Wayne Barnes praised!!

[ex-lucy]

anyone notice it nealry happened today?
NZ kicked to touch just o/side Oz's 22 ... ball rolled to inside 22m .. oz player in touch took qt ... player who caught the ball (O'Connor) then took a step o/side his 22m and kicked staright out ... no gain cos o/side 22m but what if he hadnt taken that step?
my recollection is that it was tocuh n go whether it rolled over 22m before being thrown in ...

 

[chopper15]

The chances of that happening?

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

With a strong diagonal cross-wind, Simon? And the alternative you avoided to comment on? Why did you bother to thread, Simon? :hap:


OB and Davet, the in-goal area is not an extension of the 22 area, as it is not in the FoP. Blue did not play the ball into the 22 area. You may play the ball 'over the 22m line' or 'intothe 22 ie area.

But you appear to be referring to 'over the 22 area'. :hap:


Why the aggressive nature of your answers? I'm curious, and I consider this a very interesting query as an off-shoot of our discussion.

By the way what's the decision if its a no-gain kick. . . . where to take the throw?

 

[OB..]

I'm curious, and I consider this a very interesting query as an off-shoot of our discussion.

It started as a curiosity. We have now considered it from umpteen different directions, yet you keep repeating your original view instead of dealing with our responses. It is apparently going nowhere and has become boring.

 

[chopper15]

It started as a curiosity. We have now considered it from umpteen different directions, yet you keep repeating your original view instead of dealing with our responses. It is apparently going nowhere and has become boring.

The scenario in question #136. Anybody out there, please. . . gain or no gain?

And if it's 'no gain', what follows?

 

[Adam]

The scenario in question #136. Anybody out there, please. . . gain or no gain?

And if it's 'no gain', what follows?

Lineout

 

[Ian_Cook]

OK Chopper, so here is what you asked

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:

The bit I have marked in red is the only bit that is relevant, and it is the point of contention. Its the Scenario in the right hand of the two diagrams in my last post. The RFU and WRU say this is no gain (LoT outside the 22), most others say that it is gain

The fact that it has been kicked from in-goal is totally irrelevant, but what is more annoying is that you keep clouding the real issue, and that is different unions interpreting the same law in opposite ways.

In-goal is behind the 22 line, and is treated as such. To suggest that it is not part of the 22 with regard to gain in ground is plain ludicrous. Next thing you'll be suggesting that a player could pick up the ball 1m outside his 22, fire a long pass back to a player standing in his in-goal and have him boot the ball directly into touch for a gain in ground.

 

[OB..]

The scenario in question #136. Anybody out there, please. . . gain or no gain?

You have already had answers at #137, #138, and #139. How many do you want, or is this an Irish referendum? (Keep asking unto you get the answer you want.)

 

[SimonSmith]

It started as a curiosity. We have now considered it from umpteen different directions, yet you keep repeating your original view instead of dealing with our responses. It is apparently going nowhere and has become boring.

OB - your post 143 has a quote attributed to me.

Would you be awfully offended if I denied ever having made the statement?

 

[chopper15]

OB - your post 143 has a quote attributed to me.

Would you be awfully offended if I denied ever having made the statement?

Perhaps OB's a mind-reader, Simon. :hap:

Ian; my thanks for your blunt but considered reply.

I think you hit the head on the nail in your last para;

In-goal is behind the 22 line, and is treated as such. To suggest that it is not part of the 22 with regard to gain in ground is plain ludicrous

Plain ludicrous? And why not part of the 22 to determine ground gain or otherwise in this discussion?

Because it's a specified area, Ian, and is not part of the 22 nor indeed part of FoP.

Next thing you'll be suggesting that a player could pick up the ball 1m outside his 22, fire a long pass back to a player standing in his in-goal and have him boot the ball directly into touch for a gain in ground.

As a matter of fact, Ian, you also must be a mind reader.

