Wayne Barnes praised!!

[OB..]

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’.

You say three sides, but in fact all four sides are defined by the Law 1 diagram.

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.

What do you mean by "roll back in touch"? Is this the situation where the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22 but continues to roll until it is past (an imaginary extension of) the 22m line?

The basis of the NH point of view, to which Ian also subscribes, is that if the ball goes into touch outside the 22, it never went into the 22 before it went dead. Therefore the kicker could not have put it there, so the person throwing must have done.

 

[chopper15]

Ref. OB; The basis of the NH point of view, to which Ian also subscribes, is that if the ball goes into touch outside the 22, it never went into the 22 before it went dead. Therefore the kicker could not have put it there, so the person throwing must have done.




And all I’m saying, OB, is; the basis of the NH point of view to which I subscribe can be justified by identifying and directly applying an existing law.

As the 22m area is bounded by the 22m line, two touch lines and the goal line, beyond them can, therefore, be properly designated as being ‘outside the 22’.

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

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.

I then commented on what I considered an interesting point of law, that would apply to both our points of view, that should the QT be thrown to a team mate standing 5m away over the GL his direct kick to touch down field past the 22 would be a gain in ground. The reason being, of course, that the QT was never put into the 22 area by the defender. :hap:

 

[Donal1988]

Lads I may have the wrong situation entirely but as recently as last night I had my IRFU Level 1 TJ Workshop with Dave McHugh.

He quizzed us on this situation: ball is kicked to touch by blue outside 22 area. It bounces before reds 22m area and bounces out of touch rolling behind the 22m line. A red player INSIDE his 22m takes a quick throw and ball is kicked directly to touch.

According to McHugh the IRFU position is that play would restart with a throw to blue WITH a gain in ground by red.

 

[Donal1988]

Is that situation what you are debating? Or have I just read the term quick throw and 22m too many times and got a wierd conclusion?

 

[chopper15]

Is that situation what you are debating? Or have I just read the term quick throw and 22m too many times and got a wierd conclusion?

A real turn up for the book, Donal. It IS the situation we're debating. :hap:

The belief, if I recall it correctly from the queries and answers on this site, was that the SH was generally in favour of a gain in ground, while the RFU followed by the WRU preferred the no gain decision.

The gain side is yet to define their reasoning. Over to you, Donal. :clap:

PS. Nobody yet seems to know if the IRB have been officially asked for clarification.

 

[Deeps]

And all I’m saying, OB, is; the basis of the NH point of view to which I subscribe can be justified by identifying and directly applying an existing law.

As the 22m area is bounded by the 22m line, two touch lines and the goal line, beyond them can, therefore, be properly designated as being ‘outside the 22’.

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

My broom cupboard meets that criteria too but I am sure Law 19 doesn't apply there. You cannot extend the meaning of 'outside the 22' to include anywhere outside the field of play I am afraid, that is, unless you are playing 'Quiddich' U19 variations.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is that situation what you are debating? Or have I just read the term quick throw and 22m too many times and got a wierd conclusion?

Donal

Pop back and look at this post of mine

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=89774&postcount=68

In scenario 2

SH referees rule this as a GAIN in ground, and so, apparently do the IRFU

The RFU and WRU say this is NO GAIN gain in ground.

I consider the RFU/WRU interpretation to be the correct one in both the meaning and spirit of the Law, for the reason I have said in that post.

You cannot extend the meaning of 'outside the 22' to include anywhere outside the field of play I am afraid

No, but if you look at the diagrams in Law 1, the 22 does not extend beyond the touch line into the perimeter area, therefore the area of touch between the 22 and the goal-line cannot be said to be 'inside the 22' either.

 

[Dickie E]

The gain side is yet to define their reasoning.

I'll try to explain the logic - do not take this as meaning that I necessarily support it.

There are 2 points:

1. In times past it used to be the case that, irrepective of how the ball got there, a kick from inside the defenders' 22 resulted in gain in ground.

The 'powers that be' decided that this gave the defending team too much advanatge and spoilt the game (ball carrier running back into 22 solely for the purpose of achieving gain in ground). This made sense given the further distance balls now can be kicked (athletism, ball material, ground condition, etc.)

This then evolved from "carrying ball back" to now include "putting the ball back".

So the spirit & intent of these changes has been to discourage the defending team from INTENTIONALLY moving the ball BACKWARDS into their own 22 solely for the purpose of putting the ball out of play with a gain in ground. This is viewed as negative play as the intent of rugby is to move towards your opponent goal line, not away from it.

So a defender that retrieves the ball from touch (say, 10 metres from his own goal line) & restarts with a QT is not guilty of the negative play that is trying to be eliminated.

2. If a normal defending lineout occurs inside the 22, then a gain in ground kick from the defending team is OK. Why, then, should this team be penalised for making the positive play of a QT?


I think the scenario that is envisaged at the higher level is not the ball trickling into touch just over the 22. It is the big booming kick by White from inside 22 that crosses touchline near Black 10 metre line and is caught by Black winger 10 metres from his own goal-line. The proponents would say he has the right to get the ball back in via QT with gain in ground available.

