Lineout where?

[Mickman]

General play outside 22m.

Blue win tackle/ ruck ball. Blue 9 passes back in to 22m to Blue 10 for clearing kick. Red 10 attempt charge down but only touches ball in flight (does not charge down) after Blue 10 kicks.

Ball lands out of play on full.

Where is the line-out and which team throws in?

 

[dave_clark]

put into touch by red, so where ball went into touch and blue throw.

 

[Dickie E]

Indeed. Even if Red had turned his back and ball hit him on back of head, throw still to Blue.

 

[crossref]

Indeed. Even if Red had turned his back and ball hit him on back of head, throw still to Blue.

.. with a smile and nod of sympathy to poor red.

 

[Robert Burns]

Slight difference.

Blue on their 10m line kick, red tries a charge down and gets a touch but nothing else.

Ball stays in play and lands in Red's 22m where red fullback picks up ball and kicks it out on the full.

Has the ball been taken back?

 

[Davet]

Red intentionally touched the ball.

I would suggest taken back and therefore gain not allowed.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Crickey Robbie.

Technically (if it travelled that far only a fingertip surely) taken back in by red, but red fullback wouldn't be aware I suspect, so I would be tempted to go with the gain in ground award on equity grounds and "not hear or see" the red slight touch in the charge down. I would claim good management :wink: .

As an assessor I would not question either way for the decision in a post match assessment to be honest, but feel a no-gain decision is somewhat harsh, even if if legally correct. But also that touch by red would put all the blues on-side as well, so all options are available to them if players are 'up field'. :chin:

Now take it to the next stage and what do we do if there is a strong wind, downhill slope into red's half of field, blue kicker has a monster boot and puts the ball dead -with a finger tip touch as it comes off his boot. Now we have either a scrum 5m near red goal line as red put the ball in-goal & dead, or a scrum back back where blue kicked (if I didn't see/hear the finger tip touch). I cannot award it in law but perhaps a 22m drop out would be the equitable decision. :Nerv:

 

[Davet]

Trouble is - as a good ref - if you had seen / heard the finger tip you would have called, "Touched!", as a more or less automatic response before the eventual outcome of the kick was clear.

Which sort of closes your options down...

 

[crossref]

touched! ....nearly.

 

[The umpire]

That happened in recent M L game at the dragons iirc. Ref correctly gave no gain but sympathised with FB.

 

[Jacko]

Technically (if it travelled that far only a fingertip surely) taken back in by red, but red fullback wouldn't be aware I suspect, so I would be tempted to go with the gain in ground award on equity grounds and "not hear or see" the red slight touch in the charge down. I would claim good management :wink: .

I would have called "touched" when it was touched, and "taken back" when it entered the 22 so the FB has all information available. Better management IMO!

 

[Simon Thomas]

I would have called "touched" when it was touched, and "taken back" when it entered the 22 so the FB has all information available. Better management IMO!

which is why jacko you are a National Panel Referee and one of the top 50 referees in the country ! :clap: And what would be expected - certainly by Leysh and also what I would expect to see at Group L5.

But for the majority of referees at lower levels I would expect to see (and accept) a little more flexibility maybe.

I assume you would you give the blue scrum 5m from red's goal line too ?

 

[Jacko]

Absolutely. Those fingertips could have deflected the ball enough (over such a large distance) to mean the kick went from perfect touch finder to going dead. Anything other than 5 metre scrum and a "ain't life a bitch" shrug to the poor guy who touched it would raise eyebrows in the national leagues.

 

[Robert Burns]

I agree, don't try and touch the ball if you don't like the consequences of it going horribly wrong!

 

[Dickie E]

Here is the Law.

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.

Perhaps there may be an argument that an attempted charge down doesn't meet the "causes the ball to be put into their own 22" test but pragmatically any intentional contact will lead to no gain in ground.

 

[TigerCraig]

No book in front of me, and old age kicking in ...

Is there a definition of "plays". I would guess that it requires a deliberate action (eg a charge attempt), not merely incidental contact (eg a ricochet off the turned back)

 

[OB..]

No book in front of me, and old age kicking in ...

Is there a definition of "plays". I would guess that it requires a deliberate action (eg a charge attempt), not merely incidental contact (eg a ricochet off the turned back)

"The ball is played when it is touched by a player."
However there is no definition of "touched". We could really do with a couple of definitions that draw a contrast (and then consistent use throughout the laws).

 

[Dickie E]

I would guess that it requires a deliberate action (eg a charge attempt), not merely incidental contact (eg a ricochet off the turned back)

I agree.

I apply this to all scenarios (into 22, into in-goal) but not into touch. I do like the RL way where intent is needed too for into touch.

 

[Taff]

The most relevant law here is 19.1(h) isn't it?

19.1(h) ... When a player ... kicks the ball so that it touches or is touched by an opposition player and then goes indirectly into touch ... the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.

My point is, do we need to worry about whether he "played" it or "caused it" to do anything - when all the law requires is that he "touched" it. Where the "touch" was slight and may not have been heard by a player say 50yds away I agree shouting "touched" or "touched in flight" is a good idea.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The most relevant law here is 19.1(h) isn't it?

My point is, do we need to worry about whether he "played" it or "caused it" to do anything - when all the law requires is that he "touched" it. Where the "touch" was slight and may not have been heard by a player say 50yds away I agree shouting "touched" or "touched in flight" is a good idea.

I agree "touched" is a lot easier to manage IMHO. We have enough "guessing" (puts on fez and adopts Tommy Cooper voice ahuh! held-tackled-tackled-held) to do without another set of criteria for "played" or "played at" a la RL.