Wayne Barnes praised!!

[chopper15]

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

'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.'

I most certainly didn't, Dr., altho' I think a good many of your peers may have.

So what are the two decisions you would venture to give to my 'offshoot' query?

 

[Bill Lee]

Chopper 15.
Sorry for ruffling your feathers, but most referees develop a thicker than usual skin or they don't last long. I was rude and I apologise.

I don't think I am confused or blinkered but I do want to learn from all of our contributers and its nothing to do with age or inexperience. I admit that I am more interested in The Laws of the game as applied in this country. When the IRB make a ruling, then yes we have to asimilate the changes and move on.

Having read Mark Lawrenson's Q & A session (curtesy of DrSTU's link) I found his answer to Bryan Combrink on a different subject entirely of much more value...full of common sense and worth reading. More applicable I thought to being an open side prop being held in when trying to be a 3rd flanker.

Am I trying to get you off your offshoot query.....Its possible!!??

 

[Davet]

Chopper, you know the differing rulings on gain / no gain - and you know what these are.

There is no decision we can come to on here, we in England will abiode by the RFU ruling, others will follow the ruling of IRFU or ARU etc. Until we get a definitive iRB ruling that's just how it will be.

You are seeking to drive through another separate, though related, question entirely. You have read the laws and found that the accepted interpretation is not quite consistent with the written word. Well spotted - though as you know, and we know, there are a few more such issues.

However, as as been pointed out by most contributors, the notion that you would treat a kick direct to touch from in-goal differently to one from inside the 22 makes very little sense.

The purpose of the original law allowing kicks direct to touch only from inside the 22 was to stop players simply booting it into touch to gain ground from anywhere, prompted by a display of such tactics from South Africa.

The recent amendment to prevent the pass back into the 22 followed by a kick to touch was prompted by a perceied problem of players doing that and clearing their lines without real regard.

If you then allow a ball to be kicked from in-goal to go direct to touch, even though its been taken back there from beyond the 22 you make a nonsense of the intent of the law.

It is not the first time that the law has been rewritten, without due regard to some other nuances that are created by the new rules, and a silly possibility created.

Part of the refs job on the field is to understand that the game is a real ting, not a theoretical exercise, and whilst you are technically correct, you are, in practice, waaay off.

James Ist & VIth was highly intelligent and well read, yet never put it into practice - hence the description of him as "the wisest fool in Christendom".

Do you believe in reincarnation?

 

[Donal1988]

NB NB NB NB NB NB

At our meeting today it was made clear as a result of my email that there was confusion at the workshop and "gain" and "no gain" were mixed up.

We were told that the IRFU does NOT allow for a gain in ground and adopts the same stance as the RFU in these matters.

 

[Dickie E]

NB NB NB NB NB NB

At our meeting today it was made clear as a result of my email that there was confusion at the workshop and "gain" and "no gain" were mixed up.

We were told that the IRFU does NOT allow for a gain in ground and adopts the same stance as the RFU in these matters.

There's an Irish joke in there somewhere

 

[Donal1988]

Ah there is but sure we got there in the end.

 

[SimonSmith]

James Ist & VIth was highly intelligent and well read, yet never put it into practice - hence the description of him as "the wisest fool in Christendom".

Do you believe in reincarnation?

That's James VIth and Ist to you, English-boy He was VIth before he was Ist...

 

[Ian_Cook]

...whilst you are technically correct, you are, in practice, waaay off.

IMO the scenario Chopper presents is not even technically correct, unless you can point out a way for the ball to get into in-goal without FIRST passing through the 22 area.

I certainly cannot think of a way. Can anyone?

 

[Dickie E]

IMO the scenario Chopper presents is not even technically correct, unless you can point out a way for the ball to get into in-goal without FIRST passing through the 22 area.

I certainly cannot think of a way. Can anyone?

ball travels cirmumferentially around world? Be a hell of a kick :clap:

 

[DrSTU]

With my deepest regrets:

This is from the USA Laws Committee:



Question

The ball is kicked into touch at 25m and a quick throw is taken from that spot and thrown back inside the 22m (the quick throw itself, not a subsequent pass).

Answer

No gain in ground.



Question

The ball is kicked into touch at 25m a quick throw is taken INSIDE the 22m. Is there a gain in ground?

Answer

No gain in ground as the thrower chose to restart behind the 22.





And the law text supports the concept that a player who takes the ball back into the 22 area cannot gain ground from that maneuver:



(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into that team’s 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.

(c) Defending team takes the ball into that team’s 22 at a scrum or lineout. When a defending

team throws the ball into a scrum or lineout 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.

So, even my governing body says no gain:sad:

On a plus side, the bloke that sent the email is call Mr Laws

 

[Ian_Cook]

With my deepest regrets:

This is from the USA Laws Committee:

Question

The ball is kicked into touch at 25m and a quick throw is taken from that spot and thrown back inside the 22m (the quick throw itself, not a subsequent pass).

Answer

No gain in ground.



Question

The ball is kicked into touch at 25m a quick throw is taken INSIDE the 22m. Is there a gain in ground?

Answer

No gain in ground as the thrower chose to restart behind the 22.

Why would it be "with deepest regrets?" Looks like they are applying the same logic as the RFU, WRU and now the IRFU, which as you know, I agree with. Effectively the wording of the answer to the second question covers both scenarios;

Its the simplest answer and the easiest for the referee to determine.

 

[DrSTU]

Why would it be "with deepest regrets?" .

Because Mark Lawrence said otherwise:sad:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Because Mark Lawrence said otherwise:sad:

He is just reflecting the views of his National Union.

This need an iRB ruling.

 

[chopper15]

However, as as been pointed out by most contributors, the notion that you would treat a kick direct to touch from in-goal differently to one from inside the 22 makes very little sense.

I was merely pointing out, Davet, that it is a part and parcel consideration for the ‘no-gainers’.

They, like Ian, must accept that going ‘over’ the 22 area (not line) is the same as putting the ball ‘into’ the 22 area. ‘Through’ a ground area such as the 22, Ian, surely suggests ground or even player contact?

If you then allow a ball to be kicked from in-goal to go direct to touch, even though its been taken back there from beyond the 22 you make a nonsense of the intent of the law.

This, of course, takes us all back to the subject of the debate.

The ‘gainers’ state, as you know, it WAS NOT taken there from beyond the 22 by the defence. So as far as they’re concerned it is most certainly not a nonsense as you claim.

And as for Donal’s ‘mix-up’, I agree with Dickie, that’s a sure indication of how the 2nd chance EU referendum is going.!

DrSTU, I must point out to you that our discussion is all about the ball ROLLING ALONG IN TOUCH from where it had gone into touch - outside the 22m line, to a point adjacent to the 22 area where the defender picked it up; ie they didn’t take or put it there. Unfortunately, this was omitted in your given scenario.

 

[Dixie]

MSF ...

 

[chopper15]

MSF ...

OK, Dixie, message understood and agreed with.:hap:

But :chin: perhaps it would be of interest now to wind up this enthralling debate with these ponderers;

i) with only the RFU and WFU as 'no-gainers', why didn't we get any points of view in favour of the gainers?

ii) were the gain/no-gain statements likely to have been just the opinion of the refereeing bodies or were they confirmed as the official line of their union?

iii) any inside info’ regarding an official approach to the IRB yet or indication on how the forthcoming series of internationals will be reffed?