Taken into 22?

[Phil E]

Why are we still arguing about it?

I don't think we are. Chopper has his point of view (as usual), all the referees have a different point of view (again, as usual).

 

[chopper15]

So, we've got OB stating;

SimonThomas has confirmed that:
"Just had a definitive answer from RFU Refs Dept, including RFU Laws sub-committee representative (DB to London guys), which is confimed as IRB interpretation."

And Phil, '. . . all the referees have a different point of view (again, as usual).:hap:

How long is this bloody piece of string for goodness sakes?:wow:

And OB, the QbT was to his team mate, missed him, then went dead. Scrum back where?

 

[Dickie E]

this is the latest from our people.

Please note dot point 2 under heading Put Back Into 22m.

As Tiger says, it looks like we're going down the Jonker path.

 

[chopper15]

* They didn't put the ball back in their 22. It rolled there.

*Depending on where the ball was gathered in touch.
It was gathered back over the 22.

So, according to your people, Dickie, there is a gain?

As far as our people are concerned, nobody is prepared to give a definitive answer yet?

 

[TigerCraig]

In Australia this year it will be a gain (until we are told otherwise).

 

[OB..]

As far as our people are concerned, nobody is prepared to give a definitive answer yet?

Marius' answer does not reflect the consistent advice I heard from a wide range of RFU Dept staff, assessors, and referees at many different levels.
Everyone says it is where the ball crosses the line - I can think of no logical justitification for it being where the ball stops.
It could be fun at council recreation grounds, when the QT is likely to be taken on a neighbouring pitch !

Just had a definitive answer from RFU Refs Dept, including RFU Laws sub-committee representative (DB to London guys), which is confimed as IRB interpretation.
So Marius is out of step it appears.

Is that not definitive enough for you chopper?

I pity the refs in SA and Aus having to decide if the ball had rolled past a non-existent line. Why make life complicated for themselves?

 

[Dickie E]

OB, I don't disagree with you but it shouldn't be too big an issue and there is some logic. Often times Red will kick from their own 22, the ball will cross the touch line at the Blue 10 metre and be caught/retrieved by Blue maybe 15 metres from the Blue goal-line. He will come straight into the touchline and take a QT. There is a reasonable argument that Blue should then gain ground from the subsequent kick to touch.

It could be a minefield, though, if its a line ball call with the ref yelling "yes, you can take a QT but if you kick it out on the full you'll be sorry."

 

[Simon Thomas]

I suggest SA and AUS refs ask the IRB, who according to the RFU have given a very clear instruction that it is line of touch that matters - where on earth has this ball gathering concept come from ?

 

[Dixie]

There is a reasonable argument that Blue should then gain ground from the subsequent kick to touch.

Doesn't seem reasonable to me. Ball went into touch outside 22. Defence elected to return ball to touch inside 22. How is this diofferent from picking up the ball in touch 27m from the goal line, running back with it to a point 20m from the goal line, throwing it in and then kicking it out on the full? In both cases, call "taken back in" and let then deal with the consequences.

It could be a minefield, though, if its a line ball call with the ref yelling "yes, you can take a QT but if you kick it out on the full you'll be sorry."

As above; the simple call "taken back in" works in all cases where the oppo elected to put the ball into the fiedl of play inside the 22.

 

[chopper15]

Doesn't seem reasonable to me. Ball went into touch outside 22. Defence elected to return ball to touch inside 22. How is this diofferent from picking up the ball in touch 27m from the goal line, running back with it to a point 20m from the goal line, throwing it in and then kicking it out on the full? In both cases, call "taken back in" and let then deal with the consequences.

As above; the simple call "taken back in" works in all cases where the oppo elected to put the ball into the fiedl of play inside the 22.

We're not discussing 'taking back', Simon. The ball wasn't touched until it rolled on over the 22 . . . still in touch.

The ball is brought into play where the QT is taken. This law, IMO, appears to validate this.

19.2(e) At a quick throw in, if the player does not throw the ball in straight
so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it
touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field
of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw in is
disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a
lineout where the quick throw in was attempted, or a scrum on the
15-metre line at that place. :hap:


Incidentently, this would also confirm where the scrum option would be for my contrived scenario when the QtB missed the team mate standing behind the GL and went dead.

 

[OB..]

where on earth has this ball gathering concept come from ?

1866
When the ball goes outside the line of touch, […] the first player who touches it down, takes it up and brings it up to the touch-line in a straight line from where it pitched

However in 1871 the RFU's first set of laws said:
31. Touch (see plan) If the ball goes into touch the first player on his side who touches it down must bring it to the spot where it crossed the touchline

 

[OB..]

19.2(e) At a quick throw in, if the player does not throw the ball in straight
so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it
touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field
of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw in is
disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a
lineout where the quick throw in was attempted, or a scrum on the
15-metre line at that place.

So you are happy to draw an inference from a law that quite clearly conflicts with the ELV.

Law 1 "The 22" is the area between the goal line and the 22 metre line, including the 22 metre line but excluding the goalline.
The Plan, including all the words and figures on it, is part of the Laws.

