I can see the logic for an asymmetric sanction
If the team with possession infringe , they lose possession
If the team without possession infringe .. well they don't have possession to lose .. so the sanction is a FK
I see your logic - BUT I can't recall any other law that provides a different sanction based on who is in possession? Are you aware of any other?
So for me - I just can't, and won't, apply a vastly different sanction for the exact same offence. That is not equitable.(noting that if I did then I've made a error in consistency and I expect to be pulled up for it!)
So for the scenario I'm applying the FK. Pretty much based on the reasons the others cite.
I think the FK can also be backed up by the similarity of the Quick Throw law
[LAWS]18.6. The ball must reach the five-metre line before it is played and a player must not prevent the ball from travelling five metres.
Sanction: Free-kick.[/LAWS]
It is the same sort of offence (and sanction).
Surely that law was derived and based on the lineout laws (being a very similar 'action') when the QT came into the game and it's based on the intent that no player can step or reach into the 5m channel? It applies equally to the throwing team as the non-throwing team.
In terms of the "Blocking" law I interpret that to mean someone has created an obstruction (which is a definition of "block") on the thrower or the ball path reaching the 5m line. Under current laws, the only person in a legal position inside the 5m channel that could possibly do that would be the player opposing the thrower ie opposing hooker. But I think the 2 x 2m position criteria on the opposing hooker has now prevented that player from being able to block - but IIRC the 2 x 2m criteria is only relatively new? (OB??? do you know?). Prior to the 2x2 Im sure opposing hooker could virtually stand on the line-of-touch so could be in a position to be able to block...but the block law prevented them from doing so?
Maybe in eras gone by, players could legally be in position to block, so the block law came in to stop them??
So under current laws there really is no one that can be in a legal position to block - and they can be sanctioned under that? The blocking law within the lineout section possibly is now redundant but left in there "just to make sure covering law"?!