Taken in or not.

[Andy P]

Blue kick deep into black half, the black fullback, standing outside his 22, gets his finger tips to the ball as it goes over his head and the ball continues into the 22. The fullback runs back and collects the ball and clears to touch, still inside the 22.

The referee marked the lineout where the ball went out rather than were the kick was taken from. The refereee was questioned by black who felt the ball was taken back into the 22 by the blue fullback and the lineout should have been in line with the kick. The referee gave a clear answer that although the fullback had touched the ball, he hadn't actively taken the ball back into the 22. Black continued to argue the case and rightly received a penalty award against him as a result for not shutting up.

Where should the lineout have been?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Should have been no gain in ground

 

[The Fat]

Should have been no gain in ground

What he said.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

D'accord (please check my spelling OB..)

 

[SimonSmith]

Spelling is fine
But the pronunciation?! ​Zut alors!

 

[Taff]

Blue kick deep into black half, the black fullback, standing outside his 22, gets his finger tips to the ball as it goes over his head and the ball continues into the 22. The fullback runs back and collects the ball and clears to touch, still inside the 22.

I would vote for no gain in ground.

By touching the ball in flight, he effectively took the ball back into his 22. Ok, it may not have been deliberate, but the book doesn't differentiate.

 

[chbg]

Blue kick deep into black half, the black fullback, standing outside his 22, gets his finger tips to the ball as it goes over his head and the ball continues into the 22. The fullback runs back and collects the ball and clears to touch, still inside the 22.

That's "plays the ball" (19.1(b)) sufficiently for me. No gain in ground.

 

[Andy P]

Thanks.

 

[ExHookah]

Adding my vote to what my colleagues already said.