PDA

View Full Version : Which takes precedence, 22.3(b) or 22.11(b)?



Rawling
07-11-14, 19:11
The defending team puts the ball into their own in-goal. An attacking player gains possession, dives, and simultaneously grounds the ball in the in-goal and places his foot on the touch-in-goal or dead-ball line. What's the result?


When an attacking player who has possession of the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously contacts the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line (or anywhere beyond), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.


When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

22.3(b) is more specific but gives a stupid result - if you as an attacker make the ball dead you get a 5m scrum, unless you also grounded it.

Why does 22.3(b) even exist, rather than a generic "if the ball is grounded at the same time as it is otherwise made dead, the making-dead takes precedence"? Presumably we have no idea what to do if a defender simultaneously grounds the ball and steps dead.

ChrisR
07-11-14, 20:11
Rawling, please re-read your post carefully.

Rich
07-11-14, 21:11
very simple and not confusing at all;

defender takes ball into In Goal from the field of play and it then gets made dead = 5m Scrum to attacking team
attacker takes ball into In Goal from the field of play and it then gets made dead = 22m drop out to defenders

as an attacker you would hardly want to make the ball dead...You would want to score a try and in the real world unless you have video replay you are going to have to decide as a referee which happened first, the try/touch down or the ball becoming dead...

Rawling
07-11-14, 22:11
Rawling, please re-read your post carefully.

Please, if there is some obvious mistake I have made, let me know because I've been blinded by it :hap:


very simple and not confusing at all;

defender takes ball into In Goal from the field of play and it then gets made dead = 5m Scrum to attacking team
attacker takes ball into In Goal from the field of play and it then gets made dead = 22m drop out to defenders


By 22.11(b) yes, but 22.3(b) sets out a more specific scenario



as an attacker you would hardly want to make the ball dead... You would want to score a try


Of course not, but what you want doesn't always happen...



in the real world unless you have video replay you are going to have to decide as a referee which happened first, the try/touch down or the ball becoming dead...

So why even bother with such an exact law? 22.15 allows for "doubt" but only covers "who grounded first" not "what happened first, grounding or out".

didds
07-11-14, 23:11
I see Rawlings point.

Ball put inside in-goal by defenders

scenario 1: attacker gets ball but puts foot T-i-G - result = 5m scrum to attackers
scenario 2: attacker gets ball but as he grounds it also puts foot T-i-G - result = 22 d/o

why the discrepancy? Its illogical.

didds

ChrisR
08-11-14, 01:11
Rawling, didn't mean to be obtuse.

Your scenario is "defender puts ball into own goal". Law 22.3(b) is making the assumption that the attackers took the ball into goal and, since the ball was made dead (the try not scored) then a 22 is correct. 22.3(b) should be expanded to include the relevant words on who put the ball in goal.

This is assuming that no knock-on or forward pass by an attacker put the ball in goal.

The Fat
08-11-14, 01:11
I think you will find that 22.3(b) assumes that the attacker has carried the ball into the in-goal area.

22.11(b) could be improved by replacing the word "carried" with the words "put there".

As to the OP, the restart would be a 5m attacking scrum

menace
08-11-14, 07:11
Law 22.3(b) is making the assumption that the attackers took the ball into goal and, since the ball was made dead (the try not scored) then a 22 is correct. 22.3(b) should be expanded to include the relevant words on who put the ball in goal.



I think you will find that 22.3(b) assumes that the attacker has carried the ball into the in-goal area.

22.11(b) could be improved by replacing the word "carried" with the words "put there".

As to the OP, the restart would be a 5m attacking scrum

Rawling makes an excellent point. As per my highlights and as Didds points out, it's pretty poor law wording when we need to make assumptions to apply a law so as not to contradict another law.

Dixie
08-11-14, 08:11
The defending team puts the ball into their own in-goal. An attacking player gains possession, dives, and simultaneously grounds the ball in the in-goal and places his foot on the touch-in-goal or dead-ball line. What's the result?

