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.
