Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

[crossref]

Table updated to include
1 - PK to touch after time expired (only get a line out when kicked DIRECTLY)
2 - good bye mono-ruck, hello tackle with offside lines


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UzYvtcl03eG7xN13VCwboOyfC0yATNdxgQ7_N1slxEc/edit?usp=sharing

Roll on the 2019 Law Book. When that comes out I think we will see which changes persist, and which get corrected, and then I can put this table to bed.

 

[Rich_NL]

I'm not sure if it's in here (or if I'm missing something from the lawbook): an incorrectly-taken penalty, where the ball doesn't leave the hands (a toe-wipe) or isn't touched by the foot.

Was that not a scrum down for the opposition before? Neither law 19, nor 20.11 say anything, besides "once the kick has been successfully taken", implying a reset. I don't have the 2017 laws to hand, though.

 

[crossref]

You are correct, it's missing

 

[crossref]

You are correct, it's missing

Added -- actually this is the one that is a typo

in PDF version in Law 20 the sanction is there : but it's blue text on blue background, so invisible, but you can find it by selecting text with the mosue

on-screen, and in the app, the sanction is missing.

 

[OB..]

I put a couple of knotty points to laws@rfu.com

1. knock-on into in-goal

2017 22.7 (b) If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents' in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.

2018 19.1

Infringement / stoppage	Location of scrum	Who throws in
A knock-on or throw forward, apart from at a lineout.	In the scrum zone at the point closest to the place of infringement.	The non-offending team.

21.6 A defending player grounding the ball in in-goal results in a touch down.

I cannot find any reference to a knock-on in or into in-goal, so the outcome now appears to be a 22 drop out instead of a 5-metre scrum.

The reply was

If the knock on occurs in the playing area, (which includes in goal), then if no advantage is coming, the sanction is a scrum

 

[OB..]

My second knotty point concerned the possibility of a maul turnover if the maul followed immediately after a restart kick.

I pointed out that the law could be parsed in two contradictory ways:-

There is ambiguity in the wording of 16.18 .
(caught an opponent's kick) (in open play) [open play follows a restart kick]
or
(caught) (an opponent's kick in open play)[does not apply to a restart kick]

This is resolved in favour of the latter.

 

[crossref]

If the knock on occurs in the playing area, (which includes in goal), then if no advantage is coming, the sanction is a scrum

Well, we can all agree with that.

What has been discussed here is the operation of the advantage law.
Does a defender picking up the ball and kicking it (up field , or into touch, or into TiG ) constitute gaining an advantage

 

[Camquin]

But I do not believe he law book was ever clear on what constitiuted advantage - so is that really a change.

 

[crossref]

Knock on INSIDE the in goal - no change was made

Knock on INTO the in goal - 2017 law was removed, so this case is the same as any other knock on

 

[crossref]

It's a shame that Laws@Rfu.com didnt give a Law Reference for the first answer . (which I agree with, it's correct, but I think that Laws question deserves a law based answer, not just an assertion

 

[OB..]

It's a shame that Laws@Rfu.com didnt give a Law Reference for the first answer . (which I agree with, it's correct, but I think that Laws question deserves a law based answer, not just an assertion

It was an assertion that 19.1 takes precedence over 21.6. It fits the "no change in laws" claim.

For me it is useful evidence that we should interpret the 2018 law book in accordance with the 2017 laws if at all possible and hope they make suitable adjustments later.

 

[crossref]

It was an assertion that 19.1 takes precedence over 21.6. .

Well, that's the sort of answer laws should give, if indeed that is what they meant.
(I don't think that is that they meant, I am not sure that even means anything)

 

[OB..]

Well, that's the sort of answer laws should give, if indeed that is what they meant.
(I don't think that is that they meant, I am not sure that even means anything)

It is indeed a good example of why the 2018 wording is unsatisfactory. Follow the "no change" mantra!

 

[crossref]

Indeed but the RFU response merely confirms that from any knock in the playing area (which includes the in goal) the sanction is a scrum UNLESS advantage is played, and comes.

Which all knew already, and certainly was the case in both 2017 and 2018. Indeed has been the case forever

 

[OB..]

Indeed but the RFU response merely confirms that from any knock in the playing area (which includes the in goal) the sanction is a scrum UNLESS advantage is played, and comes.

Which all knew already, and certainly was the case in both 2017 and 2018. Indeed has been the case forever

The problem was that 21.6 prescribes a drop out. That could be seen as more specific than 19.1 and therefore take precedence. The 2018 book has two different laws covering the situation and they give different outcomes.

 

[Elpablo73]

The problem was that 21.6 prescribes a drop out. That could be seen as more specific than 19.1 and therefore take precedence. The 2018 book has two different laws covering the situation and they give different outcomes.

I see this as attacker knocks-on in-goal; advantage played; defender grounds the ball, so no advantage gained; go back to the offences that the advantage was for; 5 metre scrum defending team puts in.

It's similar to defending team take the ball into their own in-goal and a defender grounds the ball. Are you going to give a drop out, or a 5 metre scrum?

 

[crossref]

My second knotty point concerned the possibility of a maul turnover if the maul followed immediately after a restart kick.

I pointed out that the law could be parsed in two contradictory ways:-


This is resolved in favour of the latter.

OB - you now need to ask them about a maul that forms from a catch from a PK.. which is now different from 2017

 

[crossref]

table updated

Maul from a restart kick = 2018 Law is the same as 2017
Maul from a PK = 2018 Law is different from 2017

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UzYvtcl03eG7xN13VCwboOyfC0yATNdxgQ7_N1slxEc/edit?usp=sharing

 

[chbg]

2017:

13.9(c) (KO into Opponents' In-Goal) If [the opposing team] opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay.

13.15(c) (22DO Restart into Opponents' In-Goal) If [the opposing team] opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay.

2018:

12.9 (KO): If the ball is kicked into the opponents' in-goal without touching any player and an opponent grounds the ball without delay or it goes dead through in-goal …

12.17 If a 22-metre drop-out reaches the opponents' in-goal without touching any player and an opponent grounds the ball without delay or it goes into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead-ball line …

So:

1. An opponent can no longer make the ball dead except by grounding it.
2. Did they forget to simplify "into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead-ball line"?

 

[Balones]

Where does the receiver stand at a lineout?

The 2017 version of the laws (19.8i) says:-
(i) Where the receiver must stand. If a team uses a receiver, then that player must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the lineout begins.

The 2018 version has removed the must and at least from the law.
18.16 - If a team elects to have a receiver, the receiver stands between the five-metre and the 15-metre lines, two metres away from their team-mates in the lineout. Each team may have only one receiver.

It is starting to cause a little confusion because the wording about being 2M away from the team-mates is now worded in a similar vein as the need for the front opposition player to be 2x2 and this is rigidly applied. (Or should be!) It means that some referees are making the receiver stand 2Ms away and no further, while others are reffing to the 2017 wording which allows the receiver to stand much further away. One of the teams I have observed this year has the receiver standing back about 6-8M and comes onto the ball at pace, having it popped up from a peeling player. One of our local society observers noted a ref penalising the receiver for standing more than 2M away because he reckoned law 18.16 applies because it says ‘Free Kick’ as the sanction, not realising that perhaps it refers to having two receivers only. Or does it? Messy.