Kicked to touch from inside the 22 after bringing it in..but...

[FightOrFlight]

From a game today.

Two senior 1sts teams. It was a level up from what I usually have as it was a trial of sorts for me and I was being watched.

Assessor was overall pretty happy I could be upgraded however he flagged up a "critical incident" after the game and I would just like to get some opinions here on the scenario.

Red v Yellow. Ball is kicked in behind by red and yellow fullback chases back after it. He gathers it just outside the 22 and carries it back in. As he turns to kick it clear he is charged down by the red winger but the yellow fullback regathers(still in the 22) and kicks again, this time he gets it away and it goes straight into touch just short of his 10m line. I award a lineout just short of his 10m line.

Was I correct?

 

[winchesterref]

Spot on. 19.1 (f)

 

[Pinky]

Agree, good decision.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yep, you're right on the money, and if your assessor thinks that was a critical error on your part, then he needs to go consult his Law book, specifically w.r.t.


[LAWS]Law 19.1 (f) Player takes ball 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 and it touches an opposition player,
or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed and then the ball is kicked by a player of
that team directly into touch, the throw-in is where the ball went into touch.[/LAWS]

 

[Taff]

I must admit I would have got this wrong.

I know the "taken back in" in cancelled if there is a tackle, ruck or maul, but I had clean forgotten about the ball "touching an opposition player".

19.1(f) Player takes ball 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 and it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed and then the ball is kicked by a player of that team directly into touch, the throw-in is where the ball went into touch.

You learn something every day eh?

 

[Browner]

Its an interesting question,

because if the whole scenario happened further back on the Goal line and the charge down from red then went dead, then it would be an attacking (red put in) scrum5 , because yellow player took it in goal (22.7.e ) , and failed to get it out.

I'm surprised that yellow "taking it back in" , isn't treated in a similar vein from a charge down in the OP scenario.

 

[Simon Thomas]

If it was one of my match observers team he would be given some remedial coaching.

This is basic law.

Browner - interesting question indeed and as to why should not be treated the same as who put it in-goal ?

I suppose the gain in ground Law is designed to prevent negative play, hence any tackle, ruck, maul or even touch resets the gain in ground criteria.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In-goal is treated differently because it IS different -

1. in-goal is not in the field of play

2. a tackle, ruck or maul cannot take place in-goal.

3. if the ball is grounded in goal, the game stops.

Think of it this way; the in-goal is part of the playing area that is behind the 22m so....

1. if a ball is thrown, passed or carried back behind the 22m by defenders, the "carried back" Law (19.1) applies.

2. if a ball is thrown, passed or carried into in-goal by defenders from behind the 22m when that ball was not carried back, the "in-goal" Law (22) applies.

3. if a ball is thrown, passed or carried into in-goal by defenders from outside the 22m, then BOTH the "carried back" Law (19.1) AND the "in-goal" Law (22) apply.

 

[OB..]

Assessor was overall pretty happy I could be upgraded however he flagged up a "critical incident" after the game

That might have been a Law Error (it wasn't) ,but not what I uinderstand to be a Critical incident. The latter is supposed to be an error that in some way affected a score or the outcome of the game.

 

[Browner]

If it was one of my match observers team he would be given some remedial coaching.

This is basic law.

Browner - interesting question indeed and as to why should not be treated the same as who put it in-goal ?

I suppose the gain in ground Law is designed to prevent negative play, hence any tackle, ruck, maul or even touch resets the gain in ground criteria.

Yes, simon 'negative' in terms of orchestrating a territory gain from the kick , but in truth I mainly see is the fly half whalloping the ball as far upfield as he possibly can in order to relieve the territory .... And then the ball collector invariably wallops it straight back again whilst his teammates get into a 10.5m distant defensive line ..... The resultant catch/ mark , means another kick to touch follows which is what was 'supposed' to be avoided in the 1st place!

hardly the antonym to ' negative' to my way of thinking.

It would sure be easier to remember if there was a uniformed 'taken back in' rule, that applied to all locations on the Playing Area. Alternatives by location = greater opportunity for confusion.

 

[OB..]

Its an interesting question,

because if the whole scenario happened further back on the Goal line and the charge down from red then went dead, then it would be an attacking (red put in) scrum5 , because yellow player took it in goal (22.7.e ) , and failed to get it out.

I'm surprised that yellow "taking it back in" , isn't treated in a similar vein from a charge down in the OP scenario.

If the defence causes the ball to go into the in-goal, they have to get it out again or concede a 5m scum.

Taken back into the 22 is different: there is no obligation to get it out of the 22, just a restriction on gaining ground from a kick direct to touch.

 

[Browner]

If the defence causes the ball to go into the in-goal, they have to get it out again or concede a 5m scum.

Taken back into the 22 is different: there is no obligation to get it out of the 22, just a restriction on gaining ground from a kick direct to touch.

I know the status quo, location alignment would still make it easier to remember in those ' game live' moments , as kinda shown by the OP.

 

[OB..]

I know the status quo, location alignment would still make it easier to remember in those ' game live' moments , as kinda shown by the OP.

I don't think "making it easier for the referee to remember" is a determining consideration .

 

[Browner]

I don't think "making it easier for the referee to remember" is a determining consideration .

It's a wish OB, not an expectation. Although we've seen allignment in some areas of play in recent years, in goal & touch etc...