• 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

Taken back in

Intentionally touched by what part of the body? if you are in the way of a kick whether you turn your back or not for me it would be difficult to igore that you have touched the ball if it goes dead or into touch
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
Intentionally touched by what part of the body? if you are in the way of a kick whether you turn your back or not for me it would be difficult to igore that you have touched the ball if it goes dead or into touch
Click to expand...
yes, but what about when it merely travels into your own half .. is that "taken" back ?
 
crossref said:
yes, but what about when it merely travels into your own half .. is that "taken" back ?
Click to expand...
Yes for me it is. I was merely using the dead ball situation as an example where you would have a few extra seconds to think about your decision and sell it.
I'm not aware of any where in the laws where "ball played man" scenario is explained, it is in Rugby league
7. In all aspects of general play, a player who does not deliberately play at the ball (eg. ricochet or rebound) will not be disadvantaged by a consequent restart of play when the ball has gone dead or into touch.
 
Goal line clearance: blue have taken the ball into the 22 and been turned over. Red 10 does a clearance kick under pressure and shanks it. The ball lands clearly outside the 22, and bounces sharply backwards towards red's DBL.

3m inside the 22, red 14 is chasing the kick from an onside position and fly-hacks it on the bounce, where it goes straight out at red's 10m line.

Mentally checking 18.8.d, where do you give the mark of touch?
 
Rich_NL said:
Goal line clearance: blue have taken the ball into the 22 and been turned over. Red 10 does a clearance kick under pressure and shanks it. The ball lands clearly outside the 22, and bounces sharply backwards towards red's DBL.

3m inside the 22, red 14 is chasing the kick from an onside position and fly-hacks it on the bounce, where it goes straight out at red's 10m line.

Mentally checking 18.8.d, where do you give the mark of touch?
Click to expand...
Goo Question. Without access to the lawbook on the pitch I'd give a blue line on Reds 10m. and stick with it.
 
The ball entered the 22 on the last occasion from the boot of the Red 14 (albeit from a freakish bounce) -so was taken back in= no gain in ground; line out level with where the fly-hack took place.
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
Goo Question. Without access to the lawbook on the pitch I'd give a blue line on Reds 10m. and stick with it.
Click to expand...
Yup i'm with you. I know that it doesn't always follow the logic, but I find when it doubt, go with the common sense thought. Look at the laws later - which I have not done here btw, so may still be wrong!
 
On the one hand, it was played by red as a result of which it then went from outside to inside the 22, so taken back in.

On the other, it was last played by red in the 22, and next played by red in the 22, so gain in ground.

(Personally, I'd favour the former but understand the latter being called. And would be surprised at any player knowing any better than the ref on the day!)
 
didds said:
Or maybe the law makers didnt even consider the use of different phrases and their implied nuances and differences....
Click to expand...

I think that's commonly the case as we squabble over terms like touched, played, etc too.

Makes for an interesting discussion of interpretation at least.
 
tim White said:
So that qualifies as taken back in; they made it happen.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, that I would consider this as brought back in by Red, and I would probably rule no gain in ground.

But to play devil's advocate, if we hold the wording ("taken") to its exactity, would you also consider it to be "taken" back in by Red if while the ball in the air from the original kick, a huge gust of wind came and blew it back into the 22m?...furthermore what if the original kick landed on the ground first and then the wind caused it to roll back into the 22m?...finally what if the ball landed on the ground, stopped in place, and a few seconds later the wind blew it back into Red's 22m? Do we also hold Red accountable in each of these scenarios? Is there much difference between this and the ball landing outside the 22m and then choosing to roll back in on its own accord too (with respect to the word "taken" in the lawbook)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top