Taken back in

[ChuckieB]

......and for that matter, one might easily consider it as being consistent with the use of a fixed reference point, i.e, the mark for a scrum. when considering the same issue.

I see the ARU GMG include "taken back in" will cover such a scenario, without much cause for alarm:

"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 ."

A QTI is just something to be layered on top of the principle without necessarily adding anything that openly conflicts with what is already established. In fact it might be argued that it actually reinforces it.

 

[Pinky]

Except that you seem to suggest they get gain in ground, which most NH refs don't think should be the outcome.

 

[ChuckieB]

Except that you seem to suggest they get gain in ground, which most NH refs don't think should be the outcome.

No. Just trying to suggest it is similar and consistent treatment, i.e. that a fixed point, the LoT, equates to the mark for the scrum and is to be the reference point.

The "taken back" element being referenced to a rolling ball that is deemed dead or where a player picks it up hardly fits the bill.

Outcome, per the law, no grain in ground.

 

[Pinky]

Your posts 20, 23 and 25 all appeared to advocate gain in ground. If that's not what you meant, why argue in that way?

 

[Rich_NL]

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.

Rereading, I should clarify: I didn't mean my question disrespectfully - if your experience was with 7s then territory isn't as much of a concern.

 

[Dickie E]

an example tonight in AB v Samoa game at 25 minutes into first half. Once its on youtube I'll share

 

[Taff]

There was a recent example of this a few weeks ago with St Nigel as the Ref and possibly George Clancy as one of the AR's.

Ball goes to touch just outside the 22m line. Defending player (who collected the ball just INSIDE the 22m line) chucks the ball infield to a team mate who kicks directly to touch. Clancy started running upfield but was brought back by St Nigel and told it had been taken back in. Well spotted sir.

 

[Dickie E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ46j1z3Ruk

25 minutes 1st half on television clock

 

[The Fat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ46j1z3Ruk

25 minutes 1st half on television clock

That's in line with the ARU interpretation

 

[Dickie E]

That's in line with the ARU interpretation

and presumably the NZRU one too and wherever the ref comes from.

 

[ChuckieB]

That's in line with the ARU interpretation

New Zealand v Samoa
Referee: Mathieu Raynal (Fra)
ARs: Rohan Hoffmann (Aus) & Jordan Way (Aus)
TMO: Ian Smith (Aus)

This'll explain it then!

A northern hemisphere ref being guide by a pair of AR's who will be be working to a wholly different interpretation and presumably a correct one for them, although perhaps not appropriate for the venue?

so my understanding of this is is that the gain in ground was allowed; it went into touch and was then picked by the defending player after it passed this imaginary off field line extension, so not taken back.

Would have been been interesting to see what would have happened had the AR's not been Australian.

hardly a situation WR should allow to persist?

 

[Ian_Cook]

New Zealand v Samoa
Referee: Mathieu Raynal (Fra)
ARs: Rohan Hoffmann (Aus) & Jordan Way (Aus)
TMO: Ian Smith (Aus)

This'll explain it then!

A northern hemisphere ref being guide by a pair of AR's who will be be working to a wholly different interpretation and presumably a correct one for them, although perhaps not appropriate for the venue?

so my understanding of this is is that the gain in ground was allowed; it went into touch and was then picked by the defending player after it passed this imaginary off field line extension, so not taken back.

Would have been been interesting to see what would have happened had the AR's not been Australian.

hardly a situation WR should allow to persist?

Every time I have ever seen this happen in a NH match (which isn't many) it has always been no-gain.

I disagree with this ARU guideline. There is nothing in Law 1 that shows any kind of extension to the 22. It ends at the touchline. I also know that NZ referees do not apply it at levels below Super Rugby. (the SANZAR refs do for the sake of consistency, but I have heard that WR are planning to knock this guideline on the head after 2019.

 

[Dickie E]

Every time I have ever seen this happen in a NH match (which isn't many) it has always been no-gain.

I disagree with this ARU guideline. There is nothing in Law 1 that shows any kind of extension to the 22. It ends at the touchline. I also know that NZ referees do not apply it at levels below Super Rugby. (the SANZAR refs do for the sake of consistency, but I have heard that WR are planning to knock this guideline on the head after 2019.

It's a bit like science vs. religion.

One has hard evidence and the other has conjecture, supposition and unsubstantiated "knowledge" & "grapevines"

 

[ChuckieB]

Earlier in this thread , I stepped into line with the NH no gain in ground approach.

Here we have a game in NZ,officials who are from different unions, all following WR laws. They can't all be right.

 

[OB..]

When the "gain in ground" law was first introduced, it was quickly made clear that picking up the ball and running back past the 22m flag for a QTI did not allow a kicker to claim any gain in ground - his team had put the ball into the 22 area.

I think it was South Africa that invented the idea of an imaginary 22m line extending into touch because the laws at that time specified that the 22m area was between the 22m line and the goal line, but omitted to mention any sideline limitations. That omission has now been corrected by the addition of a diagram (which has full force of law) showing that the 22m area ends at the touchline. Hence the standard NH view that what matters is where the ball crosses the touchline.

I await the occasion when a TMO is asked to rule whether or not a ball in touch had crossed the imaginary 22m line extension before being picked up.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's a bit like science vs. religion.

One has hard evidence and the other has conjecture, supposition and unsubstantiated "knowledge" & "grapevines"

 

[Dickie E]

When the "gain in ground" law was first introduced, it was quickly made clear that picking up the ball and running back past the 22m flag for a QTI did not allow a kicker to claim any gain in ground - his team had put the ball into the 22 area.

I think it was South Africa that invented the idea of an imaginary 22m line extending into touch because the laws at that time specified that the 22m area was between the 22m line and the goal line, but omitted to mention any sideline limitations. That omission has now been corrected by the addition of a diagram (which has full force of law) showing that the 22m area ends at the touchline. Hence the standard NH view that what matters is where the ball crosses the touchline.

That may well be and I'm not fussed either way - I can see the logic on both sides. All I can do is show you what is happening in the real world (assuming NZ is part of the real world).

 

[Ian_Cook]

That may well be and I'm not fussed either way - I can see the logic on both sides. All I can do is show you what is happening in the real world (assuming NZ is part of the real world).

You just can't help yourself self can you?

 

[OB..]

I don't understand why it is thought to be a good idea. The only advantage is that it enables a player to kick to touch with a gain in ground, and that stops play rather than making it more continuous. It would certainly be a nightmare to deal with at grass roots.

 

[Dickie E]

I don't understand why it is thought to be a good idea.

I refer you to my post #21