Taken back in

[Dickie E]

As far as I am aware the changes detailed below are still in place in SH:

[LAWS]c. Quick throw-in

i. The ball is kicked by an attacking team and the ball rolls into touch outside the defending team’s 22 and keeps on rolling. If it then rolls beyond the imaginary extension of the defending teams’ 22-metre line and a defender picks up and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks directly into touch outside of his 22, the line-out will be where the ball went out. [/LAWS]

http://www.ruggaworld.com/2016/01/21/slight-law-changes-for-2016-super-rugby/

I also stand by the post I made in April last year:

Let me preface my comments below with:
1. I am not an advocate either for or against this ruling, and
2. as such I have no interest in entering into an argument.

Back in the day a player could run or pass the ball back into his 22 and then kick the ball out for a gain ground.

The powers that be decided that this led to overly negative defensive play so 2 changes were made at various times:
1. player was prohibited from running ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground, and
2. player was prohibited from passing ball into his own 22 and benefiting from gain in ground.

We saw the same type of thing in soccer. A ball passed back to the goal keeper can't be picked up.

The principle here then is this: a player is not able to benefit by playing negatively and putting the ball back into his/her own 22.

So the question here is this: is a defender who picks up the ball in touch 15 metres from his own goal line and takes a QTI breaking the principle outlined above?

I'll leave readers to come to their own answer.

Like it or not, that is the logic.

 

[ChuckieB]

As far as I am aware the changes detailed below are still in place in SH:

[LAWS]c. Quick throw-in

i. The ball is kicked by an attacking team and the ball rolls into touch outside the defending team’s 22 and keeps on rolling. If it then rolls beyond the imaginary extension of the defending teams’ 22-metre line and a defender picks up and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks directly into touch outside of his 22, the line-out will be where the ball went out. [/LAWS]

http://www.ruggaworld.com/2016/01/21/slight-law-changes-for-2016-super-rugby/

I also stand by the post I made in April last year:

Ok, thanks. So, our imaginary extension to the line outside the Field of Play (where the roll of the ball could be influenced by a factor outside the FoP, e.g. an advertising hoarding).

 

[ChuckieB]

As I develop my understanding, I am thus interested to see the information given on the principle of the development "back in the day".

As a thought out loud , currently I could quite readily make the inference that the wording suggests, "an action that can be seen as having been initiated within the field of play". Our QTI is initiated from outside the FoP. As such it wouldn't be relevant to our, "potentially, the ball has become dead" situation".

A QTI from LoT outside the 22 , back in, meets their criteria as it will have crossed the line within the field of play.

For me, a gain in ground at the expense of loss of possession doesn't necessarily have negative connotations.

 

[Dickie E]

As I develop my understanding, I am thus interested to see the information given on the principle of the development "back in the day".

As a thought out loud , currently I could quite readily make the inference that the wording suggests, "an action that can be seen as having been initiated within the field of play". Our QTI is initiated from outside the FoP. As such it wouldn't be relevant to our, "potentially, the ball has become dead" situation".

A QTI from LoT outside the 22 , back in, meets their criteria as it will have crossed the line within the field of play.

For me, a gain in ground at the expense of loss of possession doesn't necessarily have negative connotations.

What is your point? The way you write English seems more designed to confuse than clarify.

 

[ChuckieB]

What is your point? The way you write English seems more designed to confuse than clarify.

Sorry. English is a complicated and confusing language and open to lots of interpretation and being my first language sometimes makes it worse. Lawyers make a lot of money from the fact.

Stripping things back to the facts as I identify them:

• A lineout or QTI is initiated with the ball being outside the playing enclosure.
• A QTI may be taken anywhere from the LoT back to the goal line.
• The 22 is only defined as a line and area within the playing enclosure.
• The team kicking loses possession of the ball.

The clause, "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.", serves to turn what could have been very simple situation on its head.

Without it, a gain in ground would have indeed been the outcome 100% of the time and always at the expense of a loss of possession for the kicking team at the subsequent lineout.

I would ultimately suggest it is a piece of law that could well do with being revised to make it simpler. I believe a gain in ground is a proportionate beneficial outcome given a guaranteed loss of possession to the kicking side.

Don't know when it arrived in law but, if part of an update process, more than likely it doesn't appear to have been fully thought out.

 

[Dickie E]

The clause, "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.", serves to turn what could have been very simple situation on its head.

QUOTE]

No, the whole idea is to discourage teams retreating into their own 22 and then gaining a benefit from it. Similar to what I think they call "backcourt violation" in basketball

 

[Rich_NL]

I would ultimately suggest it is a piece of law that could well do with being revised to make it simpler. I believe a gain in ground is a proportionate beneficial outcome given a guaranteed loss of possession to the kicking side.

Don't know when it arrived in law but, if part of an update process, more than likely it doesn't appear to have been fully thought out.

