Drop goal attempt touched by Defender and goes dead

[jules]

In a recent match officiated by Nigel Owens (can't remember which match), Team A attempted a drop goal which touched the fingertips of the defending player. The ball went wide and continued past the in-goal area and went dead. Ref awarded a 5 metre attacking scrum. There were no complaints from the defending team.

I know why he is giving the scrum as it was brought into in-goal by a defending player but it seems contrary to the spirit of the law.

Can anybody clarify where in law it states this scenario or something similar?

 

[Donal1988]

Welcome to the forum. Glad to see another MAR referee here.

This is covered under Law 22.11 (a):

(a) When the ball touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was played into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

Though am I right in suggesting that if the ball touched a defending player after a dropkick, went in goal and was touched down by another defending player a 22m could be in accordance with laws.

 

[Davet]

You say "touched the fingertips", would it be more accurate to say the player touched the ball with his fingertips in an attempt to divert it?

If so, that's intentionally touching the ball, which is the definition of playing the ball, which would, as per 22.11.a, be a 5m scrum not a 22.

 

[FlipFlop]

Though am I right in suggesting that if the ball touched a defending player after a dropkick, went in goal and was touched down by another defending player a 22m could be in accordance with laws.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Played into in-goal by the defence and made dead (which includes touching it down) = 5m scrum to attack.

If the defence put the ball in in-goal, and it does not come out, it is either:
1) Try (grounded by attack or PT)
2) Penalty (foul play etc) to a non-infringing team
3) 5m scrum to attack

 

[Donal1988]

Then why is 22.7 worded differently. All the other laws refer to when the ball is played in goal or put in-goal. However Law 22.7 says:

(d) If a defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5-metre scrum. The position of the scrum is in line with where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball

This to me suggests intent and it is worded differently from the others. Blocking a dropped goal is not the same as "throwing or taking" the ball ingoal. This situation I described is not the same as what is described in this law.

 

[Davet]

Blocking a dropped goal takes the ball into in-goal - what's the problem?

 

[Donal1988]

No problem Davet just being Devils Adovcate here Just the laws dont seem equitable.

 

[Davet]

Dunno - as a defender you have a choice - if the ball is going wide, leave it. If it's accurate and you can divert it, then save 3 points and risk 5/7, but maybe get away with 0 points against.

You make a choice and take the consequences.

Rugby is all about making hard choices, that's the intellectual fun of it. Think hard and think fast, the have the physical strength and ability to put byur thoughts into practice.

No one wants it to be easy.

 

[OB..]

Then why is 22.7 worded differently.

Because the laws are not written to legal standards.

A significant part of the referee's job is to make sense of such matters.

 

[L'irlandais]

In a recent match officiated by Nigel Owens (can't remember which match), ..

Hello Jules,
The match was Munster versus Northampton in the H-cup quarter final ;

74th minute - Warick's drop inside the 22 is blocked, then goes dead. Scrum 5 to Munster.

If you got video footage of the incident, it might have taken some of the guesswork out of finding the right answer.
(The drop goal attempt does not figure in these match highlights, but the try from the resulting scrum 5 does.)

 

[Ian_Cook]

I see this as no different to any other way the ball gets in-goal/dead in-goal/touch in goal when the last touch before the ball crosses the goal-line is by the defense

1. Attacker grubber kicks the ball. It cannons off a defender's legs and goes dead or is made dead by the defence... 5m scrum attacking feed.

2. Defender half-charges a chip kick and goes dead or is made dead by the defence... 5m scrum attacking feed.

3. Defender knocks an attacker's pass into in-goal and it goes dead or is made dead by the defence... 5m scrum attacking feed.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I see this as no different to any other way the ball gets in-goal/dead in-goal/touch in goal when the last touch before the ball crosses the goal-line is by the defense

1. Attacker grubber kicks the ball. It cannons off a defender's legs and goes dead or is made dead by the defence... 5m scrum attacking feed.

Disagree at this time. I see the defender touch as unintentional. It was sent in by attacker

22.7(a) 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 touchin-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded

2. Defender half-charges a chip kick and goes dead or is made dead by the defence... 5m scrum attacking feed.

Agree, Same as 3 below, half charge shows intention by defender

3. Defender knocks an attacker's pass into in-goal and it goes dead or is made dead by the defence... 5m scrum attacking feed.

