Taken back in

[VM75]

sorry I was on holiday when this match happened & i've only just watched it - but it concerns a situation that might have been discussed on RR previously.

Can someone tell me the best way to search for old threads ?

In this clip watch from 13:23 on the game clock. Finn Russell makes a huge kick from open play that crosses touch outside the French 22, but rolls along the hoardings & is picked up from outside the playing area but inside the playing enclosure (imagine if the 22 line extended beyond the playing area) A QTI occurs & eventually its kicked to touch by France.

https://youtu.be/oy37qQG8Vus?t=1279

The gain in ground isn't allowed, but i've heard it suggested that this ref got it wrong and i've been told that this subject has been strongly debated before on RR , so id like to find it.

?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Line out mark was outside 22, French chose to take it inside 22 so ref was correct no gain in ground.

 

[Taff]

Line out mark was outside 22, French chose to take it inside 22 so ref was correct no gain in ground.

Exactly.

The Line Of Touch (LoT) is outside the 22. The French decide to take the QTI from inside their 22 ie they have taken it back in - so no gain in ground.

It's not an issue - regardless of how much noise the crowd make or how much the French coach shakes his head.

 

[Dan_A]

Can someone tell me the best way to search for old threads ? ?

There is a search function but it was hard to use for this particular one - i found the below link under the 'lineouts' section of the forum:-

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19651-QTI-question

 

[OB..]

This was something the South Africans started. They decided that if the ball when in touch rolled past an imaginary extension of the 22m line, the ball was in the 22 and had been put there by the kicker.

It seems to have come from observing that the definition of the 22 in the laws did not mention the touchlines. It still doesn't, but the diagram in Law 1 makes it clear the 22 does not extend beyond the touchlines. I believe even SA has now dropped the idea.

 

[VM75]

There is a search function but it was hard to use for this particular one - i found the below link under the 'lineouts' section of the forum:-

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19651-QTI-question

Thanks Dan_A, an interesting read.

So, whenever the LOT is outside the 22 then any QTI that put the ball into the 22 results in no gain in ground if its kicked out. That's simple enough to understand & makes complete sense.

Not sure why AUS or SA unions etc. would want to complicate the subject.

 

[DocY]

Not sure why AUS or SA unions etc. would want to complicate the subject.

Fairness? For me, it seems unfair that you should not get the gain in ground unless you actually carried the ball backwards.

But if the consensus is that there's no gain in ground, that's what I'll referee to.

 

[ChuckieB]

Not sure why AUS or SA unions etc. would want to complicate the subject .

Was it the unions themselves or the just coaches pushing the boundaries of the law in the hopes that it might open up some possible extra choices. That's what coaches do.

 

[OB..]

Fairness? For me, it seems unfair that you should not get the gain in ground unless you actually carried the ball backwards.

Backwards? Not the criterion. Who put the ball into the 22? If the ball crossed the touchline outside the 22, then the kick did not put it there. A QT may be taken into the 22, but the throwing side is then responsible for putting it there.

 

[crossref]

the key is whether you understand 'the 22' to be a rectangular area, or a line that extends across the pitch.

i agree with the rectangle interpretation, it makes more sense.

One reason for this, is that a ball rolling along in touch might hit a hoarding or kit bag and from that be diverted which would complicate things even more.

 

[OB..]

In the early days of the game, when the ball crossed the side line the first person to touch it down earned the right for his team to return the ball into play. That is why it is called "touch".

We have long since dropped that approach - and I have no wish to see a version of it revived. Do we really want players chasing a kick into touch to make sure it doesn't roll past an imaginary line?

 

[VM75]

Backwards? Not the criterion. Who put the ball into the 22? If the ball crossed the touchline outside the 22, then the kick did not put it there. A QT may be taken into the 22, but the throwing side is then responsible for putting it there.

isn't it 'any' repositioning from the LoT into the 22 where there can't be a gain in ground kick? ie..it's always the throwers who decide to move away from the position of the LoT not anyone else.

 

[OB..]

isn't it 'any' repositioning from the LoT into the 22 where there can't be a gain in ground kick? ie..it's always the throwers who decide to move away from the position of the LoT not anyone else.