 

[OB..]

I think the scenario that is envisaged at the higher level is not the ball trickling into touch just over the 22. It is the big booming kick by White from inside 22 that crosses touchline near Black 10 metre line and is caught by Black winger 10 metres from his own goal-line. The proponents would say he has the right to get the ball back in via QT with gain in ground available.

Yes, I know where they are coming from, but this last bit shows where they have got to: referees will have to decide if a ball outside the field of play has crossed an imaginary extension of the 22m line. They will usually be more or less at right angles to that line, making it as difficult as possible.

Even the scenario you suggest they had in mind does not make much sense. Surely Black would be better off with a lineout throw at their 10m line than an opposition throw wherever they manage to kick the ball to? Nor has the approach saved a lineout. I'm not sure it would discourage the booming kick as described either - White would be happy to get the throw-in.

Of course the last thing we want is for Black to reply with a similar b(l)ooming kick!

 

[Donal1988]

You reckon its worth bringing up. I agree in law terms it makes little sense. Would an email to McHugh seem like taking an interest or in just being a nuisance.

 

[Ian_Cook]

To me, the LoT is the key issue.

If the LoT is outside the 22 no gain in ground
If the LoT is inside the 22, gain in ground

This is the simplest one for the referee to decide. Usually a referee has a fair idea whether the LoT is inside out outside the 22. However as soon as you start asking him to determine where the ball was fielded looking at near right angles to an imaginary reference line, you have the potential to make the issue a lot more complicated, e.g.

► What if the ball lands in touch behind the 22 and strikes an advertising hoarding and bounces forward in front of the imaginary 22 line an then is fielded by a player

► What if the ball strikes a player in touch and bounce behind or in front of the imaginary 22 line an then is fielded by a player

 

[OB..]

The problem needs to be resolved because it will crop up sometime at international level.

 

[Donal1988]

Ok so I decided to email McHugh who is our development officer and gave the TJ workshop the other night.

Hi Dave,

Following our M.A.R. Touch Judge workshop in Charleville Park Hotel on Tuesday evening I just was looking at my notes from it and I had a question on a point of law.

The situation I am describing is the following: ball is kicked to touch by green outside their 22m area. It bounces before yellows 22m area and bounces out of touch rolling behind the 22m line. A yellow player INSIDE his 22m takes a quick throw and ball is kicked directly to touch. The answer given was a throw in to green WITH a gain in ground by yellow.

At the time this made sense to me but having read the law I am just struggling slightly with this situation. The particular issue is that of "rolling back behind 22m line"? Is this the situation where the ball crosses the touchline outside the 22 but continues to roll until it is past (an imaginary extension of) the 22m line?

The basis of how I understand it is that if the ball goes into touch outside the 22m area, it never went into the 22 at all before it went dead. Law 1 describes 22m area: ‘The 22’ is the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line. Therefore the kicker could not have put it there, so the person throwing must have done.

19.1 (b) says: 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.

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 to my knowledge.

I apologize if I have interpreted this particular situation incorrectly but I am just keen to be able to fully understand this situation. Thanks again for taking the time to read it. I can talk to you about it at the next IRFU Level 1 Workshop or else an email would be much appreciated.

Thanks again,

Donal Treacy, M.A.R.

Have I phrased the query ok, before I actually send it. Anything I should add?

 

[Davet]

Good description, you may wish to add that you are aware that there diiferent interpretations by RFU and SARFU for example.

 

[Donal1988]

OK just added that Barker and sent. He might email me or else just talk to me at my next workshop in a few weeks.

 

[Phil E]

Thanks again,

Donal Treacy, M.A.R.

You might like to add:

I have put Donal, because that is my first name; and I have put Treacy because...............................:biggrin:




Seriously, what Davet said.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The problem needs to be resolved because it will crop up sometime at international level.

With Unions interpreting this differently, I think someone is going to have to ask for a Law Ruling.

You might like to add:

I have put Donal, because that is my first name; and I have put Treacy because...............................:biggrin:

:nono:

 

[Donal1988]

I sent the email as described adding in the there is inconsistency from many different unions.

I got what I consider a fairly inadequate and less than satisfactory.

Hi Donal,

Look here’s the deal: if the lineout is outside the “22” then there is no gain in ground. If its inside there is.
Thought that was what was said.

Regards

 

[chopper15]

To me, the LoT is the key issue.

This is the simplest one for the referee to decide. Usually a referee has a fair idea whether the LoT is inside out outside the 22.

However as soon as you start asking him to determine where the ball was fielded. . . .

But all the ref. has to determine in the circumstances you describe, Ian, is, was the QT taken between the LoT and his GL?

Or, are you suggesting that the LoG determines the outcome of the QT?

Which, I think, is a fair solution and what the IRB will eventually impose and in the meantime all refs should agree to adopt?


PS. Do you think he fully comprehended the issue of discussion, Donal?

 

[Donal1988]

I posted a pretty long email. You can read what I emailed him above. Id assume as a former international referee, IRFU referee coaching manager and Munster development coach he could follow the email I sent him.