Drop goal attempt touched by Defender and goes dead

[Ian_Cook]

I raised this with one of our A panel refs today and he took up Ian's stance of even if it touches the defender by accident it's been played and should start with a 5m scrum.
He used the grubber kick that hits a defender going into touch scenario and pointed out it would be attacking teams ball so why not in this case.

Oli

I have to admit to being on uncertain ground concerning that. The Law pertaining to the last touch of the ball when the ball goes into touch is different from that regarding the ball going into in-goal

As per your example, Red grubber kick; ball strikes Blue defender and goes into touch, this is definitely a Red throw whether Blue touched the ball intentionally nor not....

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. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.

Exception: When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw-in is taken by a player of the team that took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch.

However it is not so clear cut when the ball goes into in-goal.

Red grubber kick; ball strikes Blue defender and goes into in-goal..

Law 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.

The argument is over whether an involuntary touch constitutes taking the ball into in-goal. Some argue that it is, and some that it isn't.

The 1996 Law was very clear that there was a difference between playing the ball intentionally, and touching the ball unintentionally, but somehow, that clarity became a little fogged when they Laws were re-written.

LAW 14: IN-GOAL

(3) A five meters scrummage shall be formed:
(a) if a defending player heels, kicks, carries, passes or knocks the ball into his In-goal, and it there becomes dead without an infringement having occurred.

(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.

It seems the height of lunacy to take a Law that was clear and rewrite it to make it unclear. I find it difficult to believe that the writers meant to change the intent of the Law.

 

[Dickie E]

Oli, can you ask your A panel guru this please:

would the same logic apply with regard to the ball travelling back into the 22? ie would a ball kicked by an attacker andd grazing the leg of a defender before ending up in 22 be deemed as taken back?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Oli, can you ask your A panel guru this please:

would the same logic apply with regard to the ball travelling back into the 22? ie would a ball kicked by an attacker andd grazing the leg of a defender before ending up in 22 be deemed as taken back?

19.1 THROW-IN: NO GAIN IN GROUND
(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a
ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

I suggest that if you are going to argue the wording of 22.7 (d) means that an unintentional touch does not count, then you would surely have to argue the same here; that the ball grazing or deflecting from a defender back over his own 22 would not count as carried back unless he had played at the ball intentionally.

 

[Dickie E]

Yes I would

 

[Rit Hinners]

Rit, I think that's a bit myopic.

What makes these scenarios relevant isn't so much about whether we will ever see them occur on a rugby field, but more about forcing us to examine our own philosophy towards refereeing.

I was attempting to make a joke.

I guess my use of smiley icons failed.

 

[Drift]

Oli, can you ask your A panel guru this please:

would the same logic apply with regard to the ball travelling back into the 22? ie would a ball kicked by an attacker andd grazing the leg of a defender before ending up in 22 be deemed as taken back?

Dickie it was Hollywood who I was talking to. He was coming at the problem from the definition side and the law book states that to be "played" the ball must touch a player, it doesn't say anything about intentional or not.

 

[OB..]

Dickie it was Hollywood who I was talking to. He was coming at the problem from the definition side and the law book states that to be "played" the ball must touch a player, it doesn't say anything about intentional or not.

That is not quite what the definition says:
Played: the ball is played when it is touched by a player.
To me that implies intent because it requires an action from the player, and it is quite different from the ball touching the player.

 

[Donal1988]

Hollywood = Steve Walsh??

 

[Drift]

Hollywood = Steve Walsh??

Not quite, but he is a Kiwi and didn't like his original nickname from NZ which was "Nightmare" for reasons which are quite obvious

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hollywood = Steve Walsh??

No...

But I can see where you are coming from! :biggrin:

 

[Deeps]

That is not quite what the definition says:
Played: the ball is played when it is touched by a player.
To me that implies intent because it requires an action from the player, and it is quite different from the ball touching the player.

I use the maxim 'Was the player waiting to play the ball?' as my test question. In other words was he on the field of play, taking part in the game? The only occasion where this would not apply is when a player was down injured.

 

[Davet]

deleted post

 

[OB..]

I use the maxim 'Was the player waiting to play the ball?' as my test question. In other words was he on the field of play, taking part in the game? The only occasion where this would not apply is when a player was down injured.

Even that pragmatic approach contains a contradiction: we know from the 10 m law that "waiting to play the ball" is not the same as being on the field of play, taking part in the game.

