Wayne Barnes praised!!

[chopper15]

!9.1 (a) is actually the nearest, Taff, but this refers to the FoP, so in-goal is not included.

(b) refers to ‘When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22.’ For the discussion we’re having . . . they didn’t.

‘Behind the 22’ in LoG context I would think is restricted to the ’22 area’. If not there’s a contradiction created by the FoP parameters.

Unfortunately to get a ‘working interpretation’ you have to delve deep or ‘over complicate’ as you may see it.

2009 LoG for quick reference;


19.1 NO GAIN IN GROUND

(a) Outside a team’s 22, a team member kicks directly into touch. Except for a penalty
kick, when a player anywhere in the field of play who is outside the 22 kicks directly into
touch, there is no gain in ground. The throw-in is taken either at the place opposite where
the player kicked the ball, or at the place where it went into touch, whichever is nearer that
player’s goal line.

(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area 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, or a tackle takes place or a
ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. 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 into touch.

 

[OB..]

Where can a QT be taken? Answer: between the place where the ball went into touch and the player's goal line.

In other words, since you cannot take a QT behind the goal line, any throw to a player in in-goal must have gone through the 22 first.

 

[chopper15]

Where can a QT be taken? Answer: between the place where the ball went into touch and the player's goal line.

In other words, since you cannot take a QT behind the goal line, any throw to a player in in-goal must have gone through the 22 first.

In the context we've been discussing, OB. ie the QT is from the TL adjacent to the 22 area thrown back to a team mate in-goal.

 

[OB..]

In the context we've been discussing, OB. ie the QT is from the TL adjacent to the 22 area thrown back to a team mate in-goal.

That was exactly the situation I was addressing. The thrower MUST be by the touch line, not the touch-in-goal line. Therefore to get the ball to a team mate in in-goal. he must throw it across part of the 22, so he has put the ball briefly into the 22 (unless it was already put there by the kicker).

 

[chopper15]

That was exactly the situation I was addressing. The thrower MUST be by the touch line, not the touch-in-goal line. Therefore to get the ball to a team mate in in-goal. he must throw it across part of the 22, so he has put the ball briefly into the 22 (unless it was already put there by the kicker).

19.1 (b)When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area . . .

The second sentence is only conditional to the first. In our discussion the opposition put it there, so this law is not relevant.

What interests me, however, is your comment, 'he must throw it across part of the 22, so he has put the ball briefly into the 22'.

Which prompts the query, 'so how is that supposed to effect the decision'.

An air-borne ball veering in and out of touch doesn't.

 

[OB..]

Chopper - it isn't veering in and out of touch. That deals with whether the ball is dead or not. This doesn't.

White grubbers. The ball bounces just outside the Black 22 and lands having crossed the touch line just inside it. The ball was put into the 22 by White.

We all know the law is imprecise. I want a sensible interpretation from the playing point of view.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper - it isn't veering in and out of touch. That deals with whether the ball is dead or not. This doesn't.

White grubbers. The ball bounces just outside the Black 22 and lands having crossed the touch line just inside it. The ball was put into the 22 by White.

We all know the law is imprecise. I want a sensible interpretation from the playing point of view.

We digress. So back to my query, how is throwing the ball across part of the 22 putting it briefly into the 22? And how would putting it over, which is what it would actually be doing, effect the decision?

 

[Davet]

Angels and pinheads, all interesting but we get no further forward.

Either the ball going dead before the 22 and lot being before the 22 is the relevant factoid, or the fact that the kick went long enough to get beyond the 22 even though it was in touch is relevant.

Both, I now accept, have a logical basis; but only one can be "correct". We need a definite ruling.

Though in England, seem to have one, and the ball being dead seems to be the relevant issue.

So, unless I hear different from the Society, that's the way I will expect to see it implemented.

I don't cover many internationals, so I don't expect a conflict.

 

[chopper15]

SARFU and IRFU, 'gain'.
RFU and WRU, 'no gain'.

Any indicators from other unions or IRB yet?

 

[OB..]

We digress. So back to my query, how is throwing the ball across part of the 22 putting it briefly into the 22? And how would putting it over, which is what it would actually be doing, effect the decision?

That was precisely the point of my grubber example, which is not a digression. The ball did not land in the 22. but bounced over it.

However like Davet, I really go not care to fantasise about the wording. We know the law is imprecise. I believe the line the RFU has taken makes good sense. I think my view on the ball being thrown into the in-goal also makes good sense. End of.

 

[Dickie E]

SARFU and IRFU, 'gain'.
RFU and WRU, 'no gain'.

Any indicators from other unions or IRB yet?

To the best of my knowledge the ARU is part of the 'gain' gang - although I've heard no correspondence on the issue for some time.

 

[chopper15]

That was precisely the point of my grubber example, which is not a digression. The ball did not land in the 22. but bounced over it.