In the early days of the restriction, players tried running back past the 22m flag and throwing in from there, claiming a gain in ground from the subsequent kick. It was quickly made clear that they were wrong.

This business of the ball rolling past the imaginary extension of the 22m line was a new wrinkle that surfaced in South Africa. Their referees site argued in favour of it.

 

[crossref]

What about a ball entering touch outside the 22m, that bounces on a hoarding and bounces back INTO the the 22m

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

What about a ball entering touch outside the 22m, that bounces on a hoarding and bounces back INTO the the 22m

Once the ball is out of play it is dead and can't be made live again except by a player's actions. So when it goes into touch and is dead, it is outside the 22m, regardless of where it finishes and regardless of what it bounces off. The player taking the quick lineout in this case is the one putting it into the 22.

 

[The Fat]

Re: OB's reference to South Africa's view when a ball goes into touch outside the 22 and a player gathers the ball "behind" the 22 and takes a quick throw in, I have checked ARU Game Management Guidelines back as far as 2010 and the following is still in there in the 2017 version so I would suggest that it may still be a SANZAR thing (Cue Ian C)

Put back into own 22m
• When a ball is passed into the 22 metre area and is touched by an opposing player, or a tackle, ruck, scrum, maul or lineout is formed, then that team can now kick directly into touch and gain ground.
• The ball is considered to have been ‘taken back’ into a team’s 22m area in the following situations:
o When a team wins possession of a ball from a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout where the mark is outside of the 22m area, even though the rear participants may have their feet within the 22m area
o When a quick throw-in is passed from in front of the 22m line, back across the 22m line and into the 22m area
o When a quick throw-in is taken within the 22m area after a player gathers it from in touch but in front of the 22 metre line and then takes it behind the 22m line to throw.

I had asked for further clarification of this from the ARU prior to the 2015 RWC pointing out that there was an opposing view in the NH but did not receive a response from memory, at least not one that I thought was satisfactory

 

[ChrisR]

I think that the 'taken back' feature is an unnecessary complication for referees that adds little to the game.

The SA extension of the 22 is another step down the rabbit hole. For what?

 

[OB..]

• The ball is considered to have been ‘taken back’ into a team’s 22m area in the following situations:
[...]
o When a quick throw-in is taken within the 22m area after a player gathers it from in touch but in front of the 22 metre line and then takes it behind the 22m line to throw.

Since there is no 22m line in touch, I would assume that "in front of the 22 metre line" refers to where the ball went into touch.

When a player stands on the touchline to throw in, it is of course easy to determine which side of the 22m line he is standing. When he picks up a moving ball 5m outside the field of play, it isn't.

 

[VM75]

What about a ball entering touch outside the 22m, that bounces on a hoarding and bounces back INTO the the 22m

If the LOT is clearly outside the 22, then however the defenders retrieve the ball [including ricochet from whatever object it bounces off of] is entirely immaterial. They will have moved the position of the throw from the original LOT, so no kick gain can ever be achieved.

I can't see a reason to make the subject more complicated.

 

[ChuckieB]

As I read this post I haven't quite gathered consensus or direction as to how actually to apply this. Who applies what for their circumstances?

Without presuming the outcome, my preferred view would be to see a LO as a new and separate phase after the ball has gone dead. If the team throwing in are permitted to take it anywhere inside the LoT and their own goal line, as they are, then so be it. Until ball is in the FoP, the 22 is not relevant.

i believe it also removes all unnecessary complication around hoardings, an imaginary line, etc. Yes the player may get his gain in ground, but he does lose the throw in by his action. Why is the gain in ground of any more importance than possession at the throw in? If the team of the original kicker are concerned about the possibility they should seek to keep the ball in play in the first place.

so for me, it is what it is, and I have no problem applying that. Can I do it here? Have I missed some other angle that might make it contradict some other area of the laws?

Separately to clarify, If he throws from outside the 22 across the 22, then that will have been taken back in as it will have happened in the FoP. I have seen for standard lineouts refs be very careful on where the players line up when the LoT is on or around the 22 just for this reason.

I haven't gone through the history of the older thread. It seemed very long and contentious!