RWC England vs Scotland: Maul from LO - Gain in Ground Question

[kaypeegee]

First half c. 11 mins.
Wilkinson clears from inside his own 22m.
Ball bounces in to touch 1m outside Scotland 22m. AR trots along and duly marks LoT just outside 22m.
Scotland defend on the 22m. Ball thrown in from outside 22m. Scotland win the ball from the LO.
Maul formed and moves into the 22m. Scotland clearance kick goes straight into touch near 10m line and gain in gound is given!
Why? Maul appeared to be formed outside 22m and was pushed inside.

19.1 (d) Defending team takes ball into their own 22 at a scrum or lineout. When a defending team throws the ball into a scrum or lineout outside that team’s 22 and the ball then crosses into the team’s 22 without touching an opposition player and then a player from the defending team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.

 

[Taff]

Is it possible the LOT would have been given as the 22m line itself? The 22m line is of course part of the 22.

When I've been TJing, and the LOT is so close to say the HWL or the 22m line, several refs have asked me to move to the line itself. It does keep things neater (both sides straddle the line) but of course it does have repurcussions if the defenders kick to touch. It's only a thought.

 

[kaypeegee]

AR (NO?) definitely marked LoT outside 22m.

 

[OB..]

19.1 (d) Defending team takes ball into their own 22 at a scrum or lineout. When a defending team throws the ball into a scrum or lineout outside that team’s 22 and the ball then crosses into the team’s 22 without touching an opposition player and then a player from the defending team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.

The relevant criterion is bolded. You agree a maul was formed, so a gain in ground is permitted.

 

[dave_clark]

ok, what am i missing? the law says no gain in ground.

 

[kaypeegee]

First half c. 11 mins.

19.1 (d) Defending team takes ball into their own 22 at a scrum or lineout. When a defending team throws the ball into a scrum or lineout outside that team’s 22 and the ball then crosses into the team’s 22 without touching an opposition player and then a player from the defending team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.

OB
I agree a maul was formed from the LO outside the 22m. It was then moved back into 22. As I read 19.1(d) [and as I recall the RFU seminar/power-point when the ELVs were presented] this meant no gain-in-ground.
If I am wrong - fine - but it doesn't make sense.

 

[Dixie]

OB was perhaps posting in haste, without giving the matter his customary attention. The touch, tackle, ruck and maul are all things that happen after the ball has crossed the 22 according to the Law, in order to reset the availability of a gain in ground. It is, however, a matter of interpretation whether the timing of the ruck or maul is an essential point. Why should a maul forming after the ball crosses the line reset the position, while one that forms before, and persists as the ball crosses the line, does not do so?

 

[kaypeegee]

Dixie
IMHO "consistency"!
My understading has been ...
Ball caught just outside 22. Ball passed into 22 and kicked directly out; = no-gain-in-ground (NGIG)
Tackle just outside 22. BC places ball into 22 and kicked directly out; NGIG
Ruck just outside 22. Ball rucked back into 22 and kicked directly out; NGIG
Scrum just outside ditto .... NGIG

I have always assumed it is the same for a maul formed outside the 22 and pushed back over the 22. i.e. NGIG

 

[Davet]

Coc... Er I mean error by TO3?