AB v AUS - 2nd AB Try

[PaulDG]

Just seen this seconds ago..

Aus player catches rolling ball with his right foot in touch. Brief squabble in touch and line out given to All Blacks.

Aus lineout is dreadful so far this match and AB score from the resulting 5m lineout.

Shouldn't that have been an Aus throw in?

(Actually the Aus lineout is so bad is probably wouldn't have mattered...)

 

[Dixie]

Correct, Paul. The first was controversial too. Aus lineout thrown short, Aus frontman took it early, short of the 5m line. FK given, from which the score came a few phases later.

When discussed on this board in the past, the majority would have given a scrum rather than a FK.

 

[Dickie E]

just goes to prove the adage about home town bias. What we call CRITICAL INCIDENT

 

[Emmet Murphy]

When discussed on this board in the past, the majority would have given a scrum rather than a FK.

Have you got a link to that old thread Dixie (I looked but couldn't find it myself) ... I have always Free-kicked players for that offence as they hav prevented the ball going 5m - why would a scrum be awarded instead of a Free-kick?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just seen this seconds ago..

Aus player catches rolling ball with his right foot in touch. Brief squabble in touch and line out given to All Blacks.

Aus lineout is dreadful so far this match and AB score from the resulting 5m lineout.

Shouldn't that have been an Aus throw in?

(Actually the Aus lineout is so bad is probably wouldn't have mattered...)

IMO the correct decision. The foot in touch scenario only applies to a ball caught the full. A ball touching the ground and picked up or touched by a player who is themselves in touch, is put into touch by that player.

Correct, Paul. The first was controversial too. Aus lineout thrown short, Aus frontman took it early, short of the 5m line. FK given, from which the score came a few phases later.

When discussed on this board in the past, the majority would have given a scrum rather than a FK.

A player catching the ball within 5m has done so intentionally, so I have no problem with a FK for this. NZ had one against them for the same thing later.

 

[Dixie]

Have you got a link to that old thread Dixie ... why would a scrum be awarded instead of a Free-kick?

Emmett, 19.5 requires the throw to go 5m, and 19.6 provides for a scrum or line option for an incorrect throw. This leads to debate about the purpose of the FK provision - I'll look for the thread when back from my sojourn in the Cypriot mountains.

Ian, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of the bouncing ball rule. I see nothing to validate your interpretation, and recollection suggests the iRB law rulings say something different.

 

[chopper15]

IMO the correct decision. The foot in touch scenario only applies to a ball caught the full. A ball touching the ground and picked up or touched by a player who is themselves in touch, is put into touch by that player.

Ref (6), Ian. The TMO dropped a goolie giving the last try of the game too!

The RFU has requested rulings relating to IRB Ruling 14:2003.
Under IRB Ruling 14: 2003, the Designated Members ruled the following:
Ruling
If a player with one or both feet inside (presumably on or behind) 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, and
therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball was kicked.
If a player with one or both feet inside (presumably on or behind) the 22-metre line,
picks up the ball which was in motion outside the 22-metre line, and kicks it directly into
touch, then the player has not taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and
therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball crossed the touch-line.
With this in mind, the RFU requests a ruling with regard to the following:
(In both the above and in our request, we have assumed that ‘in motion’ applies to both
a ball in the air and to a ball rolling along the ground).
1. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line, picks up the ball,
which was stationary within the field of play, is that player deemed to have
picked up the ball in the field of play and thereby that player has taken the
ball into in-goal?
2. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line picks up the ball,
which was in motion within the field of play, is that player deemed to have
picked up the ball within in-goal?
3. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the deal ball line, picks up the
ball, which was stationary within in-goal, is that player deemed to have
picked up the ball in in-goal and thereby that player has made the ball
dead?
4. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the dead ball line picks up the
ball, which was in motion within in-goal, is that player deemed to have
picked up the ball outside the playing area?
5. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal
line), picks up the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, is that
player deemed to have picked up the ball in the playing area and thereby
that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)?
6. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal
line), picks up the ball, which was in motion within the playing are, is that
player deemed to have picked up the ball in touch (or touch-in-goal)?
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question
raised:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes

 

[Account Deleted]

IMO the correct decision. The foot in touch scenario only applies to a ball caught the full. A ball touching the ground and picked up or touched by a player who is themselves in touch, is put into touch by that player.

I think you'll find you are in error. The ball was moving and therefore the Australian did not take it in. Line out to Australia!

I refer you to the relevant Law Ruling! (How can you "pick up a ball that you catch on the full?" The ruling specifically referes to the 22 but was later confirmed a sapplying to touch as well.

