NH v SH LoG accord?

[SimonSmith]

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

because you have a track of record, when people don't reply to you, of asking 'why?'

I thought I'd get ahead of it.

You say unhelpful. I say "statement of the ****ing obvious"

 

[chopper15]

because you have a track of record, when people don't reply to you, of asking 'why?'

I thought I'd get ahead of it.

You say unhelpful. I say "statement of the ****ing obvious"

Come on, Simon, lighten up a bit. This bête noire complex you have conjured up about me needs to be exorcised not only for your benefit but, I would've thought, so necessary for the tenor of the forum.

When I initiated this thread it was done for the reason you criticise me for. I repeated my 'why' with qualification but because it was assumed it had been answered satisfactorily. I would then be accused of 'flogging the nag' along with unjustified belittlement which often even included offensive comment from respected and established members.

I'm delighted that this particular thread has been so enlightening to a member who, being a non-ref and not privy to the seemingly convoluted workings of LoG administration, is perhaps, I admit, a bit ultra-curious at times.

And, Simon, I'm not only seeking answers but also personal opinions on my queries from the more experienced refs such as yourself.

The 'gain in ground' and FK scenario triggered by 'incidental' contact in the scrum, for instance - on which no opinion has yet been aired - would be much appreciated . . . I state 'incidental' ie., brief ball contact in the scrum by opposition before being repossessed . . . I am assuming that my 'squirting ball' from the rear of the scrum scenario is accepted for allowing both 'gain in ground' and FK drop goals in both SH and NH reffing?

Hoping I have successfully avoided provoking further disapproval, kind regards, Chopper.

 

[Phil E]

Always the victim, eh Chopper? :sarc:

 

[Davet]

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.

Which, since the defender is in touch when moving back and stay in touch when taking the QT does imply that he Law makers are using the 22 line as a convenient reference point extending beyond the limits of the playing area - and does therefore add weight to the Aus SA view.

Clearly in RFU land we need to act on the RFU interpretation -but there is some ground for suggesting the RFU view is misplaced, and might usefully be reconsidered.

 

[chopper15]

Always the victim, eh Chopper? :sarc:

:chin: Nope.


Would most certainly appreciate an opinion on my last para. query from one of the sites more accomplished exponents of the humorous, witty and bubble-pricking riposte, Phil.

 

[Bryan]

I would then be accused of 'flogging the nag' along with unjustified belittlement which often even included offensive comment from respected and established members.

I am only going to address the above comment:

1. I will NOT tolerate you accusing this forum as being offensive or generating offensive comments. Moderators do an exemplary job in cutting out spammers, 1-hit-soapboxers (e.g. Sad4Sam) and other unwanted folks who are better served in posting their "feedback" on one-eyed country-centric forums (be it that Welsh one, the one the Jappies love, the Green-n-Gold "edit clips to make it look like we got hosed" site, and even Planet Rugby).

2. This forum really does make an effort to addressing all refereeing issues, from the ones that have been answered 101 times before (a la pre-match brief) to ideas and encouragement on match reports and bad experiences. For every referee that has walked away, I firmly believe we've helped a lot more stay in the game for a lot longer despite having a sh!t-show experience.

3. Your accusations against members, who, after making valiant attempts to explain law application and management, throw-in-the-towel with points of law that are so far out that members with over 50 years of refereeing experience cant help, are petty and classless. You dismiss with a "thank you" or a "sorry", and then begin again in another thread.

4. In short, I have no problem as a moderator in folks replying to questions that even I find unncessary, but if you start trying to undercut this forum after all the years of work that Robbie has done to build it up to a credible site among the filth that is the internet, I will have no issue in deleting posts entirely. If you have issues with this, raise it with a Site Admin, or Robbie. You know exactly who they are (you've asked this question before, so dont ask it again; it's tiresome.)

 

[OB..]

Come on, Simon, lighten up a bit. This bête noire complex you have conjured up about me needs to be exorcised not only for your benefit but, I would've thought, so necessary for the tenor of the forum.

This forum is about refereeing (and other rugby matters). It is not about you and your feelings.

 

[OB..]

Which, since the defender is in touch when moving back and stay in touch when taking the QT does imply that he Law makers are using the 22 line as a convenient reference point extending beyond the limits of the playing area - and does therefore add weight to the Aus SA view.

Disagree.

If the thrower is standing on the touchline, for example, it is easy to see if he is "behind the 22m line", but that is not the point. The law says "don't bother to try it, because it will not be allowed". It means eg a referee is never going to have to decide if a player some distance from the touchline has moved "past" the 22m line or not.

