Taken back in

VM75

Player or Coach
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
442
Post Likes
92
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
IMO It's a daft interpretation, relying not on the LoT , nor where it crossed the Plane, but instead relying on a favourable ricochet off of a advertising board or bucket or floodlight - in essence it's making objects off the pitch effect the tactical nature of the game on it.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,678
Post Likes
1,756
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
IMO It's a daft interpretation, relying not on the LoT , nor where it crossed the Plane, but instead relying on a favourable ricochet off of a advertising board or bucket or floodlight - in essence it's making objects off the pitch effect the tactical nature of the game on it.

...not to mention making up an amendment to Law 1 that does not exist.

There is no dotted line in the Law 1 diagram (which OB.. correctly points out, has the full force of Law) extending the 22m beyond the touchline.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
...not to mention making up an amendment to Law 1 that does not exist.

There is no dotted line in the Law 1 diagram (which OB.. correctly points out, has the full force of Law) extending the 22m beyond the touchline.

Law 11 comfortably makes reference to an imaginery offside line extending beyond the touchline without having to draw it on a map:

[LAWS](c) Action by the kicker or other onside player. When the kicker, or team-mate who was level with or behind the kicker when (or after) the ball was kicked, runs in front of the offside player, the player is put onside. When running forward, the team-mate may be in touch or touch-in-goal, but that team-mate must return to the playing area to put the player onside.[/LAWS]
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Law 11 comfortably makes reference to an imaginery offside line extending beyond the touchline without having to draw it on a map:

[LAWS](c) Action by the kicker or other onside player. When the kicker, or team-mate who was level with or behind the kicker when (or after) the ball was kicked, runs in front of the offside player, the player is put onside. When running forward, the team-mate may be in touch or touch-in-goal, but that team-mate must return to the playing area to put the player onside.[/LAWS]
Totally irrelevant.There is no justification at all for claiming the 22m area extends into touch now that the law has been amended.

Yes, it can create difficulties is assessing just where the imaginary line is but again that is different - the 22m area is defined by lines on the pitch and does not require the referee's assessment like an offside line does.

It is a pointless complication that contributes no benefit to the game.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
The latest Law Clarification 1 - 2017 makes the 22m line even more magical.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,678
Post Likes
1,756
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
It is a pointless complication that contributes no benefit to the game.

Indeed, it actually allows one of the intents of Law 19 (to disallow a gain in ground when the ball is taken into the 22m) to be subverted.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Indeed, it actually allows one of the intents of Law 19 (to disallow a gain in ground when the ball is taken into the 22m) to be subverted.
.....not the way I read it.

I am reading it that defending sides can no longer force a situation with a moving ball without giving up something that they were entitled to before the clarifications were issued.

Forcing a moving ball dead for a ball kicked into in goal by the opposition - you no longer get a scrum back choice and it is just a 22m DO
Forcing a moving ball into In Goal - you no longer get the 22 and it is, in fact, an attacking scrum 5
Forcing a moving ball back into the 22 - any doubt is removed . You now definitely get no gain in ground.

The mark law is unaffected

It'll take a bit of thought on the field as you can no longer make the correct decision based just on what is set out in the laws. You must know the law clarification.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
There is no dotted line in the Law 1 diagram (which OB.. correctly points out, has the full force of Law) extending the 22m beyond the touchline.

I keep hearing you & OB.. hang your hat on that but it is a furphy. If a defender picks up the ball in touch on his 10 metre line and runs back over the imaginery 22 extension that isn't on the diagram, and takes a QTI, then I'm sure you will see this as a no gain in ground situation.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I keep hearing you & OB.. hang your hat on that but it is a furphy. If a defender picks up the ball in touch on his 10 metre line and runs back over the imaginery 22 extension that isn't on the diagram, and takes a QTI, then I'm sure you will see this as a no gain in ground situation.

I am sure they would. I think they are making a different point about a nonsensical SA interpretation of a ball that has under its own momentum moved across some imaginary line which nobody other than the South Africans themselves believes exists.

or have i gone out of tune on this?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I am sure they would. I think they are making a different point about a nonsensical SA interpretation of a ball that has under its own momentum moved across some imaginary line which nobody other than the South Africans themselves believes exists.

or have i gone out of tune on this?

several points:

1. the point is the same. I think they are accepting the 22 imaginery extension but only when it suits them

2. Its not just a SA thing. It is an Aust thing too and also applied by a NH ref in a Test played a week ago in New Zealand against Samoa.

2. The only televisual evidence I have seen to date supports this interpretation. All evidence to the contrary is based on "I think I saw George Clancy do something different" type offerings

3. You use the word "nonsensical". I can appreciate that you may think the interpretation is wrong. But do you truly not understand the rationale behind it?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
IMO It's a daft interpretation, relying not on the LoT , nor where it crossed the Plane, but instead relying on a favourable ricochet off of a advertising board or bucket or floodlight - in essence it's making objects off the pitch effect the tactical nature of the game on it.

