Taken back into 22.

[Jenko]

Last night in the Osprey Edinburgh match. Edinburgh were attacking in Osprey half. Patterson kicked through defensive line into 22m where Biggar retrieved and cleared direct to touch. Referee said taken back as it had clipped the advancing Osprey defender and awarded lineout with no gain in ground.

I cant find video at the moment.

Thought it a harsh decision in the 'spiriit' what are others thoughts??

 

[bignij]

I thought that there had to be a deliberate attempt to play the ball to warrant it being adjudged to have been taken in. I didn't think being hit by the ball counted. Was the Osprey player trying to play it or did it just hit him?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I thought that there had to be a deliberate attempt to play the ball to warrant it being adjudged to have been taken in. I didn't think being hit by the ball counted. Was the Osprey player trying to play it or did it just hit him?

Yes it is debatable

[LAWS]19.1 THROW-IN

NO GAIN IN GROUND

(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]

[LAWS]DEFINTIONS (General)
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.[/LAWS]


This is the old chestnut isn't it; is a player touching the ball the same as the ball touching a player?

I don't know the answer, but I do think it is about time that the iRB clarified the difference, if there is one.

 

[Jenson]

I suppose the part of the law applied was "without touching an opposition player". Same as when the ball touches a player before going into touch.

 

[Jenko]

The other thing I noticed was the AR was going to award the line out with a gain in ground until Paterson 'informed him' that it had touched an Osprey on the way. Or at least that is how it appeared on TV.

 

[dave_clark]

wasn't this one of the list of clarifications that someone (may have been either Robbie or OB) was taking to the IRB / RFU? appreciate that the latter is of limited use to many on here.

 

[The Fat]

wasn't this one of the list of clarifications that someone (may have been either Robbie or OB) was taking to the IRB / RFU? appreciate that the latter is of limited use to many on here.

It is a contentious one for sure and one that I am hoping our association clarifies in the usual start of season memo to clubs. You can understand player's and coaches frustration when you get different interpretations from local refs on this particular situation and nobody from higher up wanting or caring to clarify.

 

[Robert Burns]

My advice:

If you see/hear the ball is touched by defenders shout 'Touched' as loud as you can so that player in 22 is aware of it. If then then kick straight to touch, there will be less complaints.

If you have not or do not shout touch, i would say you should award the gain in ground out of fairness to the player that kicked it as they will have little to no chance of knowing.

It's a fair stance.

 

[ddjamo]

My advice:

If you see/hear the ball is touched by defenders shout 'Touched' as loud as you can so that player in 22 is aware of it. If then then kick straight to touch, there will be less complaints.

If you have not or do not shout touch, i would say you should award the gain in ground out of fairness to the player that kicked it as they will have little to no chance of knowing.

It's a fair stance.

bingo...rule I live by...just like a touched/tipped ball into touch. unless I have "real" AR's it's off my acknowledgment.