QTI question

[ChrisR]

I infer from that comment that the logic behind this is unknown to you. I've explained it before, but happy to do so again if you want.

Please do.

 

[RobLev]

When I said: "Much easier to remove the restriction ...." I was reflecting on OB's comment " The aim seems to be to reduce the opportunities for a team to gain ground by kicking to touch."

I am not advocating law change. Just thinking out loud that the restriction of 'no gain' if taken back really doesn't have that much of an impact in the game for the trouble it causes.

Thanks - now understood. But I think I disagree - see below.

If 'no gain' was simply determined from where the kick is taken it would be much simpler to judge and would still have the desired effect of keeping the ball in play.

The concept of the 22 extending into touch and gain or no gain a product of where the ball is retrieved instead of where it crosses the touch line is just silly.

"No gain" if the ball kicked is kicked directly to touch prevents the kicker simply wellying it into Row Z; it forces him to bounce the ball in play, and hence to decide whether to kick for touch with a risk of the ball being caught and run back, or even simply to kick behind the opposition so the chasers will get there to "fix" the gain in ground.

Preventing gain in ground if the ball is taken back ensures that mindless wellying is confined to situations where the defence manages a turnover inside the 22.

 

[ChrisR]

I totally agree that limiting gain of ground to kicks from inside the 22 is a plus for the game.

My thinking is that the restriction on taking it back doesn't buy you that much for the added complication.

 

[Dickie E]

Please do.

Let me preface my comments below with:
1. I am not an advocate either for or against this ruling, and
2. as such I have no interest in entering into an argument.

Back in the day a player could run or pass the ball back into his 22 and then kick the ball out for a gain ground.

The powers that be decided that this led to overly negative defensive play so 2 changes were made at various times:
1. player was prohibited from running ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground, and
2. player was prohibited from passing ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground.

We saw the same type of thing in soccer. A ball passed back to the goal keeper can't be picked up.

The principle here then is this: a player is not able to benefit by playing negatively and putting the ball back into his/her own 22.

So the question here is this: is a defender who picks up the ball in touch 15 metres from his own goal line and takes a QTI breaking the principle outlined above?

I'll leave readers to come to their own answer.

Like it or not, that is the logic.

 

[OB..]

In the OP, no imaginary or imaginative 22 extension applied. So gain in ground?

If they are playing under that ELV, then the sequence was that the player collected the ball inside the 22, then took it outside before finally taking it back in again. No gain.

 

[Dickie E]

If they are playing under that ELV, then the sequence was that the player collected the ball inside the 22, then took it outside before finally taking it back in again. No gain.

So if he had simply collected the ball inside the 22 and not then wandered out of the 22, then gain in ground?

 

[OB..]

So if he had simply collected the ball inside the 22 and not then wandered out of the 22, then gain in ground?

Under the ELV I assume that would be OK. The ball has rolled past the 22m line. Why would it only count if it did so outside the field of play?! (Crossing the touchline to take a throw-in does not count as leaving the 22 because the law requires you to do that.)

I just hope the whole idea dies a very quick death (like the ELV making an offside line at a tackle).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Under the ELV I assume that would be OK. The ball has rolled past the 22m line. Why would it only count if it did so outside the field of play?! (Crossing the touchline to take a throw-in does not count as leaving the 22 because the law requires you to do that.)

I just hope the whole idea dies a very quick death (like the ELV making an offside line at a tackle).

Ever since the "taken back no gain", I have always regarded the 22m as a "closed box" (which is exactly how the Law defines and draws it in Law 1). If the ball goes into touch without first going into, or crossing through that box, and you throw the ball into the box, you are responsible for putting it there, so no gain.

This ELV is obviously someone's BS agenda at SANZAAR. IMO, if an attacking player is skilful enough to put in a grubber/wipers kick that crosses the touchline just outside the 22m, the defence should not be allowed to get around it by taking the ball into the 22m through some harebrained loophole involving imaginary lines outside the field of play that have no basis, either by fact or implication, in any of the touch laws.