Ball in touch rolls past the 22m, and defenders take a QTI

[OB..]

I am still at a loss to understand why this is thought to be of benefit to the game. Overall it is a significant complication for the referee for a relatively insignificant benefit to the defenders. It does not improve continuity of play for the spectators.

 

[Dickie E]

I am still at a loss to understand why this is thought to be of benefit to the game.

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.

 

[Pinky]

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.

Don't think a qti 15m from goal line would be seen as carried back, but do agree that the clarification seems to limit the loss of gain in ground to running the ball or passing it or I presume kicking it back into the 22.

 

[OB..]

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?

Wrong question. The QTI is fine. The question is who put the ball into the 22. That is what defines whether or not a kick to touch can gain ground. Unless the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22, it was NOT put into the 22 by the kicker (see the diagram in Law 1). Not according to the law book anyway.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

The question is who put the ball into the 22. That is what defines whether or not a kick to touch can gain ground. Unless the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22, it was NOT put into the 22 by the kicker (see the diagram in Law 1). Not according to the law book anyway.

What he said :biggrin:

 

[Dickie E]

Wrong question. The QTI is fine. The question is who put the ball into the 22. That is what defines whether or not a kick to touch can gain ground. Unless the ball crossed the touchline inside the 22, it was NOT put into the 22 by the kicker (see the diagram in Law 1). Not according to the law book anyway.

The old "that tree has fruit that aren't lemons. Therefore they must be bananas" routine. Sure to work on the simple folk.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

That's not the same logic. In this scenario one team has to have put the ball into the 22. It is a binary option. Not with fruit trees where there are multiple "non-lemon" options outside of bananas. In effect we are in a binary world where there are only trees with bananas or lemons. So if the fruit on the tree is not a lemon is must be a banana.

If the kicking team did not put the ball into the 22, the throwing in team must have done, and vice versa. There is no middle ground here, surely?

 

[TigerCraig]

Is this the wrong time to mention bananas don't grow on trees? ::frown:

 

[crossref]

If the kicking team did not put the ball into the 22, the throwing in team must have done, and vice versa. There is no middle ground here, surely?

the middle ground would be that it doesn't matter who put the ball in the 22m, because this is a special case.

Viz
- when the ball is in touch and is carried past the 22m flag to take a QTI, you cannot get gain in ground when you kick
- when the ball is in touch and rolls past the 22m flag and a QTI is taken you can get gain in ground when you kick

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I guess so - but this, as I mentioned before, seems to add an extra complication to an already complicated game. If that's what WR/IRB/other refs etc want, then that is fine and I can understand the argument for it. I just think it is simpler to go off the LOT rather than add in this complication.

 

[ChrisR]

I guess so - but this, as I mentioned before, seems to add an extra complication to an already complicated game. If that's what WR/IRB/other refs etc want, then that is fine and I can understand the argument for it. I just think it is simpler to go off the LOT rather than add in this complication.

As stated above in bold. When the ball is kicked to touch the one unambiguous spot that must be marked is the LOT. All subsequent actions, in one way or another, reference this point. To introduce another virtual point that offers no real value to the game is simply stupid.