22.3(b) When an attacking player who has possession of the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously contacts the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line (or anywhere beyond), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.

(b) When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the
attacking team throws in the ball.

22.3(b) is more specific but gives a stupid result - if you as an attacker make the ball dead you get a 5m scrum, unless you also grounded it. I can't see where this outcome arises. If you as the attacker ground the ball in-goal, you score a try - unless in so doing you step out of bounds, in which case it's a defensive drop-out.

Why does 22.3(b) even exist, rather than a generic "if the ball is grounded at the same time as it is otherwise made dead, the making-dead takes precedence"? Presumably we have no idea what to do if a defender simultaneously grounds the ball and steps dead. Perhaps Rawlings's confusion stems from the fact that he has mis-read the outcome of 22.3(b) (see comment in red above). However, as others have noted it may be that we need to make an assumption. As written, 22.3(b) asserts that attacker stepping out of bounds is an exception to the normal rule on in-goal - i.e. that what matters is who took it in. This would be a good one to have a ruling on - personally, I suspect the iRB intended to create that exception. It would be odd if, in failing to score by stepping out of bounds, the attackers got another go.

The Fat
08-11-14, 09:11
It would be odd if, in failing to score by stepping out of bounds, the attackers got another go.

Maybe yes, maybe no.
Scenario: Red (defending) throw a pass back into their own in-goal intending for FB to kick long. Pass is misdirected and bounces away from red FB. Meanwhile, blue 14 has run into in-goal and skirts along DBL to gather the ball which he does but in attempting to ground the ball, simultaneously steps on DBL.
Should red be rewarded for the dud pass with a 22 DO?

ChrisR
08-11-14, 12:11
Yes, Dixie, it would be odd if the attacker took/put the ball into goal, failed to score by stepping on the deadball line, and received the 5m scrum feed.

Just as odd as the attacker knocking on into goal, failing to score by the ball going over the deadball line, and getting a 5m defenders scrum instead of a 22. But that is another story from an old thread so I'll add the emoticon before anybody else does. Just my personal "injustice in law" pet peeve. :deadhorse:

RobLev
08-11-14, 16:11
Yes, Dixie, it would be odd if the attacker took/put the ball into goal, failed to score by stepping on the deadball line, and received the 5m scrum feed.

Just as odd as the attacker knocking on into goal, failing to score by the ball going over the deadball line,

Didn't he fail to score by knocking the ball on in the FoP?


and getting a 5m defenders scrum instead of a 22.

Not quite as odd then, since defenders get the feed.


But that is another story from an old thread so I'll add the emoticon before anybody else does. Just my personal "injustice in law" pet peeve. :deadhorse:

Dixie
09-11-14, 18:11
Maybe yes, maybe no.
Scenario: Red (defending) throw a pass back into their own in-goal intending for FB to kick long. Pass is misdirected and bounces away from red FB. Meanwhile, blue 14 has run into in-goal and skirts along DBL to gather the ball which he does but in attempting to ground the ball, simultaneously steps on DBL.
Should red be rewarded for the dud pass with a 22 DO?

I don't think red are being rewarded for anything in your scenario - Blue merely risks suffering the appointed sanction for failing to stay within bounds. But I reiterate that it would be good to get this double-checked by an authoritative voice - the ball is made dead after Red took it in, so standard play would be an attacking scrum.

It's a very interesting question from the OP - worthy of a clarification in law.

Rawling
04-01-15, 00:01
So, this was posted to the SAReferees.com site's "Duty Ref" column (http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-486--jaco-van-heerden/2829618/) and got the following reply:



Jaco van Heerden: Hi Dan

Some challenging wording, yes.

The laws you are referring to are:

Law 22.3(b) When an attacking player who has possession of the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously contacts the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line (or anywhere beyond), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.

Law 22.11(b) When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

Your answer lies in the following: “an attacking player who has possession of the ball” and “a player carrying the ball”.

I'm not sure that I'm familiar with that definition of "answer" :confused:

ChrisR
04-01-15, 10:01
Grasshopper, you must seek the truth not merely an answer.