Law 12.10

[brvanisi]

Kick off and restart kicks following a score - Rugby law 12.10 states:
"If the ball is kicked into the kicking team’s own in-goal and is made dead by a defending player or it goes dead through in-goal, the non-kicking team is awarded a five-metre scrum"

Forgive my ignorance but I am having a hard time picturing how this scenario is possible? Can someone describe what this would look like? Would this be like: After a score Team A kicks the ball to Team B. Team B (Without a tackle maul or scrum occuring), immediately kicks the ball back to Team A. The ball goes through Team A's goal or Team A makes the ball dead in their own in-goal?

 

[Volun-selected]

Take a kick off or restart high into a really strong breeze and it’ll look something like this…

(The ref should have awarded 5m attacking scrum)
****
Correction - as per @chbg the restart was the correct decision in 2013 when this clip was recorded.

 

[brvanisi]

Take a kick off or restart high into a really strong breeze and it’ll look something like this…

(The ref should have awarded 5m attacking scrum)

As I was reading the law, the scenario in the video was the only way I could visualize it being physically possible, but I was confused because in 12.7 it uses the words "blown back". That is easy to understand, but "Kicked into the kicking team’s own in-goal" had me confused.

 

[Volun-selected]

As I was reading the law, the scenario in the video was the only way I could visualize it being physically possible, but I was confused because in 12.7 it uses the words "blown back". That is easy to understand, but "Kicked into the kicking team’s own in-goal" had me confused.

Given the need for a restart being a drop kick, I can’t think of another realistic way.

One way that is physically possible - but ridiculously unlikely - is the kicker deliberately hoofs it toward their own goal (and I can’t see any reason why they’d do this apart from bloody-mindednes - but I can’t see what in Law says they cannot kick at their own goal except they’ll never get 10m so will always cede at least a scrum.)

Hypothetically, if for whatever reason the kicker decided to kick the wrong way - if it doesn’t reach their own in-goal but stayed in play it would be back to the middle for not reaching 10m in the correct direction.
If it went into touch inside the kickers half - the non-kicking team have the option of scrum in center or line out where the ball went out as per 18.8b.
If it reached their own in goal and was grounded by a defender or went through the back -5m scrum as per 12.10

So back to 12.7 vs 12.10 - 12.7 can and does happen and allows us to let the game continue after a restart kick technically made distance but landed behind the 10m law. If the ball made 10m and was then blown back deep into the kicker’s half then as long as it stays in play it would be play on. 12.10 is just there for the freak situation because The Powers That Be decided it deserved a 5m scrum…

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I feel you are over-thinking this.

 

[Rich_NL]

Kickers can slice or otherwise miskick a ball, high winds, a risky clearing crosskick (strange, but I have seen it happen) that then bounces strangely... it's not the most common, but the laws cover all levels of skill and wisdom.

 

[crossref]

12.10 is redundant.
It only applies if the ball first crosses the 10m line, and then blows back 60m . So
. It's highly unlikely
. 19.1 covers it ..5m attacking scrum

 

[crossref]

Kickers can slice or otherwise miskick a ball, high winds, a risky clearing crosskick (strange, but I have seen it happen) that then bounces strangely... it's not the most common, but the laws cover all levels of skill and wisdom.

But for 12.10 to apply the ball first has to cover 10m surely, otherwise 12.6 applies
A miskick isn't going to travel 10m forward and then 60m backward

 

[Rich_NL]

Oops, I was not paying attention - apologies!

 

[chbg]

Take a kick off or restart high into a really strong breeze and it’ll look something like this…

(The ref should have awarded 5m attacking scrum)

Pedant alert: In 2013, the date of this incident) the referee was absolutely correct in his decision, as this was not covered in Law (and the ball did not travel 10m). As a specific result of this (I believe), the new Law (subsequently 12.10) was introduced in 2014.

 

[crossref]

Even under the new Law I think the correct decision is options, as ball never travelled 10m

Similar to if the ball went 8m and into touch .

 

[Jz558]

So what is the point of 12.10? If the ball travels 10m and is blown back 19.1 applies and if it doesn't travel 10m and is blown back 12.6 applies? Why add a law for such an unlikely event that is covered elsewhere?

 

[crossref]

So what is the point of 12.10? If the ball travels 10m and is blown back 19.1 applies and if it doesn't travel 10m and is blown back 12.6 applies? Why add a law for such an unlikely event that is covered elsewhere?

For me 12.10 is entirely redundant and should be removed.

 

[crossref]

OK so here is the explanation: this is a victim of the 2017 rewrite (of course)

Prior to the rewrite the 2017 Law said

(d) If the ball does not travel ten metres and ends up in the kicking team’s in-goal and:
• it is made dead by a defending player, or
• the ball goes into touch in goal, or
• lands on or over the dead ball line;
a 5-metre scrum is awarded and the attacking team throw in.

so that made logical sense, it was over-ruling the normal practice of a ball that does not travel 10m.

So 12.10 (if it is to be kept) needs to be tweaked to return to the 2017 meaning, being an exception to 12.6

 

[crossref]

So 12.10 (if it is to be kept) needs to be tweaked to return to the 2017 meaning, being an exception to 12.6

even then though, it doesn't make much sense. What about a ball that doesn't travel 10m, is blown backwards 40m and goes into touch. The spirit of 12.10 would suggest that the attackers should get a lineout.... but they wouldn't.

 

[Volun-selected]

I feel you are over-thinking this.

Yep - downside of coaching kids that were always looking for some loophole. Can we do this, are we allowed to do that, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, etc.

 

[Volun-selected]

Pedant alert: In 2013, the date of this incident) the referee was absolutely correct in his decision, as this was not covered in Law (and the ball did not travel 10m). As a specific result of this (I believe), the new Law (subsequently 12.10) was introduced in 2014.

Thanks for the clarification - and good to know the ref was correct for the laws of the day. I have added a correction to that effect.

 

[chbg]

I am inclined to agree that 12.10 should only apply when the ball has travelled 10m, as originally designed. Otherwise: ball does not go 10m, is blown back and crosses the touch-line (indirectly) just in front of the GL = scrum back or kick again. Ball does not go 10m, is blown back goes into touch-in-goal just behind the GL = scrum 5 only. Not equitable.

 

[crossref]

It was originally designed to cover the scenario NOT going 10m

If the ball goes 10m kick is good and it's play on, whatever happens

 

[Camquin]

I was wondering if it were sloppy editing and used to apply to all restarts, including 22m drop out.