More on our old favourite - the quick throw behind the 22

[chopper15]

Deciding if the ball is "in the 22" when in touch is significantly more difficult than deciding where it crossed the touchline.

Why make life difficult for ourselves?

But let's hope the IRB soon comes up with a decision, even if they get it "wrong" .

The 2 scenarios, I think we're/have been discussing are;

1. the in-touch ball 'rolling' back over.

2. and the in-touch ball 'taken' back over.

The latter, I believe, has to be 'no gain'. Is that accepted down under?

The 'difficulty' to which you refer exists now, OB, when the ball goes in close to the 22. The AR decides and, I assume, if it's that critical and he's in a better position, the ref. will call.

The adjacency to the 22 area, particularly when a QT is usually taken further back, shouldn't pose any probs?

 

[OB..]

The arrows represent two different kicks. The brown one represents the kick I think chopper is concerned about: the ball has crossed the touchline close to the intersection with the 22 metre line. I agree this is not easy to judge from a distance, but it is something the TJ is doing all game, namely judging where the ball has crossed the (physical) line while in the air. Moreover it is not something the spectators can judge any more easily than the officials.

The blue line is the kick I claim causes greater difficulty. There is no actual line to judge by. Is the ball behind an imaginary extension of the 22 metre line when it is played? The officials are more or less at right angles to it, and some spectators are directly in line, so can see it clearly.

I have run the line many times, and am quite certain that the blue line under the SA interpretation is much harder to judge than the brown line under the RFU version.

YMMV.

 

[chopper15]

Now I understand your point, OB.

But should this factor influence the SA logic, which makes as much sense for a 'gain' if the in-touch ball 'rolls' back over as the 'no gain' should the in-touch ball be 'taken' back over? Which I think they accept . . . don't they?

 

[David J.]

Making lines outside of the playing area relevant to what happens inside of it is not something I want introduced into rugby.

 

[David J.]

19.2 (b). there we go!

For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field
of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the
player’s goal line.

Ah, but that only covers where the thrower must stand in relation to the touch line.

With the not straight ELV, that creates an interesting scenario....can the player outside the field of play and throw the ball backwards into the in goal? What if he stands a few meters back from the touch line and throws at an angle so the ball crosses touch in goal on the way in, rather the the touch line?

Or for that matter, another 22m scenario where the thrower, in front of the 22, throw at an angle that the ball crosses the touch line inside the 22?

I wish I didn't think these things up.

 

[PaulDG]

Now I understand your point, OB.

But should this factor influence the SA logic, which makes as much sense for a 'gain' if the in-touch ball 'rolls' back over as the 'no gain' should the in-touch ball be 'taken' back over? Which I think they accept . . . don't they?

Remind me what we do if the mark for a FK is outside the 22 and the kicker takes the ball back into the 22 and then kicks direct to touch...

For the QT, the "mark" is where the ball crossed the touch line.. If the player takes the ball further back, shouldn't we be applying the same logic as above?

 

[dave_clark]

Ah, but that only covers where the thrower must stand in relation to the touch line.

With the not straight ELV, that creates an interesting scenario....can the player outside the field of play and throw the ball backwards into the in goal? What if he stands a few meters back from the touch line and throws at an angle so the ball crosses touch in goal on the way in, rather the the touch line?

Or for that matter, another 22m scenario where the thrower, in front of the 22, throw at an angle that the ball crosses the touch line inside the 22?

I wish I didn't think these things up.

passed back, therefore taken in by defending team. either no gain in ground, or scrum 5 attacking ball.

simples

 

[Simon Thomas]

Ah, but that only covers where the thrower must stand in relation to the touch line.

With the not straight ELV, that creates an interesting scenario....can the player outside the field of play and throw the ball backwards into the in goal? What if he stands a few meters back from the touch line and throws at an angle so the ball crosses touch in goal on the way in, rather the the touch line?

Or for that matter, another 22m scenario where the thrower, in front of the 22, throw at an angle that the ball crosses the touch line inside the 22?

I wish I didn't think these things up.

For scenario 1 - imho the ball must enter the field of play legally. Hence the correct side of goal line must be used as point of ball entry to field of play, and not over touch in goal.

Scenario 2 was covered specifically by pre-ELV RFU meetings. Carried back in and no gain in ground.

I do not agree with the SA interpretation. The mark is where the ball went into touch, not where it ended up !

 

[OB..]

Making lines outside of the playing area relevant to what happens inside of it is not something I want introduced into rugby.

That would be "imaginary lines" ...

But should this factor influence the SA logic, which makes as much sense for a 'gain' if the in-touch ball 'rolls' back over as the 'no gain' should the in-touch ball be 'taken' back over? Which I think they accept . . . don't they?

