Clarification Please; ball kicked into in-goal then is made dead - scrum or 22 choice

[Rich]

Ok this has no doubt been discussed before but cannot find a definitive answer and just trying to sort out in my head the wording of two sections of law in 22.7 and 22.8

22.7
[LAWS]When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.[/LAWS]

this law tells me that if attacking player kicks the ball (as in SENDS it) in the FOP and it goes over the touch-in-goal or dead ball line then it's a 22 kick to the defenders ONLY

BUT

22.8
[LAWS]If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the defending team has two choices:

• To have a drop-out, or
• To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.

[/LAWS]

with this law, the defenders can choose either a scrum or 22 for ,as I see it, exactly the same thing.

So can someone please tell me the difference between sending it and kicking it? Assuming that there is no difference then is the choice of 22 or scrum not always available to the defenders when an attacking kick goes or is made dead?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

In 22.7 the ball goes into in goal before the defenders touch it down or put it TiG or over the DBL.

In 22.8 the ball is kicked by the attackers and it goes through in goal and goes TiG or over the DBL.

Different hence the choice or not.

 

[Rich]

OK, so we are saying that in 22.7 the ball has stopped in goal and then ends up dead, where as with 22.8 the ball becomes dead without stopping....And that works for me!!:biggrin:

I have to say that if you read 22.7 missing out the "defender grounding the ball" then;

[LAWS]When an attacking player sends the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there,.... because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.[/LAWS]

you'd have to take it that the ball was sent and it ended up going over the dead ball or touch in goal lines, which is the same as 22.8 hence my confusion.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

OK, so we are saying that in 22.7 the ball has stopped in goal and then ends up dead, where as with 22.8 the ball becomes dead without stopping....And that works for me!!:biggrin:

I have to say that if you read 22.7 missing out the "defender grounding the ball" then;

[LAWS]When an attacking player sends the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there,.... because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.[/LAWS]

you'd have to take it that the ball was sent and it ended up going over the dead ball or touch in goal lines, which is the same as 22.8 hence my confusion.

You could read sends as something that is not a knock on or kick but goes into (or through) in goal eg off head, knee, chest. Therefore a 22DO, which realistically is what most would choose (even) if there was a DO/scrum back option.

It is probably a hangover from the redraft that brought the scrum back option into law (OB.. will know, I'd guess around 1991/2). This was to stop unimaginitive buggers (see below :biggringaining a (significant) territorial advantage from just kicking long and dead.

I recall a match at BP Chemicals at Hull when I used a gale force wind to boot the ball from my own 22 over the DBL (loads of times).

What a windy place it was (is). Only a church spire in Copenhagen keeping the wind from blowing in off the Urals.*

* This is an attempt at levity. No East European geography experts pointing out that there is in fact a range of mountains between the Urals and Hull - thank you.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Just to clarify I have nothing against geography experts from Eastern Europe I was thinking more of experts in Eastern European geography who may indeed be from Eastern Europe but equally may not.

Suffice to say that remark is no way intended to be disparaging about people from Eastern Europe whether their specialism(s) is in the humanities or not. Thank you.















:biggrin:

 

[OB..]

It is probably a hangover from the redraft that brought the scrum back option into law (OB.. will know, I'd guess around 1991/2).

1996.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

1996.

I wouldn't have guessed so recently. I retired in 1998 (January).

Thanks. I knew you'd know! :biggrin:

 

[OB..]

I wouldn't have guessed so recently. I retired in 1998 (January).

Thanks. I knew you'd know! :biggrin:

Just to be clear - I don't actually know. I just have old law books to look it up in.