To then extend the flawed concept to the ball rolling/bouncing in touch is unnecessary and to my mind ridiculous.

Clearly in RFU land we need to act on the RFU interpretation -but there is some ground for suggesting the RFU view is misplaced, and might usefully be reconsidered.

The RFU view is straightforward and simple to apply. I see no significant advantage in the SA view to justify the complications it can involve.

 

[crossref]

apologies if there's a link somewhere I missed, but have the RFU and SARFU really actually issued an official ruling on this bouncing in touch scenario? conflicting, official rulings?

can they even do that ? it's a Law matter not a regulation matter, and surely outsdie their power.

if there is something written down does it simply amount to the opinion of a few blokes - useful - but not a ruling. Surely until a time comes when the IRB issues a ruling the Law remains ambiguous.

 

[The Fat]

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.

Would it not be easier and more clear to have the law read,
"This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line, or retrieves the ball anywhere between the line of touch and the defender's goal line, to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch".

It is obviously the current wording that creates the apparent differing interpretations between the NH & SH.

 

[Simon Thomas]

apologies if there's a link somewhere I missed, but have the RFU and SARFU really actually issued an official ruling on this bouncing in touch scenario? conflicting, official rulings?

can they even do that ? it's a Law matter not a regulation matter, and surely outsdie their power.

if there is something written down does it simply amount to the opinion of a few blokes - useful - but not a ruling. Surely until a time comes when the IRB issues a ruling the Law remains ambiguous.

yes crossref there were written interpretations made by SARFU and RFU, which were different and applied to the juristictions under their authority. When done and where to be found - no idea.

An IRB appointed AR will probably have his own standing orders anyway, wich is the main time there could be a difference of opinion.

First question for Stu at our February meeting KML1 ?

 

[OB..]

Would it not be easier and more clear to have the law read,
"This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line, or retrieves the ball anywhere between the line of touch and the defender's goal line, to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch".

I don't think so. It could still be taken to imply virtual extension of the real lines, which is not necessary. "If the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22 area, any throw into the 22 area means the ball has been put there by the thrower."

However the law almost certainly was phrased that way because it was what players had been doing: running back to take a QT across the touchline along the 22 area, hoping to get round the main part of Law 19.1 (b).

It is obviously the current wording that creates the apparent differing interpretations between the NH & SH.

Who knows. They simply claimed that the 22 area extended into touch.

The exception here, however, would be if the ball went out at 27m but continued rolling, in touch, to within the 22m but still in touch. A quick throw in here would result in a gain in ground as the attacking team put the ball passed the defenders 22m line and thus into the 22m!! But then you know that.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/1930951.htm
Mark Lawrence 17 September 2009

There is a longer explanation here.
http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/1634681.htm

The original version of Law 19.1 (b), introduced in 2000, was
[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]
The modern one dates from 2009. In that year the law book defined the 22 as betwen the 22m line and the goal lne, but did not mention the touchlines, so it could have been regarded as of infinite extent. However in 2010 a new diagram made it clear that the 22 area was also bounded by the touchlines.

 

[crossref]

that's interesting
- the first link is to Mark Lawrence's Q&A, so you could argue that it was ML's personal view, rather than a SARFU ruling
- the second link is to an unsigned article, so as it is on the SARFU website carries some implied SARFU stamp of approval I guess
- but all the same note that the this more authoritative link actually has a caveat,

The law is not specifically clear in this case

which tends to undermine itself.

Any RFU interpretation, unless it's published somewhere is effectively valueless. Let's say it was emailed out to Societies, that's nice but for any referee who has qualified since it was cascaded, it basically doesn't exist.

BTW I don't think we can jump from conflicting opinions in RFU and SARFU into a NH / SH split.

 

[Dickie E]

OB.., your view still does not satisfy me that the original intent of the 'no gain in ground' law is being met (ie to stop a defending team tactically gaining an advantage by going backwards).

By the way, in soccer can the goal keeper pick the ball up if a defender throw the ball in to him from touch (or whatever they call it)?

 

[OB..]

OB.., your view still does not satisfy me that the original intent of the 'no gain in ground' law is being met (ie to stop a defending team tactically gaining an advantage by going backwards).

In the field of play. If the ball is in touch it is dead. Different scenario. I see no reason to deny the attacking side a successful kick.

By the way, in soccer can the goal keeper pick the ball up if a defender throw the ball in to him from touch (or whatever they call it)?

[LAWS]A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside
his own penalty area in the following circumstances:
• [...]
• if he touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly
from a throw-in taken by a team-mate[/LAWS]http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf