Global Law Trials

[Phil E]

From the wording of the law that seems to have been intentional.

[LAWS]Other restart kicks (drop-outs)

Play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out when, apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent.

Play is restarted with a goal line drop-out when:
- The ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is held up by an opponent.
- An attacking kick, other than a kick-off, restart kick following a score, drop goal or penalty attempt, is grounded by the defending team in their own in-goal.
- An attacking player knocks on in the opponents’ in-goal.[/LAWS]

In the new RFU Global Law Trials - Points of clarification
They seem to have changed the wording again.

As above it did say

[LAWS]12.12b- An attacking kick, other than a kick-off, restart kick following a score, drop goal or penalty attempt, is grounded by the defending team in their own in-goal.[/LAWS]

This has now been changed in the RFU document and in the World Rugby document to say

[LAWS]12.12b- An attacking kick, other than a kick-off, restart kick following a score, drop goal, drop-out or penalty attempt, is grounded or made dead in in-goal by the defending team.[/LAWS]

 

[Balones]

It was a rather ridiculous oversight in the first place.
Makes you wonder about their internal processes.

 

[didds]

It was a rather ridiculous oversight in the first place.
Makes you wonder about their internal processes.

and provides more grist to the mill over the debates/arguments about whether what is written in some laws is deliberate (whether what appears to be specific scenarios, or ommissions) or just really poor writing, proofing and checking along with any sort of "thought" process. Hence the oft noted 12 year old author.

And really leaves one wondering if the people that write the alws actually understand the game in the first place.

 

[chbg]

It was a rather ridiculous oversight in the first place.

That I disagree with - give possession away with a kick into In-goal that you have no chance of competing for and the defending team can get a 22 DO. Make it more competitive where a Defending touch-down is essential, and the reward is forcing them into a GL DO.

But hey ho, it seems to be academic now.

 

[chbg]

and provides more grist to the mill over the debates/arguments about whether what is written in some laws is deliberate (whether what appears to be specific scenarios, or ommissions) or just really poor writing, proofing and checking along with any sort of "thought" process. Hence the oft noted 12 year old author.

And really leaves one wondering if the people that write the alws actually understand the game in the first place.

It makes me really angry that the Laws can be changed so radically by a small change in wording that is not communicated globally. Do WR really expect us to read the full Law book before every match, just in case some wording has changed? This is what happens when the only provenience is an easily amended website. Bring back the printed Law book to bring discipline to the process!

More ridiculously, the Global law trials web page still states:

Goal line drop-out
The trial
If the ball is held up in in-goal, there is a knock-on from an attacking player in in-goal or an attacking kick is grounded by the defenders in their own in-goal, then play restarts with a goal line drop-out anywhere along the goal line.

Primary intention
To encourage variety in attacking play close to the goal line and to increase ball in play time by replacing a scrum with a kick that must be taken without delay. An opportunity for counter attack is also created.

The additional change certainly increases the attackers' options: but do we really wish to encourage more kicking?

I suggest that there will be plenty of referees following those instructions, rather that knowing that they have to go the actual Law to find the 'right' answer.

For once I am actually feeling rebellious!

 

[Camquin]

So if Red kick into the in goal and blue make it dead it is a GLDO
If Red kick through the in goal it s a scrum back.

But what if Red kick and the red player catches the ball and steps into touch in goal?

I think we will see more teams kicking into the ingoal - though not when time is up, then they will continue to pick and go.

 

[crossref]

But what if Red kick and the red player catches the ball and steps into touch in goal?

.

The answer to that scenario has been missing from the Law Book since 2017!

. It's a shame they didn't fix that omission as part of this trial

What is the answer ? I would suggest a 22m DO , as the laws used to say before 2017. But you could make an argument for GLD

 

[smeagol]

The answer to that scenario has been missing from the Law Book since 2017!

. It's a shame they didn't fix that omission as part of this trial

What is the answer ? I would suggest a 22m DO , as the laws used to say before 2017. But you could make an argument for GLD

The new law trial says nothing about the attacking side making it dead, so I fail to see how a GLDO call would be defensible.