NH v SH LoG accord?

[Jenko]

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).

Why take a quick throw 30-50 behind the line of touch to then just kick for touch? Tactically naive? if QT is taken to run ball back at opposition then I can see benefit but if (in your example) ball has cross LOT around 1/2 way then our throw in there is preferable to thier throw in potentially nearer our line! I understand your view is that the clearing kick could get much further but in reality the odds are against this.

 

[Dickie E]

QT 10 metres out. Player runs 10 then kicks into touch in opposition 22. Sounds tactically sound.

 

[OB..]

You can argue the tactical value of allowing the "pseudo-22" kick, but I don't see how you can argue the legality.
[LAWS]Law 19.1 (b)
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.
[/LAWS]The 22 is clearly defined by the diagram in Law 1, and it does not extend into touch. A kick that crosses the touchline outside the 22 and goes a long way in touch was never in the 22, so the opponents clearly did not put it there. If the defending team takes a QT then they put the ball into the 22.

There is also a severe practical problem. Much of the time it would be clear if the ball had gone past the imaginary extension of the 22m line, but there will be occasions when you are asking the referee to judge if a ball a few metres from the touchline has reached that non-existent line - and how about the rolling ball picked up with one foot "behind the line"? And where is there any justification for devising an imaginary extension of the 22m line?

 

[chopper15]

OB you state,
a) The 22 is clearly defined by the diagram in Law 1, and it does not extend into touch.
b) A kick that crosses the touchline outside the 22 and goes a long way in touch was never in the 22, so the opponents clearly did not put it there.
c) If the defending team takes a QT then they put the ball into the 22.



a) The 22 AREA may not but the 22 LINE effectively does ie., the direction of the 22 line into touch is indicated by the marker flag.

b) So what? A kick that crosses the touchline INSIDE the 22 and goes a long way in touch was never IN the 22 either.

c) Once in touch the ball is dead. A new phase of play is then commenced. Defending side LO where the ball crossed the touch line or QT where the ball, not having been touched by a defender, was picked up in touch.

 

[crossref]

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.

i agree.

 

[OB..]

OB you state,
a) The 22 is clearly defined by the diagram in Law 1, and it does not extend into touch.
b) A kick that crosses the touchline outside the 22 and goes a long way in touch was never in the 22, so the opponents clearly did not put it there.
c) If the defending team takes a QT then they put the ball into the 22.



a) The 22 AREA may not but the 22 LINE effectively does ie., the direction of the 22 line into touch is indicated by the marker flag.

You are wrong. The 22m line is one of the limits of the 22 area. The post is there simply to indicate where that is (seen from a distance) and is set outside the field of play to keep it out of the way. It certainly does not indicate an extension of the 22m line. The diagrams make it very clear that the 22m line does not extend past the touchline.[LAWS]Law 1.5 (c) Flag posts must be positioned in line with the 22-metre lines ...[/LAWS] They are not ON the 22 metre line.

b) So what? A kick that crosses the touchline INSIDE the 22 and goes a long way in touch was never IN the 22 either.

Yes it was. The ball crossed the 22m line in the same sense as it crossed the touchline.

c) Once in touch the ball is dead. A new phase of play is then commenced. Defending side LO where the ball crossed the touch line or QT where the ball, not having been touched by a defender, was picked up in touch.

Irrelevant. There is no problem with taking a QT. The question is who put the ball into the 22 area. Answer: the defender who threw it in for the QT. It had never been in the 22 area before that.

 

[Dickie E]

You can argue the tactical value of allowing the "pseudo-22" kick, but I don't see how you can argue the legality.
[LAWS]Law 19.1 (b)

I'm not arguing either way. I'm understanding the logic.

 

[chopper15]

Re. OB: Irrelevant. There is no problem with taking a QT. The question is who put the ball into the 22 area. Answer: the defender who threw it in for the QT. It had never been in the 22 area before that.

But, OB, to justify your argument you have blatantly ignored the last para. of 19.1(b). This proviso is apparently added to put the preceding directive into specific context.

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 (ie. preceding directive) 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..

Should there be a couple of defenders behind their 22 before the ball is kicked into touch to execute the QT throw and kick, then a gain in ground is justified.

 

[OB..]

Re. OB: Irrelevant. There is no problem with taking a QT. The question is who put the ball into the 22 area. Answer: the defender who threw it in for the QT. It had never been in the 22 area before that.

But, OB, to justify your argument you have blatantly ignored the last para. of 19.1(b). This proviso is apparently added to put the preceding directive into specific context.

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 (ie. preceding directive) 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..

Should there be a couple of defenders behind their 22 before the ball is kicked into touch to execute the QT throw and kick, then a gain in ground is justified.

I have no idea what you mean, but that bolded statement is irrelevant. We are talking about the situation where the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22. The bit of law you are quoting refers to a situation in the field of play. A player picking up the ball in touch cannot move back behind the 22 metre line because there is no such line in touch.

