No gain in ground after qti

[evilad]

Watching the Scarlets v Leicester game last night and after a qti by Leicester, the ball was kicked dead. Ref came back and awarded the line out inside the 22. The ball went out just outside the 22, rolled towards Leicesters goal line, picked up by Ben Youngs a couple of Meyers inside the 22 and passed to Owen Williams who thumped it down field and out on the full. Can't find anything in the good book on this. Can anyone shed any light.
Was the mark brought back for Scarlets, as the original mark would have been outside the 22?
Could understand it if the tigers player had ran behind his 22 with the ball before throwing in.

 

[Pegleg]

The relevant point is where the throw in was awarded. In this case it was outside the 22. You may chose to take the QT nearer your own line that is your choice but you can't gain the option of kicking direct.

 

[crossref]

This is an interesting question, which we have discussed here before
The Laws don't really cover it...

 

[Pegleg]

19.2(b) "For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the
place where the ball would be thrown in from a formed lineout and the player’s goal line."


To allow a team to gain the advantage of moving back towards their won line to kick out on the full is illogical (see grounding the ball after a KO into in goal = too much advantage.) Here in Wales we are told no gain in ground if the team chooses to throw from in their 22 rather than where the ball went into touch. Same as for a free kick awarded out side the 22 if you go back inside and kick you can't kick directly into touch.

 

[OB..]

Who put the ball into the 22? The team that threw in. Their opponents had made the ball dead outside the 22.

At one time some people argued that if the ball when in touch ran past an extended 22m line, it had been put into the 22 by the kcking side. However the law book now makes it clear (diagram p26) that the 22 does NOT extend beyond the field of play.

 

[Pegleg]

Totally agree OB. anything else defies logic for me.

 

[Simon Thomas]

As explained by OB the Laws do cover it and is a totally logical to be no gain - the line of touch is the key marker.

 

[Browner]

The Pros ought to know this.

But to be helpful to all other levels then a referee shout of "taken in" before the kicker actually shapes to kick would be good practice, but sometimes it does all happen rather quickly ( and especially if you are still trying to work out if the QTI is bonafide ) hindering slick verbalisation.

 

[Blue Smartie]

See the last sentence of 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.

 

[Phil E]

To be honest, no gain in ground was a constant problem for us in that game.....along with constantly dropping the ball and kicking it away :frown:

 

[Dickie E]

Who put the ball into the 22?

I don't understand what this means. If there is no 22 extension then I assume you mean who threw it over the touchline and into the rectangle bounded by the 22, goal line and 2 touchlines. If so, that applies to every lineout, doesn't it?

I agree with your outcome - just seems you've taken a tortuous path to get there.

 

[Drift]

Ball taken back?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8J4-19tKcs

This is a question I have been asked quite a lot, great to finally see some footage of it.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Re: Ball taken back?

On another current thread - taken back into 22m, no gain in ground.

I have merged the two threads.

 

[Ronald]

Re: Ball taken back?

Correct, original line of touch was outside 22, therefore taken back and no gain in ground.

 

[OB..]

Who put the ball into the 22? The team that threw in. Their opponents had made the ball dead outside the 22.

At one time some people argued that if the ball when in touch ran past an extended 22m line, it had been put into the 22 by the kcking side. However the law book now makes it clear (diagram p26) that the 22 does NOT extend beyond the field of play.

I don't understand what this means. If there is no 22 extension then I assume you mean who threw it over the touchline and into the rectangle bounded by the 22, goal line and 2 touchlines. If so, that applies to every lineout, doesn't it?

I agree with your outcome - just seems you've taken a tortuous path to get there.

The part you didn't quote gave the rationale for that approach. The ball was never in the 22 until it was thrown in.

What counts is where the ball crossed the touch line. If that is inside the 22, then the ball was in the 22 before it went out.

 

[Browner]

Re: Ball taken back?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8J4-19tKcs

This is a question I have been asked quite a lot, great to finally see some footage of it.

Interesting to see ( and hear) the title of this clip ........ NO !!!!! Seems to be bellowed from the stand at 16seconds into this clip , looks like someone in the stand knows his Law.

Very interesting that a British Lion no9 'appears' not to.

Well done Ref,AR.