Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

[crossref]

Interesting one. ..
Accidental change, or a simplification of the Law to bring it in line with what most people probably think is the case anyway ?

 

[didds]

not sure if this one has been discussed. I think 2017 says:

[LAWS]If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player , the throw-in is taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.[/LAWS]

2018 says:

[LAWS]7. A half ends when the ball becomes dead after time has expired unless:
c. A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without the ball touching another player. [/LAWS]

The word 'directly' appears to have been added. 'Directly' means on the full.

So a grubber PK into touch after time has expired ends the game - no lineout.

not so sure - the "definition" of directly is also provided within context of this law surely?

"A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without the ball touching another player."

??

didds

 

[crossref]

Let's say
Time has expired
10 takes the PK as a diagonal kick aiming to put in into the hands of his winger.
But the winger misses it completely and the ball bounces , and goes into touch

Lineout or game over ?

2017 Lineout
2018 Game Over

Tbh I think most people would instinctively expect the game to be over, so perhaps the change is deliberate.

 

[didds]

I disagree that an untouched bounced kick is game over but a full kick is the lineout. That is totally nonsensical.

The 2018 wording surely indicates what it - perhaps clumsily! - means as "directly" - not touched by another player, and not tapped first .

didds

 

[crossref]

[LAWS].Kicked directly into touch: The ball is kicked into touch without first landing on the playing area or touching a player or the referee. [/LAWS]

 

[didds]

Fair goes CR - cheers.

What a nonsensical nuance then! (in that direct to touch=lineout, bounce=full time)

I cant believe for one moment that that is what was intended. But I concur with your reasoning now.

didds

 

[crossref]

It's a recurring theme, isn't it ?
Did they mean it ?
Was it an accident?
Will they change it back in the next edition?

To which I would say
Possibly
Possibly
Highly unlikely

 

[Phil E]

Fair goes CR - cheers.

What a nonsensical nuance then! (in that direct to touch=lineout, bounce=full time)

I cant believe for one moment that that is what was intended. But I concur with your reasoning now.

didds

The penalty kick is allowed after full time, so if the ball goes out on the full then play effectively restarts from the lineout.

If the ball bounces in the field of play, then play has effectively restarted at that point, because the ball is in play at that point, (otherwise you would have to disallow the defenders from touching it). When it then goes into touch the game ends.

Otherwise how much bouncing and rolling would you be prepared to allow?

 

[didds]

The penalty kick is allowed after full time, so if the ball goes out on the full then play effectively restarts from the lineout.

If the ball bounces in the field of play, then play has effectively restarted at that point, because the ball is in play at that point, (otherwise you would have to disallow the defenders from touching it). When it then goes into touch the game ends.

Otherwise how much bouncing and rolling would you be prepared to allow?

well it seems pretty simple to me.

It rolls until
- it is played by somebody (includes accidentally hitting a leg etc)
- it goes into touch unhindered/unplayed/untouched

Exactly the same way that you would deal with it in the preceding 79 minutes + change presumably.

It seems a totally and utterly pointless nuance to me.

didds

 

[crossref]

Phil is re+interpreting the 2017 Law Book to bring it into line with the 2018 one.

But I am with Phil in one sens - we would both agree that it was a deliberate change change in wording to bring the Law Book into line with what the authors considered the Law should be

 

[crossref]

Dickie : "i notice the text of the Law has changed from A to B"

didds : "that's insane, although the new text appears to say B surely we should interpret it as meaning A"

Phil : "No, no, even though old Law Book appeared to say A, they actually meant B all along "

crossref : "the Law has changed from A to B"

I invite readers to apply Occam's Razor

 

[Phil E]

Dickie : "i notice the text of the Law has changed from A to B"

didds : "that's insane, although the new text appears to say B surely we should interpret it as meaning A"

Phil : "No, no, even though old Law Book appeared to say A, they actually meant B all along "

crossref : "the Law has changed from A to B"

I invite readers to apply Occam's Razor

Hands up any ref who allowed a lineout after time, when a PK was kicked INdirectly into touch, from the introduction of the 2017 law trials to present day?

 

[crossref]

Well, hands up anyone who has ever seen it happen, let alone had a to make a decision about it

 

[didds]

I've never seen it except in elite games

didds

 

[Phil E]

I've never seen it except in elite games

didds

And what was the result?

 

[didds]

Just a thought... whilst accepting (though not agreeing with) the idea that a lineout after time is only awarded for a kick into touch that does not touch anything or anyone first, then are we saying that for young youth sides (eg U14 = 13 year olds) or (as touched on in the drop kick thread) maybe even adult female sides who may lack the actual strength/power/ability to kick a ball out on the full from the centre line of a full sized pitch, that they then just can't ever benefit from the lineout after time law and that is just tough doo-dah?


didds

 

[didds]

And what was the result?

they hoofed it out on the full every time and got their lineout. Its always been (to my recollection) when in an oppo 22 and 3 points isn't enough. Probably twice that I can recall?

but these are elite level males that can kick a ball 70m and are unlikely to ever be in a position of bouncing it into touch from this position!

 

[thepercy]

Otherwise how much bouncing and rolling would you be prepared to allow?

The same amount as at any PK kick to touch, that you'd still give the kicking team the throw-in at the subsequent lineout.

 

[Pinky]

not sure if this one has been discussed. I think 2017 says:

[LAWS]If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player , the throw-in is taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.[/LAWS]

2018 says:

[LAWS]7. A half ends when the ball becomes dead after time has expired unless:
c. A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without the ball touching another player. [/LAWS]

The word 'directly' appears to have been added. 'Directly' means on the full.

So a grubber PK into touch after time has expired ends the game - no lineout.

Thant's not what is in the printed version of the 2018 book!

 

[crossref]

Thant's not what is in the printed version of the 2018 book!

The printed 2018 Law Book omitted the 2017 Law Trials (which were in operation already when it was printed).

The 2017 Law trial (which was included in the 2017 Book) said

[LAWS]If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.
To end the half, the ball must be tapped before the kick to touch.[/LAWS]

In 2018 the trials were declared successful but the Law that has been written into the Law Book is slightly different from what was trialled

[LAWS]
7. A half ends when the ball becomes dead after time has expired unless:
c. A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without the ball touching another player.[/LAWS]


So this is not, strictly, a change introduced by the 2018 Authors, but a change introduced by WR when they adopted the trials.
(along with of course, the tackle-with-offside-lines that was adopted in place of the mono-ruck

What a mess