I was going to take that line, but thought that my off-shoot scenario, which nobody had raised and is perfectly possible, would've been recognised as such and prompted an interesting technical discussion. Unlike a near impossible long pass over the 22 which would've presented a perfect chance for ridicule and avoid addressing this 'off-shoot'. :hap:

Little did I think the consequence of introducing another slant on the issue would have provoked irritation and unjustified hostility, hopefully not generally thought. :clap:

After the Redruth v Esher game yesterday, which we lost 17-23, over a J2O ( mango and orange), I was given a learned opinion of the situation.

For the 'no-gain' camp; (i) a 5m attacking team scrum, as it would've been 'innocently' kicked. Otherwise a penalty; in effect put deliberately into touch (in-goal). (ii) A get-out considering the contentious nature of the issue, is, 'not considered 5m', throw at flagged touch or scrum attacking side ball.

The ‘gainers’; LO where ball went into touch or. Of course, (ii).

Again, thanks for your courteous reply, Ian.:clap:

 

[OB..]

OB - your post 143 has a quote attributed to me.

Would you be awfully offended if I denied ever having made the statement?

How weird! How on earth did I manage that?!

Now corrected - thank you for pointing it out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Chopper

The In-goal is not part of the 22. That is true.

However, it is also true that it is impossible for the ball to get into the in-goal without FIRST passing through the 22 area; ergo, a ball that enters the in-goal MUST have first been in the 22 area, and depending on who put it there (in the 22) will determine gain or no-gain.

No matter how you try to dress it up, a QT cannot be taken anywhere behind the goal-line, therefore it must be taken in front. therefore it must pass through the 22. End of story

 

[chopper15]

Chopper

The In-goal is not part of the 22. That is true.

However, it is also true that it is impossible for the ball to get into the in-goal without FIRST passing through the 22 area; ergo, a ball that enters the in-goal MUST have first been in the 22 area, and depending on who put it there (in the 22) will determine gain or no-gain.

No matter how you try to dress it up, a QT cannot be taken anywhere behind the goal-line, therefore it must be taken in front. therefore it must pass through the 22. End of story

End of story or not, Ian, the contentious issue we're discussing is exactly that. . . contentious.

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 team in question , it is argued by ‘the gainers, DID NOT put the ball into their own 22. (ref. the first sentence). That’s why the answer given to me was from two points of view. The second sentence being dependent on the first qualifying sentence is, therefore, irrelevant.

The other law which touches upon this point of view, for obvious reasons indicated, is also irrelevant

(f) Player takes ball 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 and it touches an opposition player. . .

You state, 'Through the 22 area' = 'MUST have been in the 22 area'. You take your side and try to justify only that. I recounted decisions from the two points of view.

Do you agree with these decisions given for BOTH points of view?

 

[OB..]

chopper - sometimes looking at the wording of the laws can help, but all too often the laws, like all laws, are defective. This is usually because the situation is one that was not envisaged when the law was written, so no amount of scrying can reveal the original intention: there wasn't one. Trying to impose one because of a chance choice of words is unhelpful.

The laws provide a guideline within which the game is played. They do not in general tell players how to play or referees how to referee.

If the law is unclear, what do we do? We make sense of it in the best way we can. Sometimes this works, for example the hand-off. Technically that is illegal because you are playing a player without the ball. Do you seriously expect all referees to start penalising players? That would be downright stupid.

In the current case it works badly because two significantly different views are being put forward. This has happened before (forward pass) and will doubtless happen again.

Referees and players have a responsibility to the game itself. They could easily ruin it if they got silly. On the other hand, you can happily pull ideas out of the blue because they won't affect anything.

I have no problem with you raising oddities, conflicts etc. I do that myself. But there is a limit to how many times you can make the same point without responding in rugby terms to the answers you are getting.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Chopper

The ball crosses into or is taken into the 22 area the moment it crosses the 22 line or the touchline between the 22 and the goal-line. There is no requirement in Law for it to touch the ground or any player to be in the 22

Technically it is also taken into the 22 area when to crosses the goal-line coming forward from the in-goal, but this is irrelevant because it could not have got into in-goal without having first been in the 22 area.

