Taken into 22?

[Dickie E]

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.

If the concept of an extended 22 can be made then the concept of an extended goal line can also be made.

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.

We do that all the time with the imaginery 10 metre line for the offside under 10 metre law.

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?!

Because it restricts/constrains the first team that kicked for touch (see my last post)

 

[Simon Thomas]

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.[/B][/I]

Chopper - not intenially 'bumptious' but just stating facts and what I was told by RFU, who in turn were told by IRB. We have to accept that if we ask for a clarification and we get a clear answer that is it - it isn't a debating process !

I spent too much time on here as it is and haven't got spare time to draft eloquent prose all the time.

 

[chopper15]

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?

Nope! Nobody touched it. Surely you didn't need me of all people to tell you that, Simon?

The issue I did raise, however, was if he threw a Qbt to a team mate standing behind the GL, missed him and it went dead.

Make a wild guess as to what options there are , if any, for the restart.:hap:

 

[chopper15]

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.

Hardly a premise, more a certainty I would've thought,TC.

But I would certainly be interested in knowing what 'premise' the RFU gave to get tacit (?) approval from the IRB. :hap:

 

[chopper15]

Chopper

I spent too much time on here as it is and haven't got spare time to draft eloquent prose all the time.

You and me too, Simon. :clap: Agree, SimonS ?



PS. Any idea of the reasons given to persuade the IRB, SimonT? I'm sure down-under would like to know to judge whether reappraisel is necessary. So there must be a convincing reason, in writing preferably, somewhere.

Or is it another 'ball touched by opp. hooker' to allow a FKscrum drop goal?:hap:

 

[Davet]

No, the Line of Touch is where the ball crossed the touchline, it runs at 90 degrees to the touchline.

If the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22 then that point defines where the Line of Touch is.

That place is where the formed Line out would occur.

If the ball - outside the Field of Play - rolls on past where the 22 line stops at the touch line then the Line Out would still take place at the Line of Touch.

If a player elects to take a QT instead of a Line Out then he is responsible for that decision, and has clearly elected to bring the ball back into play within his 22, ie he has taken it in - since without his action the ball would have been brought back into play on the Line of Touch.

 

[OB..]

If the concept of an extended 22 can be made then the concept of an extended goal line can also be made.

Actually, it can't since Law 1 says:
"In-goal is the area between the goal line and the dead ball line and between the touch-in-goal lines."

By analogy you would expect the 22 to be similarly defined, but that is not the case.

We do that all the time with the imaginery 10 metre line for the offside under 10 metre law.

Yes, but that is a static situation, not with a rolling ball when the referee is chasing back after a kick.

Because it restricts/constrains the first team that kicked for touch (see my last post)

You wish to force more ping-pong?

 

[chopper15]

If a player elects to take a QT instead of a Line Out then he is responsible for that decision, and has clearly elected to bring the ball back into play within his 22, ie he has taken it in - since without his action the ball would have been brought back into play on the Line of Touch.

You choose wording to suit your argument, Davet. It could also read this way with a sprinkling of law to add a bit of weight.

If a player elects to take a QT instead of a Line Out then he is responsible for that decision, and has clearly elected to restart play within his 22,
and should he 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.

And the clincher . . .

The opposing team then 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.

. . . not at the LoT.

 

[gillburt]

Chopper, that's because the player is being penalised for making a balls-up of the restart. It's the balls-up by the player that then moves the restart inside the 22, not the original LoT. As Davet said, the player makes the decision.

The fact remains, as should be verified by every ref, every coach and every RDO in the country when you ask them, that the LoT is where the ball goes into touch and the place of the LoT is the crucial factor in determining whether or not the ball is taken into the 22 from a throw. Up and down the country at the start of the season this question was asked and we all got categorically told the same answer.

By the same token, if the ball went into touch on the half-way line but the team took a QT by their try line and then touched-down, it would be a scrum, 5m oppo throw-in. They took the ball into the goal area. They did not have to do it, there was another option available, but they made their choice and live by the consequence.

 

[Davet]

Chopper, that's to dissuade the player from taking the QT improperly, if he gets it right fine, if he gets it wrong - ond ONLY if he gets it wrong, he loses the ground he elected to lose by risking the QT.

But that has no relationship to where the line out WOULD have been had he not ballsed up the throw.

 

[OB..]

If a player elects to take a QT instead of a Line Out then he is responsible for that decision, and has clearly elected to restart play within his 22.

No. He is NOT in the 22 when he throws (otherwise he has crossed the touchline improperly), so he puts the ball into the 22 by his restart.

 

[chopper15]

No. He is NOT in the 22 when he throws (otherwise he has crossed the touchline improperly), so he puts the ball into the 22 by his restart.

If you say so, OB, altho I didn't say he was in the 22.

And if he did a QbT to his mate standing behind the GL, missed him, and the ball went dead . . . whither the restart?

As a matter of interest, probably to us all, what reason do you think could've been given by the IRB to justify the 'no gain' decision they allegedly gave the RFU?

FWIW, I think they simply used the ELV's 'spirit of intention', overlooking the final sentence of 19.2(e) which recognises the QT, once taken, as a restart option divorced from the original touch requirements.