Sometimes the law specifically says something like "touches or is touched by the ball":- 11.4 (f), 13.9 (a), 13.15 (a), 19.1 (g), 19.1 (h), 19.6, 22.7 (c). Sometimes it is very specific - 11.6.

The inference might be that in other situations, being touched does not count:-
19.4 The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch.
We usually take this to include being touched bye the ball,although it does not say so.
11. In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is
carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.

22.11 (a) If the ball was played into in-goal by the attacking team
21.6 (b) The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until after the ball next becomes dead, or until after an opponent has played or touched it, ...
Nuff said already!
6.A.9 (a) the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.

 

[DRMOCHO]

Rugby is a matter of facts. If the ball touches a defender before entering the in goal, 5 meter scrum... High tackle if the tackled player just bend down is not a high tackle??? Sorry for my english... I hope you will understand. Javier Omodeo from Argentina

 

[dave_clark]

Sorry for my english... I hope you will understand.

your english is fine - it's much better than my Spanish! welcome to the forum.

 

[Davet]

DrMocho

The Englishlanguage version of the Laws says

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.

The word used is "played".

The definitions in the Law say that "played" is "intentionally touched"

So of a defending player is accidentally hit by the ball then he has not played the ball into in-goal.

I wonder if yo can tell us if the Spanish version of the Laws has the same wording?

It does mean we have a potential issue.

Ball kicked by attacker, strikes defender on back and goes in goal. Defender did not "play" the ball into in-goal.

If the ball then goes dead - then the attacker is the one who "played" the ball int9 in-goal.

 

[Rit Hinners]

I don't know Spanish but from a discussion I had with a Mexican co-worker I don't belive it is quite as diverse a language as English.

What we discussed was word variety and the topic was "flags". I pointed out that in English we have words for a diverse variety of flags (Banner, Pennant, Ensign, etc.) and he told me that in Spanish there was only the one word. Perhaps, when the Laws are translated into Spanish they are a "victim" of this difference in our languages.

 

[OB..]

From the IRB website
22.11(a)[...]Si la pelota fue introducida al ingoal por el equipo atacante se otorgará una salida de 22 metros al equipo defensor. Si la pelota fue introducida al in-goal por el equipo defensor se otorgará un scrum 5 metros y el equipo atacante introducirá la pelota.
[My emphasis]
The word for “played” is “jugada”, but this part of the law uses “introducida”. You don’t need to know Spanish to see the difference.

BTW the definition of “played” does not include the word “intentionally”, though that is a clear inference IMHO because “touched by a player” is active, not passive.

 

[Ian_Cook]

From the IRB website
22.11(a)[...]Si la pelota fue introducida al ingoal por el equipo atacante se otorgará una salida de 22 metros al equipo defensor. Si la pelota fue introducida al in-goal por el equipo defensor se otorgará un scrum 5 metros y el equipo atacante introducirá la pelota.
[My emphasis]
The word for “played” is “jugada”, but this part of the law uses “introducida”. You don’t need to know Spanish to see the difference.

BTW the definition of “played” does not include the word “intentionally”, though that is a clear inference IMHO because “touched by a player” is active, not passive.

So you are saying what exactly....the Spanish translation says something different from what the Law says in English?

 

[Rit Hinners]

From the IRB website
22.11(a)[...]Si la pelota fue introducida al ingoal por el equipo atacante se otorgará una salida de 22 metros al equipo defensor. Si la pelota fue introducida al in-goal por el equipo defensor se otorgará un scrum 5 metros y el equipo atacante introducirá la pelota.
[My emphasis]
The word for “played” is “jugada”, but this part of the law uses “introducida”. You don’t need to know Spanish to see the difference.

BTW the definition of “played” does not include the word “intentionally”, though that is a clear inference IMHO because “touched by a player” is active, not passive.

Not having gone to a language dictionary to try and deduce the difference between the words "jaguda" or "introducia", I will concede that I do see a difference.

"Introducia" seems correspondent to introduce. When used in the context of this Law I would assume that there is necessarily some intention on the part of the player that the ball goes in the direction of the in-goal.

As for the word "jugada", as it is not used in the Law, it has no relevance. For all I know this "played", as a translated word, may be only used in relation to a musical instrument or a card. I admit, there is a similarity to our word "juggle" which is seen as a type of "play" but of a specific variety involving multitasking a number of objects.