Wayne Barnes praised!!

[chopper15]

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.

He's probably giving you the fair and proper solution, which all refs should now abide by and bugger the reasoning.:clap:

PS. Ask him if, in the circumstances we've been discussing, the QT was passed back over the GL and kicked way down field direct into touch would it be a gain in ground?

 

[DrSTU]

God has answered

2. Name: Stu Knowling

Question: I'll be assistant referee in a couple of weeks and still haven't heard a clear explanation to this situation. Two teams (Red & White). Red kicks the ball from their 10m line and it bobbles into touch about 27m away from the goal line (i.e. outside the 22m), the ball does not continue rolling past the 22m but is picked up by a White player who then carries it back towards the goal line several metres (so he's now inside the 22m and he took it into the 22m). He takes a quick throw to his team-mate who subsequently kicks it into touch further down the pitch. Simply, gain in ground from the kick or line-out adjacent to where he kicked it from? Not sure if 19.1 (d) was intended to be used here but that law seems to only really cover "proper" line outs. Keep up the good work guys.

Mark Lawrence: Hi There Stu,

Good to hear from you from you again and trust you are going to have a good season.

The answer to your question is a line out adjacent from where he kicked. The intention of the ELV’s (and this is one of them that was accepted), was that any action by a defending player that caused the ball to be taken into the 22m resulted in NO gain in ground from a subsequent kick directly into touch.

The exception here, however, would be if the ball went out at 27m but continued rolling, in touch, to within the 22m but still in touch. A quick throw in here would result in a gain in ground as the attacking team put the ball passed the defenders 22m line and thus into the 22m!! But then you know that.

Good luck in your AR role and trust all the decisions will be easy.

Kind regards, Mark

Law 19.1 (d) Defending team takes ball into their own 22 at a scrum or line-out. When a defending team throws the ball into a scrum or line-out outside that team’s 22 and the ball then crosses into the team’s 22 without touching an opposition player and then a player from the defending team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/1930951.htm

 

[Donal1988]

Ask him if, in the circumstances we've been discussing, the QT was passed back over the GL and kicked way down field direct into touch would it be a gain in ground?

Chopper Im not asking him anything else. I sent him the email, got an answer and that can be that. If you want to get anywhere in Irish refereeing its through him and Im not going to be annoying him.

 

[chopper15]

God has answered



Law 19.1 (d) Defending team takes ball into their own 22 at a scrum or line-out. When a defending team throws the ball into a scrum or line-out outside that team’s 22 and the ball then crosses into the team’s 22 without touching an opposition player and then a player from the defending team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.

This law isn't applicable to situation in question. :hap:

 

[Davet]

Dr Stu, fine, but that's not the issue. What is in dispute is the case where the kick goes into touch short of the 22, and the roll to a point (still in touch), beyond the junction of 22 and touchline where it is fielded by a player who takes a QT to a teammate in his 22, who then kicks out on the full. The issue really is, if the LoT is outside the 22, then if the throw is taken inside the 22 does that count as being taken back if the ball rolled into that convenient position as well as if it was carried back?

 

[OB..]

My question to my RDO:
"White grubbers and the ball crosses the touchline a metre outside
Black's 22. The Black winger catches up with the ball and when he picks
it up he is a couple of metres in touch, roughly between the 22 flag and
the corner flag.

Seeing his full back in position a metre closer to the goal line, he
takes a Quick Throw-in (meeting all the requirements). The full back
punts the ball into touch at his 10m line.

It is my understanding that the RFU would want the referee to disallow
the gain in ground, whereas SARFU would allow it.

Is that correct?
If so, is there any chance of the IRB sorting out the muddle before it
happens in an internationl between countries with different views?"

His reply:
"The answer is yes, we would not allow it as it is passed back into the
22.
[…]
Will forward to our laws representative for further discussion. "

 

[chopper15]

His reply:
"The answer is yes, we would not allow it as it is passed back into the 22.

He obviously didn't appreciate the subtlety of the query which SARFU apparently does. And that is why the twain probably don't meet?

 

[DrSTU]

Dr Stu, fine, but that's not the issue. What is in dispute is the case where the kick goes into touch short of the 22, and the roll to a point (still in touch), beyond the junction of 22 and touchline where it is fielded by a player who takes a QT to a teammate in his 22, who then kicks out on the full. The issue really is, if the LoT is outside the 22, then if the throw is taken inside the 22 does that count as being taken back if the ball rolled into that convenient position as well as if it was carried back?

Either I'm completely missing the point but didn't this answer the question.

The exception here, however, would be if the ball went out at 27m but continued rolling, in touch, to within the 22m but still in touch. A quick throw in here would result in a gain in ground as the attacking team put the ball passed the defenders 22m line and thus into the 22m!! But then you know that.