 

[gillburt]

As a matter of interest, probably to us all, what reason do you think could've been given by the IRB to justify the 'no gain' decision they allegedly gave the RFU?

To have ruled otherwise would have made a mockery of the ELV, esp at higher levels. Any lineout inside your own half, QT to the kicker inside the 22 and boot way down field for a gain in touch... yawn!

 

[SF_Rugger]

In defense of Chopper, here is 19.e from the ELV guide:

At a quick throw in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal line or if the ball does not travel at least five metres along or behind 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. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the lineout, a scrum is formed on the 15-metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the scrum.

I have to agree with Chopper on this. If a player hoses up a QT, the punishment is a LO or scrum at the QT posi to the opposition, why can't there be a gain in ground.

 

[TigerCraig]

To have ruled otherwise would have made a mockery of the ELV, esp at higher levels. Any lineout inside your own half, QT to the kicker inside the 22 and boot way down field for a gain in touch... yawn!

No, not any, only those where the ball has by its own steam gone past the 22.

Anyway this will just be one of those things where NH & SH will continue to differ.

 

[OB..]

If you say so, OB, altho I didn't say he was in the 22.

If he is not in the 22, then his Quick Throw-in is responsible for putting the ball in the 22, and the ELV applies.

And if he did a QbT to his mate standing behind the GL, missed him, and the ball went dead . . . whither the restart?

Throwing the ball over the dead ball line is a penalty offence - Law 10.2 (c). If it is deemed accidental, scrum 5 to the opposition.

As a matter of interest, probably to us all, what reason do you think could've been given by the IRB to justify the 'no gain' decision they allegedly gave the RFU?

The fact that a ball in touch is not in the 22.
When you say "allegedly", whose veracity are you challenging?

FWIW, I think they simply used the ELV's 'spirit of intention', overlooking the final sentence of 19.2(e) which recognises the QT, once taken, as a restart option divorced from the original touch requirements.

It does nothing of the sort. As I have said several times, Law 19.2 (e) has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not a team put the ball into the 22. There is no mention of the 22, and the paragraph applies everywhere. It deals purely with the consequences of a team taking a Quick Throw-in incorrectly.

The point we are arguing is whether a correctly taken Quick Throw-in (when Law 19.2 (e) does not apply), which puts the ball into the 22, can then be kicked for a gain in ground. Law 19.1 (b) says NO. The only get-out is to argue that the 22 extends beyond the touchlines. I am astonished that South Africa and Australia want to take this line.

 

[chopper15]

No, not any, only those where the ball has by its own steam gone past the 22.

Anyway this will just be one of those things where NH & SH will continue to differ.

Whoever gave the opinion/directive to the RFU, couldn't have had the authority to make it official clarification. If he had it would have been circulated in writing to all unions. A glaring example of both incompetence and inept amateurism.

And why on earth don't some SH body formally ask the IRB for official clarification quoting the 19.2 (e) law which divorces a QT from the LoT requirement?

Unfortunately, us learned terrace refs are getting the IRB that the unions' refs
deserve.:sad:

 

[gillburt]

The only get-out is to argue that the 22 extends beyond the touchlines. I am astonished that South Africa and Australia want to take this line.

If we start doing that then, excuse the pun, but where do we draw the line?

 

[OB..]

Whoever gave the opinion/directive to the RFU, couldn't have had the authority to make it official clarification. If he had it would have been circulated in writing to all unions. A glaring example of both incompetence and inept amateurism.

If the you read the procedure for getting a formal Ruling from the IRB (at the front of the law book) you will find that a Union is expected to make up its own mind if it can and only refer to the IRB for really controversial matters. And then it takes some time. For all we know a request for a Ruling may already have been submitted. I certainly hope so, because it does not help for different Unions to have such different views.

You have unrealistic expectations, and you underestimate the value of informal contacts.

And why on earth don't some SH body formally ask the IRB for official clarification quoting the 19.2 (e) law which divorces a QT from the LoT requirement?

It does nothing of the sort. As I have said several times, Law 19.2 (e) has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not a team put the ball into the 22. There is no mention of the 22, and the paragraph applies everywhere. It deals purely with the consequences of a team taking a Quick Throw-in incorrectly.

I answered your claim in the immediately preceding post, which you seem to have overlooked..

 

[chopper15]

You have unrealistic expectations, and you underestimate the value of informal contacts.
I answered your claim in the immediately preceding post, which you seem to have overlooked..

OK, once contacted by a union for clarification, circulate an initial IRB opinion on the matter to all unions to prompt comment . . . I think we all agree that a bit of commonsense wouldn't go amiss, considering how long the formal ruling takes. eg., the simple 'over the 5m line' fiasco.

And, not having a legal bent and not wishing to cause offence, I withdraw 'allegedly' . . . . was I confusing that with 'hearsay'?:hap:

And if creating division and confusion is underestimating the value of informal contacts and use of commonsense my unrealistic expectations then we're obviously on different wavelengths, OB. :clap:

I'll discuss the 'my claim' subject seperately if you want as I'm not understanding you're 22 argument.

I'm simply saying that a QT restart once taken divorces it from the original LO.