RULING 14: 2003
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Laws Committee

2 September 2003

The UAR has requested a ruling with regard the Line-out, in Law 19.

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball, which was lying on the field of play outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch. Where does the line-out form; 1) Where the ball went into touch, or 2) where the ball was kicked?

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the questions raised:

Ruling

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, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball was kicked.

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has not taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball crossed the touch-line.

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, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball was kicked.

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has not taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball crossed the touch-line.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Thanks for that Dixie - my initial response would be that the offence wasn't the throw, it was the player who caught it before it travelled 5m but if you could locate that other thread I'd be really interested to hear both sides of the argument!

Ian - you're normally pretty spot on with the laws ... catching the ball before it bounces would only be significant in determining whether or not there was a gain in ground; stationary or moving is what is used to determine who put the ball into touch in a scenario like this.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Well I watched the incident before we started the Basingstoke Intl Sevens and all present watching were agreed it was incorrect decision - ball was moving so throw to Aus would have been correct decision.

My supporting 'jury' - one IRB Ref, three RFU National Panel Refs, one Premiership TJ, four National Panel ARses (TJs as was), two SW Group Refs, half a dozen level 6s, three National League Club coaches, ..............

Sorry Ian and Chopper - this time you are incorrect.

All present thought the two 'not 5m' calls were a bit harsh, and all agreed at level 7 and blelow we would have let it go for showing initiative !

 

[chopper15]

Well I watched the incident before we started the Basingstoke Intl Sevens and all present watching were agreed it was incorrect decision - ball was moving so throw to Aus would have been correct decision.

My supporting 'jury' - one IRB Ref, three RFU National Panel Refs, one Premiership TJ, four National Panel ARses (TJs as was), two SW Group Refs, half a dozen level 6s, three National League Club coaches, ..............

Sorry Ian and Chopper - this time you are incorrect.

Oh, no I wasn't! Read #7 again, Simon.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

All present thought the two 'not 5m' calls were a bit harsh, and all agreed at level 7 and blelow we would have let it go for showing initiative !

To be fair, the Tri-Nations isn't really Level 7 or below - I know we like to talk it down up here in the Northern Hemispere but I think you're being a tad harsh there

 

[OB..]

Correct, Paul. The first was controversial too. Aus lineout thrown short, Aus frontman took it early, short of the 5m line. FK given, from which the score came a few phases later.

When discussed on this board in the past, the majority would have given a scrum rather than a FK.

Later on the referee could be heard saying to the Aussies that they must get back half a metre from the line of touch, and that they had already had one FK for not doing so.

I infer that the first FK was for failing to form the lineout correctly (not the 5 metre infraction), and that it was therefore a correct decision.

I don't recall hearing any explanation from the ref originally.

 

[OB..]

Oh, no I wasn't! Read #7 again, Simon.

6. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal
line), picks up the ball, which was in motion within the playing are, is that
player deemed to have picked up the ball in touch (or touch-in-goal)?
6. Yes

That seems to cover the case in question and say that it should have been an Australian throw because he picked the ball up in touch, not in the field of play.

 

[Account Deleted]

Oh, no I wasn't! Read #7 again, Simon.

You only listed 6 points.

 

[PaulDG]

You only listed 6 points.

Chopper meant post number 7 in this thread. Which Simon misinterpreted.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Apologies Chopper - I have re-read post #7 and OB has extracted
the key clause too.

 

[chopper15]

It gives me great pleasure to accept your apology, Simon.

And also for the prompt replies in my defence, a big thank you!

I only wish I had the wit and humour to select those little face thingys!

PS Are there any guidelines on the use of the exclamation mark?


PPS And was AB's last try a TMO whoopsie?

 

[Account Deleted]

Oh, no I wasn't! Read #7 again, Simon.

I read the following part of post 7 as "Too" = "As well" indicating agreement with the poster. However I did miss the ref to it the above meaning post 7 as apposed to point 7 in the post.

Quoting Chopper from post # 7

"Ref (6), Ian. The TMO dropped a goolie giving the last try of the game too!"

 

[chopper15]

I read the following part of post 7 as "Too" = "As well" indicating agreement with the poster. However I did miss the ref to it the above meaning post 7 as apposed to point 7 in the post.

Quoting Chopper from post # 7

"Ref (6), Ian. The TMO dropped a goolie giving the last try of the game too!"

I was referring to the two refs, field ref and TMO, ATTR! Appreciate your reply tho'!

What did you think about the latter's verdict? And, dare I ask, will the WRFU be demanding the English QT '5m line' or just go with the flow?