NH v SH LoG accord?

[chopper15]

Dr S. I understand your comment and accept that using unlikely scenarios to pursue the literal interpretation of the LoG is often an anathema to many of you particularly at the level many of you ref at. But surely you're not suggesting that this forum should not discuss interpretation, application and the effect it can have on a unanticipated scenario?

21.6 (b) and 9.A.1. Dropped Goal. A player scores a dropped goal by kicking a goal from a drop kick in GENERAL PLAY.The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until the ball next becomes dead, OR UNTIL AN OPPONENT HAS PLAYED OR TOUCHED IT, or has tackled the ball carrier. THIS RESTRICTION APPLIES ALSO TO A SCRUM TAKEN INSTEAD OF A FREE KICK.

Ian; for starters I accept 'general play' as - from the time the ball is put into play to the time the ball is made dead and is not be confused with 'open play ', which I appreciate drives your opinion.

My reference to 19.1 (g) is relevant to both kicking to touch from inside 22 and to 21.6 (b) when scrums initiate commencement of play and the consequence of a either a direct kick to touch or a drop kick to goal, as appropriate, are successfully made, ie,

i) 22 scenario - which by now you all must be familiar with:Typical scenarios to illustrate these would be, a defending scrum just outside the 22. The ball is taken against the head and taken into the 22, where either the ball squirts out the back of the scrum and is immediately picked up by the defending SH or the defending pack regains their ball and in both incidents the ball is kicked directly into touch.

ii) FK scenario:The ball is taken against the head and squirts out the back of the defending scrum and is immediately picked up by the attacking SH or the attacking pack regains their ball and in both incidents the ball is drop kicked directly thro' the posts.

iii) QT scenario: Ball kicked into touch outside 22 and rolls in touch past the 22. Defender takes QT to team mate who kicks downfield direct into touch.

I merely want an update by anyone 'in the know' if these incidents are now accepted as interpretations by NH and SH. At the time these issues were debated , as I mentioned, both Ian and OB were of the opinion that these interpretations were certainly not accepted internationally for the FK or the QT.

The FK scenario, of course, can be aggravated further should the ball be seen to be temporarily touched at the put-in by the defending front row but is subsequently heeled by the attacking side.

Here's hoping you will, perhaps, be more sympathetic to my passion as an 'outsider' to further my knowledge of the LoG with some positive opinions or, even better, answers.

 

[crossref]

Chopper you've given three unusual scenarios where the Laws are (of course) ambiguous.
But you haven't said what you think are the correct decisions, or what you consider the NH and SH difference is

I'd say
1- there is no universely agreed correct decision in these scenarios, neither in the NH or SH. Different refs will no doubt differ.
2 - FWIW my view is

i) in both case attackers took it into 22 by pushing, so gain in ground allowed

ii)
first one - team who didn't put ball into scrum played the ball by winning it against the head and bringing out back of their scrum, so DG is allowed
second one - they only attempted to play it, but didn't so no DG

iii) it was taken back into 22, so no gain in ground


GENERAL OBSERVATIONS -

1) You have given five different scenarios, but only three different numbers i ii and iii . This will make it hard to follow the discussion. You should have numbered them 1,2,3,4,5

2) it's much easier to follow and discuss scenarios if you give colours to the teams, making it easy it refer (I think anyway)

 

[Davet]

I don't understand any difference between "open play" and "general play"; to me both relate to play other than at a set piece.

i) 22 scenario - which by now you all must be familiar with:Typical scenarios to illustrate these would be, a defending scrum just outside the 22. The ball is taken against the head and taken into the 22,

Defending scrum means put in by defenders, so I suspect you mean attacking scrum - as otherwise there is no issue at all.

Defenders win the ball against the head, and take it into their own 22 - either during the course of the scrum (say being shoved back by attackers), or by the ball squirting over the 22, or by them carrying it back. My opinion is that in all cases the ball has been taken back in and thus no gai in ground from a direct kick to touch.

The DG after FK scenario as far as I am concerned we should ignore the ball being played in the scrum, what matters is what happens after the set piece is over - ie the restriction applies to the scrum in the same way and with the same force as is does at a kick, which seems to me to be what the clause means.

QT scenario - to me there is no gain in ground from the kick after the QT. The ball went into touch outside the 22, the defender can take a QT anywhere between that point and his own goal line. If the ball went out on the defenders 10m line and rolled to just in front of the 22 - and was then picked up and carried beyond the 22 and then thrown this would be simple, no gain; I cannot understand why the ball rolling another metre when in touch would change that - and having one simple rule in this respect s far easier to referee.

 

[OB..]

Dr S. I understand your comment and accept that using unlikely scenarios to pursue the literal interpretation of the LoG is often an anathema to many of you particularly at the level many of you ref at. But surely you're not suggesting that this forum should not discuss interpretation, application and the effect it can have on a unanticipated scenario?

