QTI taken behind the 22m line

[Ian_Cook]

...not this threads scenario, but id argue that it's happened before! my wound healed, but the scar remains visible if searched for :chairB.

https://youtu.be/2AMbnEe66oI?t=404

What? You're not suggesting that in Wales the act by Campese of knocking the ball forwards intentionally was not ruled as a penalty try, but it was in other countries? If so, then I disagree.

Firstly, there is this....

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=ruYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6619,2683566&hl=en

1983, Clive Norling, a Welsh referee, ruled a penalty try in almost identical circumstances. The only difference was that in the 1991 RWC Final, there was plenty of cover coming across that would likely have prevented the try being scored. This was explained by the referee himself in a recent issue of The World Rugby Show. If you are signed up to Sky Sports, you can watch it it here

http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/9895378/world-rugby-show-25th-june

 

[Ian_Cook]

Did your meet up with another Super Rugby ref eventuate last night in Wellington?

I just got back from Wellington.

What a game!!! These guys must be so fit to keep up the pace they went at. Highlanders thoroughly deserved their win, only the fifth time in 20 years that the away team won the final.

This time, I caught up with my referee acquaintance. I had a pre-printed sheet which I made from diagrams similar to those I posted earlier in this thread. I asked him to write G (for gain) or NG (for no gain) next to each scenario, for how he would be expected to rule in a match.

Here is a scan I just made....

He remarked that #2 and #4 looked the same.

I said that in #2 the ball was picked up in touch outside the 22m, and in #4, inside the 22m.

He replied "...makes no difference. What counts where the ball crossed the touchline."

I asked "What about the line of touch?"

He replied "The line of touch is only relevant to where the line-out will form, unless there's a quick throw in, then the line of touch is the point where the ball was thrown in" We had a bit of a discussion about this and I will post some more when I have time to check some of the Law references he gave me.

NOTE: I first got to know this man through business, and nothing to do with refereeing or rugby. His wife and I were in the same business at that time, and I met him at a Conference some years ago. He has asked me not to name, names, so I will respect that.

 

[Dickie E]

did you tell him that CJ disgarees with him?

Also curious why he wishes to be anonymous

 

[Ian_Cook]

did you tell him that CJ disgarees with him?

Not before I asked. I simply wanted get an NZRU referee viewpoint without preconceptions.

After he answered, I mentioned the SARU and ARU GMG's. He said he couldn't see how they could come to those conclusions from the way the Law is written.

Also curious why he wishes to be anonymous

I didn't ask, but I guess its he is expressing an official viewpoint without official approval (think Paddy O'brien, Stu Dickinson, San Siro)

 

[Dickie E]

He said he couldn't see how they could come to those conclusions from the way the Law is written.

Rather myopic of him. Not even a "I can see the reasoning from both sides but reach a particular conclusion" from him?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Rather myopic of him. Not even a "I can see the reasoning from both sides but reach a particular conclusion" from him?

I have trouble seeing past Law 1; the 22m does not extend into touch, either by the diagram (which IS a part of Law as stated in the Laws) or any description on Law 1. Nor is it even implied to be so anywhere in the Laws of the Game.

I see it as an example of Occams Razor;

On the one hand, you have the majority view, that 22m ends at the touchline, as specified in existing law,

On the other hand you have the minority view, that WR has intentionally created a dramatic and significant change in Law 1, the most fundamental of all the laws; , defining of the very ground upon which the game is played on, without actually changing Law 1, and without informing any of the member National Unions that they have changed Law 1.

I guess the rest of the world is myopic too!

 

[Blackberry]

The rights/benefits of a throw in are determined by where it crossed the touch line. I'm sticking with that.

 

[Browner]

The rights/benefits of a throw in are determined by where it crossed the touch line. I'm sticking with that.

& by doing so you may think its easier , but You've opened up a new scenario of potential dispute.

did/didn't it cross the 22 line?

how do you ever see if the catchers back foot has meant that ball has landed in this imaginary extended area??? When there isn't an extended 22m line to give you a visual indication & the catcher is stretching to have his foot back within the imaginary extended 22m area ????

