybe it’s an experience thing. Once you’ve got several hundred games under your belt over multiple years you become a lot more certain on your knowledge and ability to interpret the WR clarifications, even for new laws and so are less likely to check?

*Edited due to my ongoing inability to refer to World Rugby as WR but keep adding U to it. Sorry @Marc Wakeham

 

[crossref]

(I will check the laws before posting or answering questions on the forum, even if I’m pretty certain I know how I’d answer on a pitch. I may *think* I know an answer but I’m still going to check before I put my neck out.)

Maybe it’s an experience thing. Once you’ve got several hundred games under your belt over multiple years you become a lot more certain on your knowledge and ability to interpret the WRU clarifications, even for new laws and so are less likely to check?

its a context thing.

If someone asked me a law question on the pitch (in down time, or half time) I'd answer from my head
If someone asked me a law question in the bar, ditto, from memory. but if a discussion followed then I could imagine getting my phone out to check
If my society asked me to make a presentation, or a short video explaining the law on something, I'd obviously look it up before I spoke. Even if I was certain I knew, I'd still look it up just to be sure.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

(I will check the laws before posting or answering questions on the forum, even if I’m pretty certain I know how I’d answer on a pitch. I may *think* I know an answer but I’m still going to check before I put my neck out.)

Maybe it’s an experience thing. Once you’ve got several hundred games under your belt over multiple years you become a lot more certain on your knowledge and ability to interpret the WRU clarifications, even for new laws and so are less likely to check?

WR (World Rugby), not the WRU (Welsh Rugby Union).

 

[SimonSmith]

its a context thing.

If someone asked me a law question on the pitch (in down time, or half time) I'd answer from my head
If someone asked me a law question in the bar, ditto, from memory. but if a discussion followed then I could imagine getting my phone out to check
If my society asked me to make a presentation, or a short video explaining the law on something, I'd obviously look it up before I spoke. Even if I was certain I knew, I'd still look it up just to be sure.

This is the way

 

[Dickie E]

If my society asked me to make a presentation, or a short video explaining the law on something, I'd obviously look it up before I spoke. Even if I was certain I knew, I'd still look it up just to be sure.

You'd probably want to insert a law copy & paste into your presentation/video, I'd imagine