However like Davet, I really go not care to fantasise about the wording. We know the law is imprecise. I believe the line the RFU has taken makes good sense. I think my view on the ball being thrown into the in-goal also makes good sense. End of.

OB, this is a perfectly proper query, why would you and Davet want to introduce 'bouncing' and fantasy?

Also it wasn't thrown into the 22 area, so where does the RFU and their good sense come in to it?

It was a quick throw from where it had rolled adjacent to the 22 area, to a team mate standing in goal. He kicked it direct into touch into his opponent's half.

As it had 'by-passed' the 22 area I just wanted to know if it was a gain or no gain, that was all.:sad:

 

[DrSTU]

Chopper,

I don't get this. Let's put some numbers on this.

Ball is kicked and goes into touch 15m from the goal line, correct?

The QT can then be taken from anywhere between the 15m and goal line. As the player cannot pass the ball behind the flag at the intersection of the goal line and touch he must, by definition, pass it through the 22m at some point. In theory, in you believe the Southern Hemisphere lot (and I do) then the gain in ground is accrued, even though the ball might only pass through the 22 area for a split second.

Am I getting close to answering what you are asking?

 

[Dickie E]

As it had 'by-passed' the 22 area I just wanted to know if it was a gain or no gain, that was all.:sad:

Whatever rule we apply for "kick out of 22" we apply the same rule for "kick out of in-goal".

If you fly over the smallest corner of North Korea you can expect a missile up your arse. Same for 22.

 

[OB..]

chopper - Dickie_E is right.

You appear to be suggesting that we should treat a throw into the in-goal as different from a throw into the 22, and that it should not count as the latter. We have tried to point out to you that taking this position would be nonsensical from a playing or refereeing point of view.

We already know the law is incomplete, and needs a Ruling. I see no point in trying to draw weird conclusions from defective law.

 

[chopper15]

Red kicks the ball into touch just outside blue 22m line.

The momentum and direction of the ball rolls it, still in touch, to within 5m of blue goal-line.

Aware of a strong diagonal following wind, the ball is QT'd to a blue team-mate standing behind the goal line 5m out from TiG.

He belts the ball directly into touch just past red 22m line on the other side of the field.

As the ball has 'by-passed' blue 22 area, ie., wasn't put into it, would I be correct in thinking that the ref. would be obliged to confirm this as a gain in ground? :hap:

 

[SimonSmith]

The chances of that happening?

So close to zero as to ensure I'm not going to worry about it.

 

[OB..]

Red kicks the ball into touch just outside blue 22m line.

The momentum and direction of the ball rolls it, still in touch, to within 5m of blue goal-line.

Aware of a strong diagonal following wind, the ball is QT'd to a blue team-mate standing behind the goal line 5m out from TiG.

He belts the ball directly into touch just past red 22m line on the other side of the field.

As the ball has 'by-passed' blue 22 area, ie., wasn't put into it, would I be correct in thinking that the ref. would be obliged to confirm this as a gain in ground? :hap:

NO.

I thought I had made my view on this clear enough already, but here goes again:
The ball crossed the touchline outside the 22, therefore any play by the defending side inside the 22 means it has been put there by the defending side.
I regard throwing the ball across the 22 into in-goal as putting the ball into the 22. Alternatively, in this case the in-goal is treated the same way as the 22 for the purposes of gain in ground.

I maintain this is the only sensible way to interpret the law.

You are trying to argue that the referee is forced to use your messy interpretation even though it makes no rugby sense. Why?

 

[Davet]

Agree with OB.

The ingoal is to be treated in the same way as the 22 as regards gain in ground.

The answer depends on which interpretation of taken back we apply, in England what you describe would result in no gain.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Chopper,

I don't get this. Let's put some numbers on this.

Ball is kicked and goes into touch 15m from the goal line, correct?

The QT can then be taken from anywhere between the 15m and goal line. As the player cannot pass the ball behind the flag at the intersection of the goal line and touch he must, by definition, pass it through the 22m at some point. In theory, in you believe the Southern Hemisphere lot (and I do) then the gain in ground is accrued, even though the ball might only pass through the 22 area for a split second.

Am I getting close to answering what you are asking?

Not quite. The business about the ball going into in-goal from a throw-in to the field of play is a red herring.

The real issue that needs resolving is this; is this;

In both cases the ball goes into touch at 'A', is picked up/caught at 'B', and thrown in at 'C' to a player standing at 'D' who then kicks the ball directly to touch.

All unions agree that in the diagram on the left there is no gain in ground

However, in the diagram on the right

► RFU and the WRU believe that there is also no gain in ground

► NZRU, ARU, IRFU and SARFU all believe there is gain in ground

I subscribe to the RFU view.

The NZRU et al reasoning is that the ball has rolled behind the 22 even though it is in touch.

My reasoning is twofold

1. The LoT in both cases is outside the 22

2. Since the 22 line does not extend into the perimeter area, nor does the 22. so the player throwing in is putting into the 22 area, a ball that was not previously there.... so NO-GAIN