The phrase "literal interpretation" basically means your own view There are conflicts, ambiguities and gaps in the laws, and if a partiular problem arises often enough, referees evolve ways of dealing with it from the point of view of what is best for the game. That is more important than somebody's view of a "literal meaning".

Getting the laws better written is a separate process, and not something this forum can have much influence on. We have a job to do and must work with what we have, so we discuss the best way to solve the problem.

QT scenario: Ball kicked into touch outside 22 and rolls in touch past the 22. Defender takes QT to team mate who kicks downfield direct into touch.

It can't roll past the 22m line, since that line does not extend into touch. That was always the case and as far as I am aware it was only in South Africa that they tried to argue for a virtual extension of the line into touch, basing this on the fact that the description of the 22m area in the laws did not specify the touchlines. However the law now does make it 100% clear that the 22 does not extend outside the field of play. The problem therefore does not arise. What matters is where the ball went into touch.

For the rest I have nothing to add to Davet's sensible reply.

I don't think any of this is new.

 

[crossref]

Defending scrum means put in by defenders, so I suspect you mean attacking scrum - as otherwise there is no issue at all..

he meant defending scrum

he is envisaging a team putting the ball in outside their own 22, but then being driven back by the attackers right back across their own 22m line and so far that when the ball does comes out against the head on the attacking side, it is actually in the 22m (so arguably the attackers have taken it in) -- but when the ball comes out on the attacking side, against the head, in the 22m, the defenders manage to grab it and kick it for touch...

You could watch a lot of rugby without seeing this happen!
but if it did I would give gain in ground...

 

[SimonSmith]

Dr S. I understand your comment and accept that using unlikely scenarios to pursue the literal interpretation of the LoG is often an anathema to many of you particularly at the level many of you ref at. But surely you're not suggesting that this forum should not discuss interpretation, application and the effect it can have on a unanticipated scenario?

I suggest that you reread much of the feedback that you have received.
We do read and discuss the literal interpretation of the Laws - but always with an eye to the practical application thereof. That last piece is critical to where we spend our time, and is frankly absent from 99% of what you raise. It's not "anathema" because of level at all.
No-one has suggested what you are implying in your last sentence. What they have said is that you keep flogging dead horses and derailing threads.

Here's hoping you will, perhaps, be more sympathetic to my passion as an 'outsider' to further my knowledge of the LoG with some positive opinions or, even better, answers.

I'd suggest you drop the 'outsider' tag here. There are plenty of non referees on the site who engage and participate on a peer-to-peer basis; who know where to go to find answers. Who listen to feedback that they receive and act upon it.

 

[chopper15]

Is Ian's assumption that 'general play' only refers to 'open play' outside the scrum generally recognised?

If so, then the answer to my scenarios would be simple - a 'no gain in ground ' for (i) and 'no drop goal' for (ii). It would also obviate any incidental ball contact considerations within the scrum made by the opposition.

Regarding the QT scenario, if the ball rolls in touch past the 22 flag then 'gain in ground' kick allowed. Should it be touched or taken past the flag by defence -' no gain'. Is there international accord yet?

 

[OB..]

Is Ian's assumption that 'general play' only refers to 'open play' outside the scrum generally recognised?

"open play" only occurs 3 times in the laws. Like "general play" it simply means "not in set play".

Regarding the QT scenario, if the ball rolls in touch past the 22 flag then 'gain in ground' kick allowed. Should it be touched or taken past the flag by defence -' no gain'. Is there international accord yet?

Do you have me on ignore?

It can't roll past the 22m line, since that line does not extend into touch. That was always the case and as far as I am aware it was only in South Africa that they tried to argue for a virtual extension of the line into touch, basing this on the fact that the description of the 22m area in the laws did not specify the touchlines. However the law now does make it 100% clear that the 22 does not extend outside the field of play. The problem therefore does not arise. What matters is where the ball went into touch.

 

[Phil E]

View attachment 1945

msf

 

[chopper15]

"open play" only occurs 3 times in the laws. Like "general play" it simply means "not in set play".
Do you have me on ignore?

Sincere apologies, OB. I typed my post and the bird prog. started on BBCI and I posted without catching up on thread. Sorry. Will try to catch up later.

 

[Davet]

Defending scrum means put in by defenders, so I suspect you mean attacking scrum - as otherwise there is no issue at all..

he meant defending scrum

But he then says taken against the head. So won by attacking team. Who take the ball into defenders 22. Where's the problem with that? Won back by defenders, gain in ground.

 

[chopper15]

View attachment 1945

msf

:chin: . . . . to what? what's msf?

 

[chopper15]

A good effort, OB, but your opinion to justify your argument is a bit specious.

We're all aware that the actual 22m line marking doesn't extend into touch, but my query purposefully reads, '. . . . rolls in touch past the 22 flag. . '. After all, the half-way line doesn't extend into touch either, but if a player is in touch and in front of that flag at kick-off wouldn't the flag be used as marker?