You are trying to find a loophole in the Law wording to justify the in-goal not being in the 22 area, and therefore not subject to gain/no gain restrictions. There is an apparent loophole, but it cannot be exploited in any practical sense whatsoever.

In the meantime, an issue which is a real world difference in interpretation between referees from different countries which actually can and does happen, and which is worth discussing, has been lost in the mire.

 

[Bill Lee]

Thank you OB.. for your Posts from 138 to 153. Also thank you Ian Cook for Posts 140 to 154. You have shown amazing patience in attempting to provide clear and logical advice to Chopper15. I lost interest about P100 and was amazed to see it still running. I will check back when it gets to about P.200 & no doubt Chopper will still be going off at a tangent.

My wife's ancestors came from Cornwall and chopper's arguements are of a similar nature to those of my 95 year old mother in law. (If thats a self portrait ....you could be right for each other)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Thank you OB.. for your Posts from 138 to 153. Also thank you Ian Cook for Posts 140 to 154. You have shown amazing patience in attempting to provide clear and logical advice to Chopper15. I lost interest about P100 and was amazed to see it still running. I will check back when it gets to about P.200 & no doubt Chopper will still be going off at a tangent.

My wife's ancestors came from Cornwall and chopper's arguements are of a similar nature to those of my 95 year old mother in law. (If thats a self portrait ....you could be right for each other)

It seems I have some Cornish blood in me; perhaps that accounts for me being such an obstinate bugger at times.

As I discussed in another thread, I once had relatives in St Agnes, but the recent discussions in the user names thread also reminded me that my late father had been a Freemason, so I recently dug out all his regalia and found a 1959-60 Freemasons Calendar with his name and address written in the front, (J.A. Cook, 1 Maymar Terrace, Wadebridge, Cornwall). I would have been 3 or 4 at the time, but I have no recollection of ever being there, and my parents never talked about having lived in Cornwall. Curious.

I wonder who lives there now?

 

[chopper15]

Thank you OB.. for your Posts from 138 to 153. Also thank you Ian Cook for Posts 140 to 154. You have shown amazing patience in attempting to provide clear and logical advice to Chopper15. I lost interest about P100 and was amazed to see it still running. I will check back when it gets to about P.200 & no doubt Chopper will still be going off at a tangent.

My wife's ancestors came from Cornwall and chopper's arguements are of a similar nature to those of my 95 year old mother in law. (If thats a self portrait ....you could be right for each other)

This obfuscation and blinkered view is typical of what's been going on during this debate. 'Leave it to us experienced refs, men, we'll take care of this Cornish upstart' :bday:

The younger and less experienced wouldn't then dare to comment, altho' if the truth is known we would all enjoy an unbias appraisal, instead of the vociforous 'no-gain' stance, which, incidentally, I agree with.

Unfortunately, you keep addressing the questioner and not the question to the degree it requires, over-looking the fact there are TWO interpretations given to this contentious scenario by;

i) the 'no-gain' camp, ie., the RFU who were followed a few weeks later by the WRU, and,

ii) the 'ground-gainers', namely the NZRU, ARU, IRFU and SARFU.

I posed an 'offshoot' scenario and mentioned what decisions would be made for both camps. So come on give this Cornish git a fair hearing. :hap:

Incidentally, what happens if a SA referees a game in Wales between England and OZ with an Irish and USA (of Scots descent) as ARses?

I wonder where the French, Scots/USA (SimonS?), Argentina etc Unions/Refs stand on this one?

 

[DrSTU]

The younger and less experienced wouldn't then dare to comment, altho' if the truth is known we would all enjoy an unbias appraisal, instead of the vociforous 'no-gain' stance, which, incidentally, I agree with.

You either missed or ignored all my posts then?

 

[chopper15]

You either missed or ignored all my posts then?

My apologies, Dr. But I think you know what I'm on about. What thread no. was it?

 

[DrSTU]

My apologies, Dr. But I think you know what I'm on about. What thread no. was it?

OK

I even got SA refs to give their opinion on the gain no-gain for you

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

in case you missed it