At elite level it will require an AR to best guess ( and then TV technicians with on screen trajectory graphics will then prove him wrong ! ) Or we need to paint the 22m line beyond the FoP into the perimeter (& beyond) to avoid the AR having his eyes searching in two directions at once!, even then for 'below AR level rugby' it will be an impossible ask.

Aside from the fact that this interpretation is contrary to L1 or L19 , new arguments will no doubt follow ( good luck!) , take a slide ruler and a laser pen Blackberry !

Strict adherence to L1 & L19 ( 'cause' ) is a much easier "line to see".

& I expect, when tested, the lawmakers will agree.

 

[OB..]

Also curious why he wishes to be anonymous

Perhaps because he does not have control over how his views are presented?

 

[Dickie E]

Perhaps because he does not have control over how his views are presented?

Well, it's only a yes or no question. "Here's my view but don't tell anyone it's my view". Hardly compelling, is it?

 

[Dickie E]

On the one hand, you have the majority view, half a dozen community level refs on a chat room and mysterious un-named "elite ref" in Wellington

On the other hand you have the minority view, CJ (one of the top 3 in the world) and the ARU

(msf)

 

[OB..]

Well, it's only a yes or no question. "Here's my view but don't tell anyone it's my view". Hardly compelling, is it?

I don't see how that discredits his view, which confirms that there is a difference of opinion at high levels, and is in line with advice I got over here.

 

[Dickie E]

I don't see how that discredits his view,

Surely someone who is prepared to put his name to his views is more credible than someone who isn't? I guess similar to your "un-named source"

 

[OB..]

On the one hand, you have the majority view, half a dozen community level refs on a chat room and mysterious un-named "elite ref" in Wellington

On the other hand you have the minority view, CJ (one of the top 3 in the world) and the ARU

Community level? Does that include National Panel ?

Why should we assume that the South African view is the official WR view when we know our own senior referees disagree, and do not referee that way?

It could be a tragedy in the making if WR does not make its position clear at least to those taking part in the RWC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Surely someone who is prepared to put his name to his views is more credible than someone who isn't? I guess similar to your "un-named source"

Well, will you put your name to your views?

I put my name to mine, I post here under my real name, not a pseudonym.

 

[The Fat]

It could be a tragedy in the making if WR does not make its position clear at least to those taking part in the RWC.

Agree

 

[Browner]

Well, will you put your name to your views?
I put my name to mine, I post here under my real name, not a pseudonym.

Dickie,

Re: above

Anyone who owns editorial control, or the power to remove/block/erase dissenting opinion or comment , or the power to threaten/ ban the poster Might feel amply protected to post in 'forums' under their real full name

Conversely, those that don't, probably wont..

RR.com Forum Moderators :
US/Canada:
Bryan
ddjamo
SimonSmith

Europe:
Davet
DrStu
Phil E
OB..
Simon Thomas

Oceana/Asia:
Robert Burns
Dickie E
Ian Cook
This list shows that only 4/11 (36%) choose to do this, so you are among the majority.

 

[ChrisR]

Now I feel sneaky so I must confess that my real name is Deep Throat.

 

[The Fat]

Now I feel sneaky so I must confess that my real name is Deep Throat.

And when the name don't fit, I'll change it:wink:

 

[Blackberry]

& by doing so you may think its easier , but You've opened up a new scenario of potential dispute.

did/didn't it cross the 22 line?

how do you ever see if the catchers back foot has meant that ball has landed in this imaginary extended area??? When there isn't an extended 22m line to give you a visual indication & the catcher is stretching to have his foot back within the imaginary extended 22m area ????

At elite level it will require an AR to best guess ( and then TV technicians with on screen trajectory graphics will then prove him wrong ! ) Or we need to paint the 22m line beyond the FoP into the perimeter (& beyond) to avoid the AR having his eyes searching in two directions at once!, even then for 'below AR level rugby' it will be an impossible ask.

Aside from the fact that this interpretation is contrary to L1 or L19 , new arguments will no doubt follow ( good luck!) , take a slide ruler and a laser pen Blackberry !

Strict adherence to L1 & L19 ( 'cause' ) is a much easier "line to see".

& I expect, when tested, the lawmakers will agree.

Hi Browner, loved your mix of generations with your references (slide rule and laser pen)

Not so hard to decide where it went out (don't we have the same problem with touch near the try line?), its what we are trained to interpret.