Wayne Barnes praised!!

[Dixie]

I would challenge you to find something around law interpretation that has been 'restricted' to referees and not any other wider audience. I really don't think you'll find it.

That's only because he's not allowed access to the restricted section of this website, not being a referee:biggrin:

 

[SimonSmith]

I was talking about generally, rather than this site - although it's nice to know we're thought of as the "voice of referees"

 

[chopper15]

What efforts do you think we currently make?

I think I know what you're getting at, OB, and you're right . . . . I haven't a clue.:hap:

Incidently, did any official body ever ask the IRB if the subsequent direct kick to touch from a QT taken with a ball rolling along in touch past the 22m line was a gain or no gain?

Thanks, Dixie! :clap:

You'll, no doubt, be pleased know you never were put into my little black book. In fact, I've got the list down to three, and they're all under BGBs.:hap:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Incidently, did any official body ever ask the IRB if the subsequent direct kick to touch from a QT taken with a ball rolling along in touch past the 22m line was a gain or no gain?

No. IMO we still interpret this incorrectly in the SH.

 

[chopper15]

No. IMO we still interpret this incorrectly in the SH.

I agree with you, Ian. But I would like to know the for-and-agin reasons.

Mine for what its worth is;

Three sides of the 22m area is bounded by its 22m and touch lines. Therefore, I think it can be assumed that beyond these lines can be properly designated as being ‘outside the 22’.

Law19.1(b). (truncated for clarity)

When a defending player plays the ball from ‘outside the 22’ and it goes into that player’s 22 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 there is no gain in ground.

 

[Dickie E]

When a defending player plays the ball from ‘outside the 22’ and it goes into that player’s 22 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 there is no gain in ground.

Is in-goal 'outside the 22' too?

 

[chopper15]

Is in-goal 'outside the 22' too?

It would have to be, Dickie. Think the whole acceptable?

To digress. What ever happened to 'Waltzing Matilda'?

Was it ever a spontaneous rendition at internationals such as 'Athenrey', 'Hymns an' Arias' and that negro spiritual?

My son and I were on the terrace among a host of Ozzies in Marseilles during the World Cup when the tannoy played it. We were the the only two in that area, being Cornishmen, who bothered to sing it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is in-goal 'outside the 22' too?

Its "behind" the 22 line

I agree with you, Ian. But I would like to know the for-and-agin reasons.

Here are the three scenarios with descriptions and my opinion on gain-no gain, together with the rationale for that opinion.

SCENARIO 1

►Description: The ball crosses into touch at 'A', is caught or picked up at 'B' and thrown in at 'C' to a player standing at 'D', who kicks directly to touch. NO GAIN in ground, line-out opposite 'D'.
►Rationale: The line of touch is outside the 22 at 'A', therefore it is the next place that ball would normally come into play. The ball has been brought into play inside the 22, therefore it has been carried back.



SCENARIO 2 : This is the contentious one

►Description: The ball crosses into touch at 'A', is caught or picked up at 'B' and thrown in at 'C' to a player standing at 'D', who kicks directly to touch. NO GAIN in ground, line-out opposite 'D'.
►Rationale: The line of touch is outside the 22 at 'A', therefore it is the next place that ball would normally come into play. The ball has been brought into play inside the 22, therefore it has been effectively been carried back. Even though the ball is "geographically" located in touch behind the 22, the 22 does not extend beyond the touch line into the perimeter area. If you look at the diagrams on Law 1 (page 22 in the 2009 LotG) it clearly shows that the 22 does NOT extend into the perimeter. The positioning of the 22 flags in the perimeter is of no relevance.

In NZ and Australia, referees are allowing a gain in ground. IMO we have it wrong.



SCENARIO 3

►Description: The ball crosses into touch at 'A', is caught or picked up at 'B' and thrown in at 'C' to a player standing at 'D', who kicks directly to touch. GAIN in ground, line-out where ball went into touch.
►Rationale: The line of touch is inside the 22, therefore it is the next place that ball would come into play. The ball has not been carried back.

 

[chopper15]

I've just realized that the back border for the 22 area has to be the goal line, an in-goal area is already established.

So if the quickie was thrown back over the GL and kicked direct into touch outside the 22, it would have to be a gain in ground, thus scuppering my reasoning . . . damn.:sad: But it wasn't a bad attempt in presenting a case for the NH, was it? :hap:

Come to think of it this is a good eg where you can throw the ball back over 5m without it having to go over the 5m line as the receiver wouldn't be standing in the tramlines. :clap:

 

[Andyp]

I am interested in how law changes are spread across the country. I was talking to a quite senior assessor the other day, who had worked with a referee from another region. I'm sorry I can't remember where from or what the point was in detail other than it related to players on their feet being able to keep their hands on the ball after a ruck would have previously formed.
The assessor,who has been on all the course etc recently, gave feed back on that aspect of the game, however the referee wouldn't accept the feedback because his coach, for want of a better word, had a different interperation.
I'm not after a judgement over who was right or wrong, I don't understand how there can be such a difference in interperation that the referee wouldn't accept the feedback.

Is the answer just, it's an opinion?

If i remember rightly this was Nat 2 or above.

 

[OB..]

Is in-goal 'outside the 22' too?

A nice point :clap:

Law 1 makes it clear that the 22 and the in-goal are distinct.

Law 19 Definitions specifically exclude the goal line from the 22.

Law 19.1 (a) refers to "a player anywhere in the field of play who is outside the 22". The field of play does not include the in-goal, which is thus left in limbo. Can you or can't you? The paragraphs under Gain in Ground do not say you can, so presumably you can't.

Under Law 19.1 (b), a player in in-goal who transfers the ball to a team-mate in the 22 by a pass is throwing forward; if by a kick, the team-mate is offside. If he chips to himself he has technically taken the ball into the 22.