 

[chopper15]

In my capacity as a respected and learned terrace referee, if somebody would give me the appropriate contact name and address of the IRB, I'll write them a letter and report back ASAP.:hap:

 

[Simon Thomas]

Paddy O'Brien
Head of Referees

or

David Carrigy
Head of External & Member Relations


THE INTERNATIONAL RUGBY BOARD
Huguenot House
35-38 St Stephen's Green
Dublin 2
Ireland

Tel: 00 353 1 240 9200

 

[chopper15]

Will any of you mind if I use your wording. You more than often do it better than . . . is it, me or I? :sad:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Will any of you mind if I use your wording. You more than often do it better than . . . is it, me or I? :sad:

Use my diagrams. A picture tell a thousand words, and you don't have to worry about OB's grammar rules! :biggrin:

 

[Taff]

Sorry gents, but I can't see the problem so I must be super thick - don't answer that one or we're over-complicating matters. The notes say

there is no gain in ground .... When a team takes the ball into their own 22 or in goal and kick directly to touch. This includes where a player moves back into the 22 to take a quick throw in.

Perhaps I'm being naiive, but if the LoT is outside the 22 and a player decides to take a quick throw in from inside his own 22, there's no gain in ground. Not being funny, but I still can't see the problem.

Please don't tell me I've got it wrong - its one of the few rules I thought I understood and which makes perfect sense to me.

 

[chopper15]

He didn't take the ball back there, Taff. From a kick by the opposition it rolled along in touch to a point adjacent to the 22 area.


But, inadvertantly I think, you may have answered my query. ie.,

If, in the circumstances we've been discussing, the QT was passed back over the GL and kicked way down field direct into touch would it be a gain in ground?

You state; 'The notes say there is no gain in ground .... when a team takes the ball into their own 22 or in goal and kick directly to touch.

What 'notes' are you referring to?

 

[Taff]

He didn't take the ball back there, Taff. From a kick by the opposition it rolled along in touch to a point adjacent to the 22 area. But, inadvertantly I think, you may have answered my query. .... You state; 'The notes say there is no gain in ground ....... What 'notes' are you referring to?

Where the ball bounces after its gone over the plane of touch is to an extent irrelevant surely (forget for a minute that it doesn't touch anybody else so cancelling the possibility of a QTI) its the LoT that's relevant is it not? Don't laugh, but the "notes" I referred to are my own summary notes made from reading all 188 pages of the LOTG and the course we had. Basically I summarised the book and bought different sections together, so its either mentioned in the law book or the IRB website somewhere or was mentioned by the ref that gave the course. Can I find where it's mentioned now? Have a guess.

The pretty picture on pg 115 shows the area where the QTI can be taken (by the way it doesn't include in-goal) but if there's no gain in ground from taking it back into the 22, surely there wouldn't be a gain in ground if it was kicked from in-goal.

 

[chopper15]

I've got my 'anthology' of refs' interpretations but that's obviously useless when it comes to queries like this. So having been thro' ELVs notes and the 2009 LoG, if you haven't got any positive leads, I think the answer to my query must be;

In the circumstances we've been discussing, a QT passed back over the GL and kicked way down-field direct into touch would be a gain in ground.

You query, Taff,. . . . but if there's no gain in ground from taking it back into the 22, surely there wouldn't be a gain in ground if it was kicked from in-goal.

The law state that you mustn't take or put it back in your 22. . . . not in-goal.

 

[DrSTU]

Right,

I've read all the posts on this and with deference to the excellent pics by Ian in post 68 I shall be applying the following standards until an IRB ruling states otherwise.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8189&page=7

Scenario 1
Agree, line out opposite D. No gain in ground

Scenario 2
Will agree with the SH interpretation and give a gain in ground

Scenario 3
Obviously gain in ground allowed.

As for the talk of passing it back into in-goal. In scenario 1, no gain. Scenario 2, gain. Scenario 3, gain.

I am at peace with these interpretations until proved otherwise:chin:

 

[chopper15]

Shouldn't your last sentence read;

I am at piece (sic) with these interpretations until the IRB state otherwise? hap:


However, the 2009 LoG appear to support the NH in scenario 2. A 'no gain'.


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.

 

[Taff]

I've got my 'anthology' of refs' interpretations but that's obviously useless when it comes to queries like this. .... You query, Taff,. . . . but if there's no gain in ground from taking it back into the 22, surely there wouldn't be a gain in ground if it was kicked from in-goal.
The law state that you mustn't take or put it back in your 22. . . . not in-goal.

With respect 19.1 (b) says there is no gain in ground when

... it goes into that players 22 or in-goal .... This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw in and then the ball is kicked directly to touch.

"Behind the 22" (not "in your 22") includes in-goal. I'm sorry gents, but I still think we're over-complicating this.

 

[DrSTU]

Shouldn't your last sentence read;

I am at piece (sic) with these interpretations until the IRB state otherwise? hap:


However, the 2009 LoG appear to support the NH in scenario 2. A 'no gain'.


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.

Damn it, my slydexia strikes again. I'm usually very good at spotting the obvious ones.

I agree that the LOG don't support the fact that the 22m line isn't infinite but like the simplistic point about looking where the ball ends up.