Taken back in

[Dickie E]

Surely the gain/no gain decision turns on who put the ball in to the 22 initially

Not quite. The decision is only "did the defenders put the ball into the 22". If yes, no gain in ground. If no, gain in ground.

I do not consider the 22 as a self-contained rectangle. If I did, then any lineout up to 22 metres from the goal line won by the defending team could not result in a gain in ground unless a TRM happened first.

 

[Camquin]

I suppose you could think of it as the 22m area being infinitely wide, but the ball has to enter, or leave, through the gate bounded by the touch lines.
So going into touch does not leave the 22m area.

Alternatively you could look at simplifying the laws by for example dropping the gain in ground for a direct kick from within the 22m, or dropping the no gain in ground for direct kicks law. But that is part of a much bigger argument.

 

[OB..]

I do not consider the 22 as a self-contained rectangle.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]‘The 22’ [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]is the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The Plan, [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]including all the words and figures on it, is part of the Laws.[/FONT][/LAWS]
The verbal description does not mention the side of the 22, but the diagram is very clear.

You choose to believe that the 22 is infinite in width, subject to physical features I presume - which makes it different at every ground. I once played on a pitch at a disused airfield where the winger spent ages chasing the ball as it bounded away into the distance.

Your view claims the diagram is wrong; mine merely claims there is an omission in the verbal description.

I repeat that I fail to see any benefit to the game in the complications unnecessarily introduced by your view, but we clearly are not going to agree.

 

[DocY]

So a slightly different situation - though one that happened in last year's Six Nations (must have been Wales against Scotland or France - it was in the Millennium Stadium):

Blue kicks the ball out on the full from about half way.

It crosses the plane of touch well within the Red 22 and is caught by the winger who takes a QTI to the fullback who kicks it directly into touch.

Ignoring the silliness of taking a QTI in such a situation, should red have had the gain in ground?

 

[The Fat]

I suppose you could think of it as the 22m area being infinitely wide, but the ball has to enter, or leave, through the gate bounded by the touch lines.
So going into touch does not leave the 22m area.

Alternatively you could look at simplifying the laws by for example dropping the gain in ground for a direct kick from within the 22m, or dropping the no gain in ground for direct kicks law. But that is part of a much bigger argument.

Or you could simply get WR to issue a Clarification in Law to end the debate once and for all. Chance of that happening? Slim.

 

[The Fat]

So a slightly different situation - though one that happened in last year's Six Nations (must have been Wales against Scotland or France - it was in the Millennium Stadium):

Blue kicks the ball out on the full from about half way.

It crosses the plane of touch well within the Red 22 and is caught by the winger who takes a QTI to the fullback who kicks it directly into touch.

Ignoring the silliness of taking a QTI in such a situation, should red have had the gain in ground?

This post gets the prize for the best absolutely maybe question of the entire thread. I love it.

 

[Dickie E]

So a slightly different situation - though one that happened in last year's Six Nations (must have been Wales against Scotland or France - it was in the Millennium Stadium):

Blue kicks the ball out on the full from about half way.

It crosses the plane of touch well within the Red 22 and is caught by the winger who takes a QTI to the fullback who kicks it directly into touch.

Ignoring the silliness of taking a QTI in such a situation, should red have had the gain in ground?

If you're asking me, the ARU, the SARU, the NZRU and the French ref from last week, then the answer is yes.

 

[Dickie E]

Alternatively you could look at simplifying the laws by for example dropping the gain in ground for a direct kick from within the 22m,

not good. That would encourage attacking teams to aimlessly kick into defending 22

 

[OB..]

So a slightly different situation - though one that happened in last year's Six Nations (must have been Wales against Scotland or France - it was in the Millennium Stadium):

Blue kicks the ball out on the full from about half way.

It crosses the plane of touch well within the Red 22 and is caught by the winger who takes a QTI to the fullback who kicks it directly into touch.

Ignoring the silliness of taking a QTI in such a situation, should red have had the gain in ground?

It is the only decision that makes rugby sense - anything else is legalistic-semantic.

However it opens up a wider issue: all the field areas defined in Law 1 include the touchlines - except of course the 22. Is there an imaginary extension of the goal line at the back of the 22 so that if the ball rolls past that, it is dead and no QTI is permitted? Maybe the failure to mention the touchlines was intended to avoid the awkward question DocY is asking: does throwing in from touch mean the thrower has put the ball into his 22?

For me the situation ought to be that:
(1) if the ball crosses the touchline touch outside the 22, then the defending side cannot throw in for a kick to gain ground.
(2) if the ball crosses the touchline between the 22m line and the goal line, then the defending side can throw in for a kick to gain ground (E&OE)

It should not be beyond the wit of man (or even WR) to make that clear. At the moment we have a useless muddle.

 

[ChrisR]

It is the only decision that makes rugby sense - anything else is legalistic-semantic.

However it opens up a wider issue: all the field areas defined in Law 1 include the touchlines - except of course the 22. Is there an imaginary extension of the goal line at the back of the 22 so that if the ball rolls past that, it is dead and no QTI is permitted? Maybe the failure to mention the touchlines was intended to avoid the awkward question DocY is asking: does throwing in from touch mean the thrower has put the ball into his 22?

For me the situation ought to be that:
(1) if the ball crosses the touchline touch outside the 22, then the defending side cannot throw in for a kick to gain ground.
(2) if the ball crosses the touchline between the 22m line and the goal line, then the defending side can throw in for a kick to gain ground (E&OE)

It should not be beyond the wit of man (or even WR) to make that clear. At the moment we have a useless muddle.

^^^^^^^^^^^ This, and only this or get rid of the restriction of taken back (which is enough of burden with little to gain).

 

[VM75]

So a slightly different situation - though one that happened in last year's Six Nations (must have been Wales against Scotland or France - it was in the Millennium Stadium):

Blue kicks the ball out on the full from about half way.

It crosses the plane of touch well within the Red 22 and is caught by the winger who takes a QTI to the fullback who kicks it directly into touch.

Ignoring the silliness of taking a QTI in such a situation, should red have had the gain in ground?

For me, No.

The allowance to move the location of the throw away from the LoT specifies that you can't get a gain in ground if in moving the throw from the LoT the throwers team put the ball into their 22 & then they kick it out again.

IMO that was the intention behind the 'no gain' law creation in 19.1, and anyone operating differently is merely playing with words or looking for a loophole.

 

[OB..]

For me, No.

The allowance to move the location of the throw away from the LoT [...]

He didn't. 19.1 (b) applies when the LoT is outside the 22. The ball crossed the touchline "well within the Red 22".