FWIW I think the SA view is nonsense. The 22 does not extend into touch, so unless the ball has previously been put into the 22 (ie crossed the touchline inside the 22), the thrower is the person who puts it into the 22.

 

[Dickie E]

FWIW I think the SA view is nonsense. The 22 does not extend into touch, so unless the ball has previously been put into the 22 (ie crossed the touchline inside the 22), the thrower is the person who puts it into the 22.

From my experience, it works OK in practice.

 

[FlipFlop]

Of course if the kicker kicks it, and it hits the stadium, and bounces behind the 22m, the stadium put the ball into the 22m I suppose....

 

[OB..]

From my experience, it works OK in practice.

So does the RFU version.

Life only becomes tricky when it is a close decision.

 

[chopper15]

That would be "imaginary lines" ...


FWIW I think the SA view is nonsense. The 22 does not extend into touch, so unless the ball has previously been put into the 22 (ie crossed the touchline inside the 22), the thrower is the person who puts it into the 22.

ELV4 specifically refers to the ball being taken/played back over the 22 in the FoP. This is also confirmed by the diagram.

Once the ball goes dead over the touch line and with no other LoT yet established, the QT thrower decides where the LoT is to be as per LoG; he is not subject to that ELV4 law.

Not only does the SH have a good case for a gain decision when the ball rolls back over in touch, but they also got one if they take it back over.

 

[David J.]

19.1 THROW IN
NO GAIN IN GROUND
...
(b) Player takes ball into that team’s 22. When a defending
player gets the ball outside the 22, takes or puts it inside the 22,
and then kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground.


The 22 meter area is a box defined by the goal line, the 22m line and the touch lines.

 

[chopper15]

19.1 THROW IN
NO GAIN IN GROUND
...
(b) Player takes ball into that team’s 22. When a defending
player gets the ball outside the 22, takes or puts it inside the 22,
and then kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground.


The 22 meter area is a box defined by the goal line, the 22m line and the touch lines.

An area that is within the FoP. Touch isn't . . . is it?

 

[David J.]

Correct. He is putting the ball from outside the 22 into the 22.

 

[OB..]

If the kick crossed the touchline inside the 22, then the kicker put the ball into the 22. Otherwise, he didn't.

 

[chopper15]

So are we agreed that ELV4 is only relevent to FoP action and is inappropriate to solve our out-of-play prob.?

ie. He didn't take or play the ball back into his 22m when he threw it in from touch.

 

[OB..]

chopper - the question is about a gain in ground from a kick that goes direct into touch. The basic principle is that if a team is responsible for the ball being in its 22, then they cannot gain.

If the kick to touch by the opposition did not go into the 22 (and maybe out again over the touchline) then the opposition did not put the ball into teh 22, so the defending kicker's team did.

If there is a lineout, then the question as to whether or not the ball is in the 22 is answered by the location of the lineout.

If there is a Quick Throw-in, we have a subtler problem. The SH decrees that if the ball goes into an extended 22 bounded by a imaginary extension of the 22 and goal lines, then it was put into the 22 by the opposition.

The RFU says that the ball is in touch, and was only in the 22 if it passed through the 22 on the way to touch ie if the Line of Touch is inside the 22.

I seem to have said the same thing over and over again, including a diagram. What is your problem with what I have written?

As far as I am concerned the important point is that we have major Unions using significantly different interpretations, which is a Bad Thing, and needs resolving.

I take the view very strongly that the RFU position is more natural and more practical, but if the IRB decides differently, so be it.

 

[Brian Ravenhill]

What happens to the ball after it leaves the field of play is irrelevant. If the ball is kicked out and hits the floodlighting stanchion that is in front of the advertising hoardings and rolls 20m back towards the kicker are you allowed to pick up the ball and throw it in from their of course not, but why not the team about to throw it in haven’t taken the ball there. The only position of relevance is where the ball leaves the field of play.

We in the northern hemisphere are always having to adapt to so called southern hemisphere interpretations, if the ball is passed forward put remains behind the running passer it not forward. The ball was passed forward the clue is in the question. Lazy runners was an ‘invention’ of the SH. The crossing laws had to be drawn up to cope with SH inventions.

It’s a game with lots of money at stake, each team, be it club province or national, will have a team of advisors picking holes in the laws. Following the change in the regulation in formula one leading to diffuser design differences. One commentator said something along the lines of 2 or 3 people right the regulations to cover the sport, each team has a squad of 150 trying to find loop holes, who’s going to win?

For some reason in rugby it is perceived that the SH have more innovators trying to exploit holes, withthe NH either stood complaining or happy to sit on the SH coat tales.