You state that that SA 'tried to argue' does that suggest they've now given up and have accepted the official RFU and WRU line now? Any feedback how other Unions - NZ, OZ and France in particular - have moved yet or is it how their associated elite refs decide on the day?

And, of course, the same query applies to the FK scrum option scenario. With that we've no idea how the RFU elite refs would manage it let alone the others. Once coaches and players get to know surely it's worth a try if the game depended on it.

 

[Dickie E]

It can't roll past the 22m line, since that line does not extend into touch. That was always the case and as far as I am aware it was only in South Africa that they tried to argue for a virtual extension of the line into touch, basing this on the fact that the description of the 22m area in the laws did not specify the touchlines. However the law now does make it 100% clear that the 22 does not extend outside the field of play. The problem therefore does not arise. What matters is where the ball went into touch.

As far as I am aware this same interpretation is in place in Oz. Maybe NZ too but I'm not sure. I can see (and live with) the argument both ways.

 

[Dickie E]

I cannot understand why the ball rolling another metre when in touch would change that

I'll try to help - you may not agree but at least you may understand.

The 'no gain in ground' rule was introduced to stop defending teams tactically passing or carrying the ball back into their 22 for the purpose of then kicking it downfield for lineout (like in soccer the goalie can't pick up the ball if passed back by a defender).

The key concept here is to inhibit the action of the defending team.

Where the attacking kicks the ball into touch so that it ends up 5 metres from the defending goal line it is not the action of the defending team that has put it there (ie defending team haven't even touched the ball) so QT with gain in ground is OK.

 

[OB..]

A good effort, OB, but your opinion to justify your argument is a bit specious.

It deals with the rationale given by South Africa.

We're all aware that the actual 22m line marking doesn't extend into touch, but my query purposefully reads, '. . . . rolls in touch past the 22 flag. . '.

Who cares? The law only refers to being in the 22 area or behind the 22m line.

You state that that SA 'tried to argue' does that suggest they've now given up and have accepted the official RFU and WRU line now?

The subject seems to have been dropped. I am not aware that anybody else followed it, but it is a pretty rare situation anyway.

As far as I am concerned it was always a ridiculous argument and unnecessarily difficult to referee. I sincerely hope it is indeed dead and buried.

 

[chopper15]

OB, your comment was posted an hour ago. Dickie's was also. You stated, 'The subject seems to have been dropped. I am not aware that anybody else followed it, but it is a pretty rare situation anyway. This suggests you didn't have a chance to read it before you posted.

Why should it be so 'unnecessarily difficult to referee? The refs have to call where the ball goes into touch; was it slightly before or after where the 22 meets the touch line, that's the difficult part, they have to do that irrespective of how the law is interpreted. And how do you justify calling it a ridiculous argument. Easy to state, difficult to explain . . and it can easily happen should coaches and players be made aware of it and the opportunity pops up.

 

[Davet]

Dickie E - I understand what you write, and the logic behind it. I think however the key is that any lineout would be in front of the 22 and the defenders have elected to take the QT behind the 22.

But I may be open to persuasion... possibly.

 

[OB..]

There seems to be nothing new in this discussion and I am getting bored with simply repeating stuff, so here are a few I prepared earlier. Feel free to explore these threads for other views.

I have just come across the following in the SA referees excellent Duty Ref series:

Naas Ferreira asks about the kick into touch that goes out outside of the 22 and the quick throw-in is taken inside the 22. Marius says that it depends where the ball came to a standstill. If it stopped outside of the 22 and was then taken back, no gain of ground was possible from a kick directly into touch. But if the ball stopped behind the 22 and was then thrown in quickly from inside the 22, there could be gain of ground if the ball was then kicked directly into touch from within the 22.
Marius Jonker http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/1526695.htm

My understanding is that in England what counts is where the ball crosses the touchline. I do not see Marius' view as being practicable.

Marius' answer does not reflect the consistent advice I heard from a wide range of RFU Dept staff, assessors, and referees at many different levels.

Everyone says it is where the ball crosses the line - I can think of no logical justitification for it being where the ball stops.

It could be fun at council recreation grounds, when the QT is likely to be taken on a neighbouring pitch !

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".

As I have said before, I find the SA stance rather weird. The 2009 Law book makes it clear the 22 area does not extend outside the field of play. If the ball crosses the touch line outside the 22, it was at no stage inside the 22 before going into touch. Moreover, how do you judge if it has gone past the (virtual) 22m line - particularly given the law about a rolling versus a stationary ball. Their view also encourages kicking for touch.

 

[Dickie E]

But I may be open to persuasion... possibly.

How about this:

at the elite level a good kicker can kick from his own 22 to well within the opposition 22.

So a big but aimless kick from own 22 that crosses touch somewhere around 1/2 way and is caught by defender 10 metres from his own goal-line puts the defenders at an unreasonable disadvantage as a QT will not lead to a gain in ground (in N/H).