[Law] Question on Law 10.2

[Blackberry]

I see it thus; the defender with no options left cleverly thumped the ball backwards / sideways out of the attacker's grasp, counting on the attacker touching it on its way to touch. If it works, 22 d.o., if it doesn't, PT. He is quite within his rights to do this, and if he fails to do it within the laws the attacker is compensated with a penalty try.

 

[Ian_Cook]

What about this:

IMO, your clip is a PT and YC. Regardless of the fact that it finally came of the attacking player, the defender was attempting to knock the ball into touch, and it went into touch.

Same as this... (ignore the commentators and listen to the conversation between Joubert and his TMO)

 

[Pegleg]

what about where it is "C&O" that a player has thrown or knocked the ball with the intention of putting it into touch but it hits another player (or indeed the corner flag) bounces, and stays in field of play .... play on, right ? despite his intention?

Yes play on. No offence has occured.

 

[Balones]

I think you have to take every incident on its merits. In #6 could the defending player have very skilfully knocked the ball back and onto the attacking players hands causing him to knock on and then the knock on causing the ball to go into touch? It is certainly not clear that he was trying to knock it into touch. There was a lot of upward movement by his arm. #22 is C&O.
If it is a C&O attempt to hit the ball to touch and it accidentally hits the player then by all means P.
Quite often in in situations that are not C&O or are open to interpretation I would support the referee if he could clearly and confidently support his decision. In #6 I would support a referee if he went for a PT but at the same time if another referee went for a play on/22 then I could support that. I personally based on the video viewpoint would have gone for the latter. If I was refereeing on my own like most of us do I would expect the referee to definitely go for the latter, especially if you see the AR's position in this clip. He could not possibly have seen precisely what had happened. (The ref probably had been in a similar or worse position than the AR.)

 

[Dickie E]

Yes play on. No offence has occured.

I agree and it is black & white for me. Ball needs to go into touch directly for me to even consider a penalty. The road to hell is paved with intentions.

 

[DocY]

I agree and it is black & white for me. Ball needs to go into touch directly for me to even consider a penalty. The road to hell is paved with intentions.

I'm not too keen on this interpretation - it leads to the situation where a non-offending player can 'save' an offending opponent from sanction and is worse off for doing so.

Taking the example of a situation like the first clip. Blue might pull out and deliberately not touch the ball, leading to a PT and YC, but in touching the ball he stops the infringement being committed and hands over possession (if he hasn't grounded it). At best he's awarded the try, but the conversion is out wide and there's no YC.

This doesn't sit very well with me.

 

[collybs]

I'm not too keen on this interpretation - it leads to the situation where a non-offending player can 'save' an offending opponent from sanction and is worse off for doing so.

Taking the example of a situation like the first clip. Blue might pull out and deliberately not touch the ball, leading to a PT and YC, but in touching the ball he stops the infringement being committed and hands over possession (if he hasn't grounded it). At best he's awarded the try, but the conversion is out wide and there's no YC.

This doesn't sit very well with me.

How are you going to "sell" the penalty if the ball does not go into touch? (No offence committed as the the offence is propelling the ball INTO touch

 

[crossref]

I'm not too keen on this interpretation - it leads to the situation where a non-offending player can 'save' an offending opponent from sanction and is worse off for doing so..

it's just part of rugby, isn't it -- it's like the kick off that was heading directly into touch, for options, except that it hits a defender on the way - for an attacking line out !

Not 'fair' or deserved, just luck...

 

[Dan_A]

I can't help thinking that what the red player did was actually very clever and skillful - the more I look the more I think he was intending to do exactly what he did (i.e. legally push the ball sideways onto blue, causing a knock on and saving a try).

If he had failed in his attempt and ended up knocking the ball into touch, then PT and card. But I can think of many examples of something that is either well played or a penalty depending on the skillfulness of execution.

 

[L'irlandais]

linked article has short match highlights. Nigel Owens says it was a fair contest and not a deliberate attempt to knock the ball into touch.

So the correct answer to that post is [laws]6.A.4(a)
The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.[/laws]Nigel Owens is a consistent ref, restart with a drop out, is a good call; there are a lot more controversial calls made in TV rugby. That's just splitting hairs, to decide otherwise at the grassroots, as neither match ref nor AR were close enough to see what's happening.

 

[DocY]

How are you going to "sell" the penalty if the ball does not go into touch? (No offence committed as the the offence is propelling the ball INTO touch

Deliberate infringement - I'm of the opinion that this covers attempted infringement. Sorry for invoking a straw man, but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

 

[crossref]

but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

well, you might give a PK to make a point, but you wouldn't give the RC that would be deserved if it connected.

 

[DocY]

it's just part of rugby, isn't it -- it's like the kick off that was heading directly into touch, for options, except that it hits a defender on the way - for an attacking line out !

Not 'fair' or deserved, just luck...

On a point of pedantry, a kickoff into touch isn't an infringement, but would you consider a deliberate, low, hard kick off aimed at a player on the touchline (which bounced off him into touch) OK? I don't think I would and I think that situation is closer to an intentional knock into touch than a misplaced kick off.

 

[crossref]

a kick off directly into touch is an infringement

 

[collybs]

Deliberate infringement - I'm of the opinion that this covers attempted infringement. Sorry for invoking a straw man, but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

Deliberate infringment of what law? (There is no law that says attempting to knock the ball into touch is an infringement.)

(10.2.a)
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree with Dan #29, the defender has skillful prevented a try.
No offense was committed (see #25), in which case it would be very wrong to award a PT and YC

Compare NO's fair decision here to the controversy of Mike Phillip's try awarded following the QTLO, which denied Ireland a deserved Grand Slam. There is zero controversy in NO's awarding a 22 drop out. You may not agree with his decision, but he was the match referee, so your agreement in Not required.

 

[DocY]

. You may not agree with his decision, but he was the match referee, so your agreement in Not required.

I think we can still discuss whether we think the decision is right or not - it won't change the match, no, but will help us make consistent decisions.

The discussion is whether an attempted deliberate knock into touch could be penalised. NO said he didn't think such an attempt was made in this case, fair enough, but that makes it a simple decision doesn't advance the debate much.

 

[L'irlandais]

Only Keith Earls did NOT deliberately knock the ball into touch.
He skillful tapped the ball off the attacking player who knocked on into touch.

Restart 22 drop out. Good call. Rugby laws are about creating a fair contest for the ball.
If the newbie wishes to advance the debate, then he will need a better example. That clip doesn't show any cynical infringement.

 

[crossref]

Only Keith Earls did NOT deliberately knock the ball into touch.
He skillful tapped the ball off the attacking player who knocked on into touch.

Restart 22 drop out. Good call.

well, NO ! It's a bad call : as we all know: a knock on in the in-goal is always a 5m scrum 12.1(d) .

(let's not go there again!)

 

[L'irlandais]

Do forgive me for over simplifying, but from a grassroots perspective the referee will not see a clear and obvious knock on in goal, given his position. Nor will he have the benefit of a TMO
[laws]22.11 Ball dead in in-goal
(a). When the ball touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was played into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.12[/laws]