I think in the end its Pearce’ description of events that has confused and got people up in arms. As I note below in actuality the only possible offence (that I could find) is a breach of 9.7b and in that case it doesn’t matter if the ball goes forwards, backwards sideways, or somehow straight up and gets stuck in the roof. If the player did it with the arm or hand and the referee believes it was intentional, then its a Penalty.

I really think its not ideal that there’s laws with so much subjectivity that referee’s are asked to guess at intent on.

EDIT: Actually, here’s a good example of a law (that’s constantly ignored) but is written in a way that intent is irrelevant… 18.22: The player throwing in the ball stands on the mark of touch with both feet outside the field of play. The thrower must not step into the field of play until the ball has been thrown. Sanction: lineout or scrum.

But funnily enough, even then most hookers doing this (including the French hooker who did it all game against the ABs, are also potentially in breach of 9.7a: A player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game. It’s pretty hard to accidentally start the lineout throw from in play so you could easily start throwing penalties around for that a lot :)

Or hell, start penalising the guys kicking to touch for taking the absolute piss on 20.2 A penalty or free-kick is taken from where it is awarded or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark and parallel to the touchlines. When a penalty or free-kick is taken at the wrong place, it must be re-taken. You can’t tell me that the kickers that run 3-4 metres beyond the mark aren’t doing that intentionally!