 

[Dickie E]

OK, so we are saying that in 22.7 the ball has stopped in goal and then ends up dead, where as with 22.8 the ball becomes dead without stopping....And that works for me!!:biggrin:

Just be mindful of 22.7(c) which is a special case:

[LAWS]If, at a kick-off or drop-out, the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player and a defending player grounds it there or makes it dead without delay, the defending team have two choices:
•To have a scrum formed at the centre of the line from which the kick was taken and they throw in the ball; or
•To have the other team kick off or drop out again[/LAWS]

 

[Rich]

Just be mindful of 22.7(c) which is a special case:

[LAWS]If, at a kick-off or drop-out, the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player and a defending player grounds it there or makes it dead without delay, the defending team have two choices:
•To have a scrum formed at the centre of the line from which the kick was taken and they throw in the ball; or
•To have the other team kick off or drop out again[/LAWS]

yes, thanks Dickie, that one I was aware of and in fact it created some interesting discussion with an U14 coach who failed to grasp the finer points of his No10 over egging it from a kick off and ending up giving away a scrum at the half way line. The coach was adamant that it was a 22....and so was his knowledgeable side-kick. He was also keen to point out that a maul, if it was still moving, could continue in the in-goal until such time as the ball came out....so long as the maul didn't become stationary...

 

[Ian_Cook]

OK, so we are saying that in 22.7 the ball has stopped in goal and then ends up dead, where as with 22.8 the ball becomes dead without stopping....And that works for me!!:biggrin:

I have to say that if you read 22.7 missing out the "defender grounding the ball" then;

[LAWS]When an attacking player sends the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there,.... because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.[/LAWS]

you'd have to take it that the ball was sent and it ended up going over the dead ball or touch in goal lines, which is the same as 22.8 hence my confusion.

There needs to be an allowance for the possibility of the attacking player sending the ball into in goal unintentionally, i.e. without kicking it, for example, a rebound from charging down a defender's kick, or perhaps by the attacker attempting to pick up a loose ball and propelling it forward with a part of his body other than the hand or arm.


Law 22.8 was brought in relatively recently to stop teams using a prodigious kicker to kick the ball dead as a means to gain ground. (Anyone who watches Ice Hockey will understand this as similar to "icing the puck)

In 1996, the Law was

LAW 14: IN GOAL
(4) Except where the ball is knocked on or thrown forward in the field of play or In-goal, if an attacking player kicks, carries, passes or charges down the ball from an opponent's kick and it travels into his opponents' In-goal, either directly or having touched a defender who does not willfully attempt to stop,
catch or kick it, and it is there grounded by a defending player, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, a drop-out shall be awarded.

No mention of scrum back, so it must have been sometime after 1996 that the Law was changed, probably in the 2000 rewrite.

I remember an Aussie ex AFL player, Roger Gould, who could punt the ball from near his own 22m, kicking it dead at the other end of the field, thereby getting a 50m+ gain and a 50/50 shot at possession for his team at the from the drop-out.

 

[ChrisR]

"either directly or having touched a defender who does not willfully attempt to stop, catch or kick it,"

Ian, I have pasted the above from the 1996 Law 14(4) in your post.

There is now no reference to the ball touching, or not touching, a player except on kicks from restarts.

Does this imply that a ball that deflects off a defenders leg and goes in-goal is deemed to have been "sent" there by the defender?

 

[The Fat]

"either directly or having touched a defender who does not willfully attempt to stop, catch or kick it,"

Ian, I have pasted the above from the 1996 Law 14(4) in your post.

There is now no reference to the ball touching, or not touching, a player except on kicks from restarts.

Does this imply that a ball that deflects off a defenders leg and goes in-goal is deemed to have been "sent" there by the defender?

This has been discussed at length previously and from memory there were two distinct views (no surprise there) so your question will probably generate a lengthy argument but my view is that your statement is correct.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"either directly or having touched a defender who does not willfully attempt to stop, catch or kick it,"

Ian, I have pasted the above from the 1996 Law 14(4) in your post.

There is now no reference to the ball touching, or not touching, a player except on kicks from restarts.

Does this imply that a ball that deflects off a defenders leg and goes in-goal is deemed to have been "sent" there by the defender?

The trouble is that prior to the 2000 rewrite, there were bits of related Law spread all through the Laws. It was, in some ways, like a dog's breakfast.

There may well be another Law somewhere else in the 1996 book that covers this, but as this law reads, it would seem that if the ball was kicked by an attacker, and deflected off a defender who did not play at the ball, and subsequently when into in-goal, it was not the defender who was considered responsible for it going into in-goal. I am sure that this did not apply to the ball deflecting into touch.

I honestly cannot remember.