Ball-carrying team taking back into the 22 always leads to no gain in ground by direct kick-out if it happens in the FoP. If the other team has the skill to kick it out outside the 22, why should the BC team be able to undo that by intentionally taking the ball back for a QTI in the 22? What's the rationale behind exempting that?

If your argument is against not gaining ground from a kick in any circumstance - as far as I understand from others in this thread, it was defined that way precisely because the lawmakers believed that it was too beneficial to conservative, defensive play. We can charitably give them the benefit of experience and awareness of the issues they're addressing. What's your contrary belief based on?

 

[Pinky]

Chuckie B, as I understand it - Lineout outside the 22, there will be no gain in ground for a direct kick into touch by the defence whether it is kicked from inside or outside the 22. Why then can the defenders "engineer" a gain in ground by taking the quick throw-in behind the 22? For some reason the SH decided in particular circumstances that this should be allowed, but I believe the commonly held view in the NH is that there would be no gain in ground.

 

[ChuckieB]

The clause, "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.", serves to turn what could have been very simple situation on its head.

QUOTE]
,
No, the whole idea is to discourage teams retreating into their own 22 and then gaining a benefit from it. Similar to what I think they call "backcourt violation" in basketball

I don't know the evolution, negativity vs speeding the game up, but Backcourt violation doesn't really allow a team to benefit significantly. The 24s shot clock, sees to that.

I am just suggesting that a loss of possession might be considered a proportionate downside for the negative play that seeks to the put ball into touch in the first place. Direct or in direct, it is still at the very least a loss in possession.

I am just proffering an alternative view because we have ended up in situation that has now resulted in more complex issues, i.e. an understanding of some imaginary line not defined in the laws and then outside factors such as advertising hoardings, all things that can only be addressed with numerous exceptions and a deeper understanding of how to apply for the different circumstances.

Over-engineering is not necessarily desirable. Sometimes, simpler can actually be better.

Were they to think about it again from scratch they might have chosen differently. Perhaps they might not.

It at least brings into the spotlight some motives behind some of the laws so it's worth my thinking about it.

 

[ChuckieB]

Chuckie B, as I understand it - Lineout outside the 22, there will be no gain in ground for a direct kick into touch by the defence whether it is kicked from inside or outside the 22. Why then can the defenders "engineer" a gain in ground by taking the quick throw-in behind the 22? For some reason the SH decided in particular circumstances that this should be allowed, but I believe the commonly held view in the NH is that there would be no gain in ground.

I don't think I ever suggested they can within the laws. I just raised the question as to how much we should treasure a gain in ground. Does it really matter?

Take the requirement out, allow the gain in ground. It's simpler.

Whatever the rights or wrongs you could perhaps argue, if used as a tactic, you will always lose the possession of the ball so don't put it into touch in the first place.

 

[OB..]

I don't think I ever suggested they can within the laws. I just raised the question as to how much we should treasure a gain in ground. Does it really matter?

Possession is totally irrelevant. When kicking into touch you only get the throw in if it was a penalty kick. Here we are discussing kicking to touch after a QTI.

Take the requirement out, allow the gain in ground. It's simpler.

As Dickie E said

No, the whole idea is to discourage teams retreating into their own 22 and then gaining a benefit from it.

The benefit would be getting a gain in ground despite the LoT being outside the 22.

The restriction on kicking to touch outside the 22 was brought in to prevent kicking duels and make play stay on the pitch more often. However it was felt players should still be allowed to defend their line by kicking to touch, and the 22m rule was intended to allow that. A well-judged kick that bounces into touch outside the 22 was deemed to be a good tactic: the bounce means the opposition had the opportunity to play the ball before it went into touch.

The imaginary extension of the 22m line into touch being used in the SH seems to me to add uncertainty in too many cases with no concomitant overall advantage to the game. I presume somebody is evaluating the effect it has in practice. Does it actually come into play very often? Do you get disagreements over whether or not the ball crossed the imaginary line (no TMOs in low level games)? Etc.

 

[ChuckieB]

Possession is totally irrelevant. When kicking into touch you only get the throw in if it was a penalty kick. Here we are discussing kicking to touch after a QTI.

As Dickie E saidThe benefit would be getting a gain in ground despite the LoT being outside the 22.

The restriction on kicking to touch outside the 22 was brought in to prevent kicking duels and make play stay on the pitch more often. However it was felt players should still be allowed to defend their line by kicking to touch, and the 22m rule was intended to allow that. A well-judged kick that bounces into touch outside the 22 was deemed to be a good tactic: the bounce means the opposition had the opportunity to play the ball before it went into touch.

The imaginary extension of the 22m line into touch being used in the SH seems to me to add uncertainty in too many cases with no concomitant overall advantage to the game. I presume somebody is evaluating the effect it has in practice. Does it actually come into play very often? Do you get disagreements over whether or not the ball crossed the imaginary line (no TMOs in low level games)? Etc.