The Law does not specify that the 22 is bounded by the touch lines, but the plan indicates that by the colouring. The "gathering" concept requires that the 22 be considered to extend beyond the touchlines. If it doesn't, then of course the team attempting the QT has put the ball into the 22.

 

[chopper15]

Most certainly, OB, just as you seem to be happy to draw an inference from an established law that quite clearly conflicts with the ELV proposal of not allowing the ball to be taken back over the 22 just to suit your petard-hoisting argument.

And why the nit-picking because someone used 'gathered' instead of 'picked up'?

What relevance has that and ‘the 22 be considered to extend beyond the touchlines’?:sad:

Nobody took it back over, it was dead, it rolled there, and a QT restarted the game.:hap:

You’ve got to admit OB, that my brilliant disclosure of the final sentence of 19.2 (e) was the clincher that gives the benefit of doubt to down-under.

I'll just repeat it; ‘The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a
lineout where the quick throw in was attempted, or a scrum on the
15-metre line at that place.’ :clap:

 

[OB..]

Sorry chopper, but the point of my response was that you are not entitled to use that particular bit of law for two reasons.

One is that the law itself is clearly in conflict with the ELV, so must be re-interpreted in the light of the ELV.

The second is that it determines where the opponents can choose to take a lineout or scrum, not to whether or not the ball has been taken into their own 22 - a quite separate issue.

What relevance has that and ‘the 22 be considered to extend beyond the touchlines’?:sad:

When the ball is in touch it CANNOT be in the 22 (unless you extend the 22 beyond the touchlines). Therefore when it is thrown in to a player inside the 22, the thrower is responsible for the ball going into the 22.

There is also the severely practical issue that your view means the referee/AR/TJ has to judge whether or not the ball has crossed an imaginary line. The AR/TJ's job is to mark the point for a normal lineout. The referee is presumably chasing a kick.

Since the whole point of the ELV was to restrict kicking direct to touch, why would anybody actually want to interpret the law in such an awkward way, contrary to the aim of the ELV?!

 

[The umpire]

* They didn't put the ball back in their 22. It rolled there.

It didn't roll into the 22, it rolled in touch. "Inside the 22" quite clearly exists only between the touch lines, the goal line and the 22 line. Who put it there? the team throwing in therefore no gain in ground.

As far as our people are concerned, nobody is prepared to give a definitive answer yet?

Definitively - no gain in ground.
Or else, let it roll "behind" the goal line and demand a scrum back where they kicked it. Ludicrous

 

[TigerCraig]

I suggest SA and AUS refs ask the IRB, who according to the RFU have given a very clear instruction that it is line of touch that matters - where on earth has this ball gathering concept come from ?

As far as I know there haven't been any clarification requests - our powers that be are happy with our interpretation.

I do know a clarification/change request has gone in around Under 19 scrums when a team is short - our powers that be's view is that 8v8 scrums are safer than 7v7.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The SA and now AUS interpretation is out of step with IRB global ELV instructions and current law - so of course you wouldnot be asking for clarification ! Frankly I have no isues as what you do in Aus and SA is up to you guys, but heaven help the IR ref who gets it wrong in an International !

I agree about the scrums 8 v 8 personally but IRB seems to have wanted equal and full numbers in the backs in the past (loads of other threads on that topic !)

 

[chopper15]

It didn't roll into the 22, it rolled in touch. "Inside the 22" quite clearly exists only between the touch lines, the goal line and the 22 line. Who put it there? the team throwing in therefore no gain in ground.

Cheap shot, umpire. I did state; 'The ball wasn't touched until it rolled on over the 22 . . . still in touch'.

OK, 'past the adjacent 22' instead of 'over the 22'?

And the team that put it there is obviously not the team that gets the QT.

I've proffered a pretty good reason why the guys down-under have probably got it right.

And all we get topside? No reasons just a bumptious, ‘Just had a definitive answer from RFU Refs Dept, including RFU Laws sub-committee representative (DB to London guys), which is confimed as IRB interpretation.’ and nit-picking.

I do agree with SimonT’s statement tho’, ‘I suggest SA and AUS refs ask the IRB, who according to the RFU have given a very clear instruction that it is line of touch that matters.’ BUT pose the question in the light of the existing law which suggests the RFU, without giving a reason for their decision, could be wrong.

Law 19.2(e), At a quick throw in, if the player does not throw the ball in straight
so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it
touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field
of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw in is
disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a
lineout where the quick throw in was attempted, or a scrum on the
15-metre line at that place.

 

[SimonSmith]

So, as someone else asked, your premise also holds that if the balls rolls past the dead ball line whilst in touch, a scrum should be offered as an option?

 

[TigerCraig]

Chopper's premise (I believe) is that under 19.2(e) the Line of Touch becomes the place where the QT was attempted if it is done incorrectly (ie you don't go back to where the ball crossed the touchline for the optional restart).

By extension, if the QT is taken correctly, the LoT is where it was taken, which if it is on or behind the 22 allows for gain in ground.