[Law] Quiz 10 (of 10) : A kick in time

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without the ball touching another player. - This is 5.7.c. [/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I read this as the ball is kicked and goes into touch, without hitting another player (ie an 11 trying to catch it to stop it going out). I take this to mean that a bounce off the ground is irrelevant and the line out can still be taken. I'm no ref, as I've said previously but that's just how I'd interpret this.[/FONT]
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I’m not for one minute suggesting I would do this in a game and I am aware of the dangers of reading too much into the wording but on a quiet Friday afternoon and having had 18.8c raised by Camquin I had a quick look. The wording says that the kicking team gains the throw if “A player kicks the ball into touch (either directly or first bouncing in the field of play or HITTING A PLAYER or the referee)”. So if Green kick from hand at a penalty (A “Garryowen” or “up and under” in rugby league terms) and the arriving Green player fails to catch it but the ball bounces off him into touch surely by the wording of the law Green would still be entitled to the throw? The law doesn’t distinguish between an attacking or defending player, it merely says a player, or have I missed something?
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without the ball touching another player. - This is 5.7.c. [/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]I read this as the ball is kicked and goes into touch, without hitting another player (ie an 11 trying to catch it to stop it going out). I take this to mean that a bounce off the ground is irrelevant and the line out can still be taken. I'm no ref, as I've said previously but that's just how I'd interpret this.[/FONT]

There's a Definitions section that defines "kicked directly into touch", and it explicitly states that the ball can't land first on the playing area.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2#let11
 

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
1} A - The law uses the word DIRECTLY (we know from quiz 3, that the law can use the same word to mean different thing) then goes on to define it. Without tapping, and without touching another player. Why if they intended to include touching the ground didn't they include that clause?
2} G
3} Q - Blue took the ball into touch
4} S - Anybody else think this could be a PK for intentional offending/taking the piss?
5} Y
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Rich_NL - I've read that definition, but when you click on it it tells you that it applies in law 18. Not 5.7... So "kicked Directly into touch" doesn't apply for ending the match from a PK. 5.7.c just stipulates that the ball cannot be tapped and then kicked or touch another player (attacking or defending). In those scenarios yes, half over. If the bounce had a material affect and therefore impact it would link the definition to Law 5 too.
Law 18: Touch, quick throw and lineout[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ball is kicked directly into touch from a kick-off or restart kick
[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Law 18: Touch, quick throw and lineout
Ball is kicked directly into touch from within own 22 or in-goal
[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Law 18: Touch, quick throw and lineout
Ball is kicked directly into touch from outside the 22



[/FONT]

There are another 2 mentions in the definitions but they are for leisure rugby (Beach and Tag Rugby), so I suggest they don't apply to this.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
Scenario 1 The kick bounces

Answer - B End of half (the ball didn't go directly to touch, it bounced)

1} A - The law uses the word DIRECTLY [...] then goes on to define it. Without tapping, and without touching another player. Why if they intended to include touching the ground didn't they include that clause?

thepercy - that is a great argument.

Isn't it incredible that even for a very simple, everyday scenario (this could easily happen in our games tomorrow .. it's not at all infrequent to miss touch, or for the ball to bounce) there are two answers, both plausible.

thepercy - I don't think your interpretation is what the Law makers intended but your logic is good, and I concede that it's perfectly possible that your interpretation is indeed what they meant.
 
Top