In practice everybody regards the in-goal as 'in the 22' for this part of the law, otherwise you would end up with a 5m attacking scrum every time (because nobody would kick if they could touch down for a drop out).

An excellent example of referees making sense of inaccurately written law - even if the point never occurred to them! And before we criticise the law makers, how many of us had thought of this point before? Yet it has arisen many times.

 

[Dickie E]

If he chips to himself he has technically taken the ball into the 22.

Doesn't even need to be so obscure. Ball carrier simply runs from in-goal into '22'.

 

[OB..]

I am interested in how law changes are spread across the country. I was talking to a quite senior assessor the other day, who had worked with a referee from another region. I'm sorry I can't remember where from or what the point was in detail other than it related to players on their feet being able to keep their hands on the ball after a ruck would have previously formed.
The assessor,who has been on all the course etc recently, gave feed back on that aspect of the game, however the referee wouldn't accept the feedback because his coach, for want of a better word, had a different interperation.
I'm not after a judgement over who was right or wrong, I don't understand how there can be such a difference in interperation that the referee wouldn't accept the feedback.

Is the answer just, it's an opinion?

If i remember rightly this was Nat 2 or above.

If that happened to me, I would note the difference of opinion when commenting in my report, and seek some way of resolving the issue by reference to higher authority.

 

[chopper15]

A nice point :clap:

Law 1 makes it clear that the 22 and the in-goal are distinct.

Law 19 Definitions specifically exclude the goal line from the 22.

Law 19.1 (a) refers to "a player anywhere in the field of play who is outside the 22". The field of play does not include the in-goal, which is thus left in limbo. Can you or can't you? The paragraphs under Gain in Ground do not say you can, so presumably you can't.

Under Law 19.1 (b), a player in in-goal who transfers the ball to a team-mate in the 22 by a pass is throwing forward; if by a kick, the team-mate is offside. If he chips to himself he has technically taken the ball into the 22.

In practice everybody regards the in-goal as 'in the 22' for this part of the law, otherwise you would end up with a 5m attacking scrum every time (because nobody would kick if they could touch down for a drop out).

An excellent example of referees making sense of inaccurately written law - even if the point never occurred to them! And before we criticise the law makers, how many of us had thought of this point before? Yet it has arisen many times.

So back to my original query and reasoning #65.

If a QT is taken after the ball has rolled back in touch from outside the 22, thrown back over the GL and then kicked direct into touch beyond the 22, it's a gain in ground?

And the aside; can it be thrown 5m to a player positioned just inside the TiG (no tramlines)?

 

[OB..]

If a QT is taken after the ball has rolled back in touch from outside the 22, thrown back over the GL and then kicked direct into touch beyond the 22, it's a gain in ground?

If the ball crossed the touch line outside the 22, no gain in ground. Otherwise, OK.

And the aside; can it be thrown 5m to a player positioned just inside the TiG (no tramlines)?

No. For consistency. The referee will judge.
This could also happen in the 22, since the touchline 5m line does not go beyond the goal line 5m line.

 

[chopper15]

If the ball crossed the touch line outside the 22, no gain in ground. Otherwise, OK.

OB, the in-goal area, as you pointed out, is not a part of the 22 area.

Therefore, the QT player did not put the ball into his team's 22, which if you refer to the 19.1 laws as a solution, reasoning would indicate a 'gain in ground'.

In fact I think all these laws are irrelevent to the issue. Only the IRB can sort it out. I just cannot understand after all this time why no official request has been made.

 

[Davet]

Because as OB pointed out to treat a ball kicked out on the full from in-goal as if it were kicked from in front of the 22 would be insane.

The Law as you describe it may support that act, but it would simply indicate that the ref was an idiot who should not be let near awhistle.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I am interested in how law changes are spread across the country. I was talking to a quite senior assessor the other day, who had worked with a referee from another region. I'm sorry I can't remember where from or what the point was in detail other than it related to players on their feet being able to keep their hands on the ball after a ruck would have previously formed.
The assessor,who has been on all the course etc recently, gave feed back on that aspect of the game, however the referee wouldn't accept the feedback because his coach, for want of a better word, had a different interperation.
I'm not after a judgement over who was right or wrong, I don't understand how there can be such a difference in interperation that the referee wouldn't accept the feedback.

Is the answer just, it's an opinion?

If i remember rightly this was Nat 2 or above.

Andy - all National Panel Referees, ARses, Referee Coaches and Assessors attended a pre-season conference, to get consistency established across all aspects of their refereeing.
Then during the season there are weekly telephone conferences to discuss such issues in sub-regional groups. I know KML1 spends his life on rugby phone conferences !

Without being there, and being part of the discussion and hearing exactly what was being interpreted differently it is difficult to comment further.

Over the last few seasons I have been very suprised at how high a level of consistency of refereeing and assessing that exists at Southern Federation and South West group levels.

 

[SimonSmith]

Because as OB pointed out to treat a ball kicked out on the full from in-goal as if it were kicked from in front of the 22 would be insane.

The Law as you describe it may support that act, but it would simply indicate that the ref was an idiot who should not be let near awhistle.

QFT..

 

[chopper15]

QFT ?

I'm merely reiterating my original point #65, Davet, that should the ball roll back in touch the QT would be thrown in 'from outside the 22'. Law19.1 (b) could then be quoted to confirm that a subsequent direct kick to touch would be a 'no-gainer', the NH view. Ian then pointed out that the in-goal area wasn't part of the 22 area.

Law19.1(b). (truncated for clarity)

When a defending player plays the ball 'from outside the 22’ and it goes into that player’s 22 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 there is no gain in ground.