While it might be a good tactic for some, I am not suggesting it isn't, you can't ignore the downside which is, you might gain ground but you always lose the right to the throw in. Some might value the right to the possesion of the ball as more important.

it's an interesting one, sometimes what might seem a good idea at the time, doesn't pan out in practice.

 

[Rich_NL]

Have you played 15-a-side rugby, ChuckieB? Balancing the trade-off between possession and territory is a feature of the game that's picked up from play and coached.

 

[crossref]

A scenario that better teases out the issue, is the ball that goes out of touch outside the 22m, but bounces back into the FoP inside the 22m.
Who put the ball into the 22m now? The kicking team
Can a QTI be taken, and ball kicked out for gain in ground?

Still no, I'd say

 

[Phil E]

I'm starting to think that Chopper wasn't all that bad :wow:

 

[ChuckieB]

I'm starting to think that Chopper wasn't all that bad :wow:

For someone to be sharing such thoughts about me, as you look to have done on more than this occasion, as well sharing some about others, doesn't in my view show a lot of empathy.

Does this trait spill over into your training activities in your capacity as someone who trains referees? If it does, it perhaps does your brethren a disservice.

I have extremely broad shoulders, so feel free to fire away. Don't take any lack of response as acceptance of any particular view.

I feel we should perhaps move on?

 

[ChuckieB]

Have you played 15-a-side rugby, ChuckieB? Balancing the trade-off between possession and territory is a feature of the game that's picked up from play and coached.

Yes I have. Thank you for asking.

We could separately add in other things as features of the game, e.g. playing the percentages. It will be something viewed up differently depending on the level.

Neither right nor wrong.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I'm starting to think that Chopper wasn't all that bad :wow:

Odd, I thought you were Chopper.

 

[ChuckieB]

Thanks. I have been back to look him out!

A chap clearly misunderstood. Or a man before his own time perhaps?

I "dipped" into a 13 page thread he started: Re: Obliging ref?

"An attacking player standing in touch tries to knock a loose ball in the FoP back to his wing.

Instead he accidentally knocks it forward in the air parallel to the TL and the ref. plays advantage.

The defender, knowing his pack is deficient in the scrum, catches the ball with one foot deliberately and obviously placed in touch.

Thinking the ref would probably consider a LO nearer his GL wasn’t sufficient advantage and would probably indicate an unwanted scrum further away, the catcher shouts, ‘Line-out please sir’.

Is the ref obliged to consent?:hap:"


"Knocked on into touch" might have been a shorter explanation and the one we would readily recognise now?

Paraphrasing the thread and the outcome:-

1. Re: Obligingref?

OriginallyPosted by Mike Selig
I'm sure I've seen TV refs offer a side theline-out after a knock-on puts the ball into touch. Most recent example GeorgeClancy Toulouse vs Wasps when Wasps were being badly beaten in the scrum.

Personally I tend to ask the captain "knock-on, do you want the scrum orthe line-out?", particularly if his side are being bested in the scrum,IMO it makes sense. Have I been going wrong?
In short; yesyou have. (Phil E)
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of theRugby Committee
Ruling1-2009
UnionRFU
Law Reference12
Date19 March '09

This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2010
Request
Senario

Team A moves the ball from right to left when the final pass to a colleagueclose to the touchline is knocked on with the ball crossing the touchline. Thenon offending side immediately take a quick throw. Please can you confirm thefollowing two options can take place:

1. Can a quick throw take place by the non offending team?

2. Has the non offending side the option of a throw in from the touch or scrumas a means of restarting the match?

Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
1. The Designated Members confirm that the quick throw cannot be taken asadvantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

The Definition of dead on page (viii) of the IRB Law Book 2008 is The ball isout of play.

2. The referee will award a scrum at the place of infringement in accordancewith Law 12.1 (a).

So correct at the time.

Where are we in 2017 or whenever it was changed?

At the point of his unwitting challenge, i.e.

"Knock-on or throw forward into touch. When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on orthrow forward, the non-offending team will have the option of a lineout at thepoint the ball crossed the touch line or a scrum at the place of the knock-onor throw forward, or a quick throw in."

So from my perspective, things can change. Sometimes they do and as a consequence of changed or updated thinking, or a desire to achieve different objectives and something potentially arising as a result of challenge.

 

[ChuckieB]

For the record, being new and not that being able to easily refer to the history of other threads that are effectively the same subject, does make it sometimes challenging to avoid raking over old ground.

I have no problem with the law. It is what it is and is clear for me. Where then ball crosses the line of touch is the reference for any subsequent assessment of whether it is taken back in. If a player is in doubt he should perhaps be advised to at least wait for the flag before he proceeds.

It wasn't originally clear it wasn't an anomaly with a number of interpretations rather than just this SA one?