[Law] touch after pk

[crossref]

QQ when was the Law changed so that you could kick a PK to touch, and keep the throw in ?
Feels like ten years ago ??

 

[Decorily]

I don't think you really need to ask that question here...

Is this 'going somewhere '?

 

[crossref]

No, it's a real question. My law books only go back to 2015 and it was the case then

 

[buff]

QQ when was the Law changed so that you could kick a PK to touch, and keep the throw in ?
Feels like ten years ago ??

Much longer than 10 years ago. I retired from playing 15 years ago and it was a well established law then. Could it not have been in the 1993 changes?

 

[damo]

1992 I believe. Pretty confident it was immediately after the 1991 RWC.

 

[damo]

1992 I believe. Pretty confident it was immediately after the 1991 RWC.

I was almost correct. See article from August 1992. Changes :

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-international-board-s-rule-changes-1548710.html

 

[buff]

I was almost correct. See article from August 1992. Changes :

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-international-board-s-rule-changes-1548710.html

You are right. We finished the 1992 season (May to October for us ) under the old laws, and changed to the new ones in 1993.

 

[Dickie E]

it wasn't a change that I welcomed. I didn't/don't think that a team that deliberately puts the ball out of play should be rewarded for that.

 

[Zebra1922]

it wasn't a change that I welcomed. I didn't/don't think that a team that deliberately puts the ball out of play should be rewarded for that.

interesting point. Maybe penalties are changed then to be either a kick at goal or a 10m advancement.

 

[Rich_NL]

I reffed a match in early 2017 where both teams and one of the coaches were convinced that the LO was for the offending side because the PK had bounced before going into touch. I thought I was going mental for a moment. "Well, let's just play it my way and we'll check the law book after the match."

 

[crossref]

it wasn't a change that I welcomed. I didn't/don't think that a team that deliberately puts the ball out of play should be rewarded for that.

It's definitely an oddity of rugby that a team awarded a PK .... kicks the ball off the field.

When you sit and think about it, it's very strange - I can't think of any other sport with something similar - but we take it for granted.

- - - Updated - - -

I was almost correct. See article from August 1992. Changes :

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-international-board-s-rule-changes-1548710.html

thanks - wow, that long

 

[buff]

It's definitely an oddity of rugby that a team awarded a PK .... kicks the ball off the field.

When you sit and think about it, it's very strange - I can't think of any other sport with something similar - but we take it for granted.

- - - Updated - - -



thanks - wow, that long

But it punishes the offending team with a potentially significant loss of territory as well as the loss of the ball. It is not so much about rewarding a team that kicks the ball out as punishing a team that has offended.

 

[crossref]

Yes, but my point is that the game is structured oddly, so that on many circumstances the best thing for a team to do is kick the ball off the pitch

Is there any other game where teams do that ?

 

[chbg]

Yes, but my point is that the game is structured uniquely, so that on many circumstances the best thing for a team to do is kick the ball off the pitch

Is there any other game where teams do that ?

FTFY!

 

[crossref]

FTFY!

Well , yes, as I said it's so ingrained in rugby folk that we no longer perceive how odd it is.

Perhaps as the focus on ball-in-play time grows, we'll start to become more aware of the anomaly

 

[Jz558]

It does seem counterintuitive but no more so than a game in which senior coaches think their best chance of winning is by having less possession. I suspect the change was brought about because having legalised lifting in the line out towards the end of the 80's, winning your own throw became much more likely. Awarding a penalty which was then kicked for ground almost always resulted in the loss of possesion to the offending side and so deliberate infringing, particularly if reasonably distant from your own goal-line, became more desirable.

 

[didds]

Yes, but my point is that the game is structured oddly, so that on many circumstances the best thing for a team to do is kick the ball off the pitch

Is there any other game where teams do that ?

Id suggest that at times for defensive reset reasons this still happens in football and hockey (not that ive played hocley for decades!)

didds

 

[crossref]

It does seem counterintuitive but no more so than a game in which senior coaches think their best chance of winning is by having less possession.

agreed - also an odd part of our game,

So we have found ourselves in a position where we have constructed a game where very often the winning strategy is often to kick the ball off the field, or to contrive to lose posession ... and then we wonder why it's often boring to watch (and no doubt to play)

Indeed I remember Joe Marler shouting at the oppo : "you're boring me!" .. Reminded me og Sid Viscious in the last few appearances for the Sex Pistols standing on the stage bellowing 'It's no fun'

 

[thepercy]

Yes, but my point is that the game is structured oddly, so that on many circumstances the best thing for a team to do is kick the ball off the pitch

Is there any other game where teams do that ?

I always thought it was odd in American/Gridiron Football that you are allowed and sometimes encouraged to run out of bounds and retain possession of the ball. Though, if you kick the ball out of bounds you lose possession.

 

[damo]

I don't think it's odd at all.

These days the team throwing the ball in wins about 80-90% of the time. If a team has offended the other team should have the option of moving upfield and getting the ball back.

Rugby League has the same rule about kicks from a PK for the same reason.