 

[The Fat]

You can argue the tactical value of allowing the "pseudo-22" kick, but I don't see how you can argue the legality.
[LAWS]Law 19.1 (b)
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.[/LAWS]The 22 is clearly defined by the diagram in Law 1, and it does not extend into touch. A kick that crosses the touchline outside the 22 and goes a long way in touch was never in the 22, so the opponents clearly did not put it there. If the defending team takes a QT then they put the ball into the 22.

There is also a severe practical problem. Much of the time it would be clear if the ball had gone past the imaginary extension of the 22m line, but there will be occasions when you are asking the referee to judge if a ball a few metres from the touchline has reached that non-existent line - and how about the rolling ball picked up with one foot "behind the line"? And where is there any justification for devising an imaginary extension of the 22m line?

The bit in red is what causes the confusion and clearly needs to be reworded.
The current wording only considers what happens when a player picks the ball up in touch foward of the line of the 22 and then carries it back behind the line of the 22 (ie; no gain in ground).
It doesn't deal with the situation where the ball crosses the touch line 25 metres out but is retrieved by a defender who is say 5m behind the line of the 22 and takes a quick throw from that position and then team mate kicks directly to touch. We all know where the line of touch is from the first kick, but who will allow a gain in ground?
Because the current wording (the red bit again) specifically nominates the player moving back behind the 22m line, one could argue that a player who is already behind the line of the 22 can achieve a gain in ground situation.
The ARU 2011 GMGs seem to support that interpretation. Somehow, I have never been able to get a straight answer on this during any courses as the discussion always seems to get highjacked.
View attachment 1946

 

[OB..]

Because the current wording (the red bit again) specifically nominates the player moving back behind the 22m line, one could argue that a player who is already behind the line of the 22 can achieve a gain in ground situation.

The law refers to the 22m line, which is a real line, marked on the pitch and shown in the Law 1 diagram. It does not extend beyond the touchline.

What is this "line of the 22" concept and where do you get it from? How and where is it defined?

 

[Dickie E]

refer to post #13 in this thread

 

[OB..]

refer to post #13 in this thread

A post from chopper15 that I responded to in #16.

What justification do you claim for a virtual extension of the 22m line (and area) into touch? I have found no basis for it in the laws.

 

[chopper15]

I have no idea what you mean, but that bolded statement is irrelevant. We are talking about the situation where the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22. The bit of law you are quoting refers to a situation in the field of play. A player picking up the ball in touch cannot move back behind the 22 metre line because there is no such line in touch.

???? But OB I was referring to the law you were using to justify your argument, 19.1(b); and that last bolded para. which you now tell me is irrelevent is the proviso on which the law is managed. :sad:

 

[The Fat]

It is not defined anywhere. I am merely using the terminology to describe a location outside the FoP relative to the 22.
The last sentence of law 19.1b implies that a defender has picked the ball up outside the FoP forward of the 22 and carried it back behind the 22 before taking a QT.

 

[chopper15]

Re. ARU 2011 GMGs 'No Gain in Touch' confirmation: A quick throw-in taken within the 22m area after a player gathers it from in-touch but in front of the 22m line and then takes it behind to throw.

This obviously suggests why the SH accepts a gain in touch should a player let it roll in-touch to behind the 22m line and then takes the throw.

Did the RFU/WRU issue such a written directive to the contrary? And isn't about time some official body triggered a response from the law lords?

This, of course, also applies to touch gains and free kicks to goal subsequently taken following incidental ball contact in the scrum which was the other example of NH v SH queried in this thread.

 

[SimonSmith]

Here's what I just learned:
If you go look for information, you can find it all by yourself.

I don't know the answer to your question, and I'm not going to find out the information because it honestly isn't important enough to me.

 

[OB..]

???? But OB I was referring to the law you were using to justify your argument, 19.1(b); and that last bolded para. which you now tell me is irrelevent is the proviso on which the law is managed. :sad:

I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.

The 22m line does not extend into touch.
The 22 area does not extend into touch.
Why? Because Law 1 says so.

As far as the RFU is concerned, I quoted this earlier

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.

That makes sense to me. The SA/Aus position does not. Fortunately, I only have to answer to the RFU version.

 

[chopper15]

Here's what I just learned:
If you go look for information, you can find it all by yourself.

I don't know the answer to your question, and I'm not going to find out the information because it honestly isn't important enough to me.

Never mind, Simon, perhaps someone else may know. Why did you bother to expose such an unhelpful disposition in open forum? . . weird.

 

[OB..]

The last sentence of law 19.1b implies that a defender has picked the ball up outside the FoP forward of the 22 and carried it back behind the 22 before taking a QT.

The only point of it is to make it clear that if the ball did not go into the 22 originally, a player who runs back to stand on the touchline behind the 22 and throws the ball in from there is deemed to have put it into the 22. I do not see anything there about the ball going past some non-existent extension of the 22m line.

Was the ball in the 22 area? No it wasn't.