Yep, I say that is took.
22.7(d) If a defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5-metre scrum. The position of the scrum is in line with where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball.

I think we have had this discussed on the site before. The intention of the defender and the difference between, sends or carries, to threw or took.
Law says nothing about intention, but 22.7(a) and (d) allow us to treat it differently than a ball going to touch.

 

[Rit Hinners]

Then why is 22.7 worded differently. All the other laws refer to when the ball is played in goal or put in-goal. However Law 22.7 says:

(d) If a defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5-metre scrum. The position of the scrum is in line with where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball

This to me suggests intent and it is worded differently from the others. Blocking a dropped goal is not the same as "throwing or taking" the ball ingoal. This situation I described is not the same as what is described in this law......


.....Though am I right in suggesting that if the ball touched a defending player after a dropkick, went in goal and was touched down by another defending player a 22m could be in accordance with laws.

Disagree at this time. I see the defender touch as unintentional. It was sent in by attacker

22.7(a) 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 touchin-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded


I think we have had this discussed on the site before. The intention of the defender and the difference between, sends or carries, to threw or took.
Law says nothing about intention, but 22.7(a) and (d) allow us to treat it differently than a ball going to touch.

I agree that the verbs used imply intent. "Threw" and "took" are both intentional acts, as is "send".

In the described scenario, the drop kicker sends the ball, not the defender. The defender merely diverts.

The defender is attempting to prevent the ball from going towards the ingoal alltogether. He ideally wants to knock the ball foward to where he can recover it behind the attacking team's defense.

The attacking team are the ones SENDING the ball towards ingoal.

 

[Dickie E]

For me:

intentionally touched by defenders - 5M scrum

incidenatally touches defender - 22 drop out

 

[Ian_Cook]

For me:

intentionally touched by defenders - 5M scrum

incidenatally touches defender - 22 drop out

Supporting Law?

Attacker grubber kicks the ball. It canons off a defender's legs and goes into touch.

Whose throw to the Lineout?

19.4 WHO THROWS IN
The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch.

Attacker surely. Why on Earth would you want to make this different for a ball that canons into tig, or over the dbl.

Laws 22.7 (d) and (e) are just poorly worded. I interpret their meaning to be the same as 19.4 ... the last player to have touched, or be touched by, the ball (in open play chopper!!!) is responsible for where it ends up.

Unlike Rugby League, we do not have a concept of the ball being "played at".

Rugby League example

Attacker grubber kicks the ball. It canons off a defender's legs and into the arms of another attacker.

1. If no attempt had been made by the defender to kick at the ball, the tackle count does not restart.

2. If the defender had tried to block the grubber kick, the tackle count does restart

In Rugby Union, we have no equivalent of this distinction between "player touched ball" and "ball touched player".

 

[Robert Burns]

Supporting law would be that the defender has not taken back or thrown the ball into their own in goal, it has merely been touched.

Both opinions have their arguements, however as the law is open to interpretation, we cannot be sure of the proper meaning, only our society's interpretation.

 

[Dickie E]

Laws 22.7 (d) and (e) are just poorly worded. I interpret their meaning to be the same as 19.4 ... the last player to have touched, or be touched by, the ball (in open play chopper!!!) is responsible for where it ends up.

Unlike Rugby League, we do not have a concept of the ball being "played at".


In Rugby Union, we have no equivalent of this distinction between "player touched ball" and "ball touched player".

22.7(d) says: "if the defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal..."

I think it is beyond any stretch of the imagination to include "brushes defender's leg" into that category

 

[Davet]

Definitions - played = intentionally touched

 

[Robert Burns]

I would agree with Dickie here.

if the player plays for he ball and touches it, as they would in charge down, 5m scrum.

If a player kicked the ball, and it accidently clouts an opponant who obviously was not attempting to play the ball -22m

 

[OB..]

22.7(d) says: "if the defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal..."

I think it is beyond any stretch of the imagination to include "brushes defender's leg" into that category

While that is true, it merely means that the law does not specify what to do under other circumstances eg a defender kicking the ball into the in-goal area.