• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

50:22 from a free kick

I have emailed someone in the law department at World Rugby for a clarification.
 
a GLDO does present a problem though - especially a GLDO resulting from a knock on, or held up . Is that really a 'restart kick' ?

Restart kick: The method of restarting play with a drop-kick after a score or a touch-down.
 
It does look like there is a gap in the law book. I am sure it will get updated for the next iteration.

Do we think 50:22 is here to stay? Also the GLDO? Must say I don't mind the GLDO. Pretty much have my understanding of what to award for that in good order. I struggle for 50:22. It isn't in my subconscious to look at the halfway line and how the ball arrived there before a kick. I'm always having to rewind the last plays to work out if a 50:22 has happened or not. Luckily all of the attempts have been shy of the 22 flag.
 
Locke said:
What would you like to see reworked for GLDO?
Click to expand...
attacker kicks the ball over the ball line and then
- knocks on = GLDO
- regathers and steps over DBL = 2m DO (not in Law book, but it is)
- regathers and is held up = GLDO
- defender kicks it over DBL = GLDO-
- attacker kicks it over DBL = 22DO
- ball bounces over DBL = scrum or 22DO options

it's too complicated and too random (no overall logic or overall reason for the variations in outcomes)
 
Last edited:
Locke said:
What would you like to see reworked for GLDO?
Click to expand...
well, i feel that a GLDO for being held up 2 inches over the line,is not that equitable for the attackers

If a 5m scrum (old scenario is seen as unfair in the defenders for havng valiantly defended, then what about 10m scrum?)
In a different vein a GLDO for the attackers vaguely kicking the ball in goal and creating a minimum of pressure so that the defnse dot down and dont feel they have to start fraffinfg around in goal seems inqequitable for the defneding team - they werent under much presssure but the oppo are going to tget the ball back in their own half. Returning to a 22 DO seems reasonable to me.
 
didds said:
well, i feel that a GLDO for being held up 2 inches over the line,is not that equitable for the attackers

If a 5m scrum (old scenario is seen as unfair in the defenders for havng valiantly defended, then what about 10m scrum?)
In a different vein a GLDO for the attackers vaguely kicking the ball in goal and creating a minimum of pressure so that the defnse dot down and dont feel they have to start fraffinfg around in goal seems inqequitable for the defneding team - they werent under much presssure but the oppo are going to tget the ball back in their own half. Returning to a 22 DO seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Run it out in a Berbizier/Cambarabero/Sella/Blanco/St Andre stylee. Isn't that what it is supposed to encourage?
Or get the groundsman to shorten the in goals to bear minimum.

Before you start yes I know it was a PK miss but you get my point. ;)
 
and how often is that really practical? Its great and you still see it of course. But its not as if Blanco et al did it 5 times a game . More like once every 5 games - WHEN the options are right.
in that clip the French right wing was defended by mainly forwards in a haphazard pattern. Webb (think its webb?) has his back to play. England has no structured defence or pressed defensive line. Blanco et al saw that and fancied having a go, in the knowledge that save a knock on, they could run into touch if it got too pressured.
Would they have done that had england had a wide field trench defence with backs amongst the forwards to the French right? We wont know - but I suspect not...
 
didds said:
and how often is that really practical? Its great and you still see it of course. But its not as if Blanco et al did it 5 times a game . More like once every 5 games - WHEN the options are right.
in that clip the French right wing was defended by mainly forwards in a haphazard pattern. Webb (think its webb?) has his back to play. England has no structured defence or pressed defensive line. Blanco et al saw that and fancied having a go, in the knowledge that save a knock on, they could run into touch if it got too pressured.
Would they have done that had england had a wide field trench defence with backs amongst the forwards to the French right? We wont know - but I suspect not...
Click to expand...

It's Simon Hodgkinson - but apart from that you're right. I've just googled SH and he's a day younger than me. We're 60 next week.
 
Phil E said:
I have emailed someone in the law department at World Rugby for a clarification.
Click to expand...

My contact says it wasn't intended that you can get a 50-22 from a drop out.
The definition of a restart needs changing.

Something for the next re-write.
 
Phil E said:
My contact says it wasn't intended that you can get a 50-22 from a drop out.
The definition of a restart needs changing.

Something for the next re-write.
Click to expand...
Did you ask about marks and FK ? I wonder whether WR ever really thought about those either
 
crossref said:
attacker kicks the ball over the ball line and then
- knocks on = GLDO
- regathers and steps over DBL = 2m DO (not in Law book, but it is)
- regathers and is held up = GLDO
- defender kicks it over DBL = GLDO-
- attacker kicks it over DBL = 22DO
- ball bounces over DBL = scrum or 22DO options

it's too complicated and too random (no overall logic or overall reason for the variations in outcomes)
Click to expand...
You are correct that the law book does not describe an attacking player simply stepping over the DBL, but law 21.4 points us in the correct direction:

When an attacking player holding the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously makes contact with the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball line (or anywhere beyond either), a 22-metre drop-out is awarded to the defending team.
Click to expand...
 
Error on my part -looking at defending player, still trying to find Attacking player Laws
 
Last edited:
No; I refer to "anything else not covered in law =scrum". Anything in goal can only be a 5m scrum.

Only because it is not covered in the "simplification"
 
I believe this has been posted in this forum before. This was created by USA Rugby and is what I study for in-goal scenarios. I haven’t dug in on every permutation but I personally have not found any mistakes in it yet.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top