But that happens anyway. Ball can get a favourable bounce off an advertising board into hands of player for a QTI anywhere on the field.

And its not "daft" if you consider a ball lying in touch 10 metres from the goal line. If a defender picks it up and throws it in, he can hardly be accused of taking the ball back into his own 22, can he?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Totally irrelevant.There is no justification at all for claiming the 22m area extends into touch now that the law has been amended.

even law 19 assumes the 22 extends into touch:

[LAWS]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[/LAWS]
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,678
Post Likes
1,756
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
.....not the way I read it.

I am reading it that defending sides can no longer force a situation with a moving ball without giving up something that they were entitled to before the clarifications were issued.

Forcing a moving ball dead for a ball kicked into in goal by the opposition - you no longer get a scrum back choice and it is just a 22m DO
Forcing a moving ball into In Goal - you no longer get the 22 and it is, in fact, an attacking scrum 5
Forcing a moving ball back into the 22 - any doubt is removed . You now definitely get no gain in ground.

The mark law is unaffected

It'll take a bit of thought on the field as you can no longer make the correct decision based just on what is set out in the laws. You must know the law clarification.


You aren't talking about what we're talking about
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
It would certainly be a nightmare to deal with at grass roots.

I would have thought the opposite. You guys often comment about no ARs and unreliable TJs. For a referee positioned midfield, to see where the ball crosses the plane of touch is nigh impossible. For the same referee to see where it is picked up by a defender in relation to the 22 is fairly easy.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
several points:

.....

3. You use the word "nonsensical". I can appreciate that you may think the interpretation is wrong. But do you truly not understand the rationale behind it?

rationale?

i haven't seen any presentation of a rationale in this thread. Just different interpretations, perhaps based on a poorly worded law.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,082
Post Likes
2,117
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
rationale?

i haven't seen any presentation of a rationale in this thread. Just different interpretations, perhaps based on a poorly worded law.

I, again, invite you to read my post #21
 

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
rationale?

i haven't seen any presentation of a rationale in this thread. Just different interpretations, perhaps based on a poorly worded law.

The law says you don't get a gain in ground if you've taken the ball back into your 22. In the situation under discussion the defending player hasn't taken the ball back at all.

Personally I think it's something that could do with a law clarification.

Try bringing it up and your next society meeting :)
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
even law 19 assumes the 22 extends into touch:

[LAWS]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[/LAWS]

Got to admit, that's well spotted Dickie:wink:
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I, again, invite you to read my post #21

I have reread. Fair enough.

It begs the question as to how the SA interpretation doesn't fall foul of the same logic. Being given a gain in ground for such a situation is perhaps consistent with a view of being negative play should the defending team then immediately hoof it back into touch?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
We are yet again in the uncomfortable position where reliance on particular wording in the laws seems to take precedence over looking at the sense of the law itself.

The restriction on a kick to gain ground dates from 2000. Dickie E correctly said that
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.

However his comment then introduces the word "back"
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.
which is not in the law, but which he relies on to argue that
if you consider a ball lying in touch 10 metres from the goal line. If a defender picks it up and throws it in, he can hardly be accused of taking the ball back into his own 22, can he?

Surely the gain/no gain decision turns on who put the ball in to the 22 initially (plus various subsequent actions within the 22). That used to be decided by where the ball went into touch In 2009 WR found it necessary to make it clear by an addition to 19.1 (b) [laws] (b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that 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. 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. [/laws]

Not perhaps the best way of phrasing it given subsequent developments, but that is typical of law evolution. It was clearly intended to STOP the practice, not legitimise it.

The 22 had long been defined as being between the 22m line and the goal line, with no reference to the touchlines. South Africa decided they could get round the restriction in 19.1 (b) by arguing that if the ball rolled past the imaginary extension of the 22m line potentially implied by that law, they could claim that the opponents had put the ball into the 22. WR then introduced into Law 1 several diagrams to support the definitions, all having the force of law. One in particular made it clear the 22 does NOT extend into touch.

So the law is in a mess. Nothing new there. The only change that I can see from allowing this extra complication is that the defender can kick to touch for again in ground, thus stopping play. There is no positive effect on continuity of play.

Turning to practicality
You guys often comment about no ARs and unreliable TJs. For a referee positioned midfield, to see where the ball crosses the plane of touch is nigh impossible. For the same referee to see where it is picked up by a defender in relation to the 22 is fairly easy.
I would point out that TJs are used to marking touch, whether good at it or not, and can be over-ruled if necessary. However it is for the referee to decide if the ball had rolled past the mythical extension of the 22. That means taking a sight line down the 22m line, which the TJ cannot easily do anyway. It is an extra comnplication for the referee with no concomitant significant benefit to the game.

For me all the advantages lie with determining who put the ball into the 22 by where it crossed the touchline and ignoring what then happens in touch - after all the ball is (zombie)dead there.
 
Top