PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] Restart after knock on



Camquin
25-09-16, 17:09
In the Leicester Bath game Bath player leaps for the in goal, but drops the ball over the line.
Ref goes to TMO to "check restart"
Argument as to whether a green hand dislodged the ball - ref is believes he saw a green hand, but agrees it is a knock on once ball has crossed the goal line.

Restart is given as 22m drop out.

Discuss.

didds
25-09-16, 17:09
whose in goal was it - Leicester (green) or Bath (blue) ?

didds

crossref
25-09-16, 17:09
In the Leicester Bath game Bath player leaps for the in goal, but drops the ball over the line.
Ref goes to TMO to "check restart"
Argument as to whether a green hand dislodged the ball - ref is believes he saw a green hand, but agrees it is a knock on once ball has crossed the goal line.

Restart is given as 22m drop out.

Discuss.

I was watching that with interest!

Matt Carney decided that
- grey, attacking, carried the ball over the try line
- green knock it out of his hands (so no knock on)
- ball goes dead
- 22m DO

So, no knock on and our argument of a couple of months ago was not advanced.

The TMO hinted that he believed it WAS lost forward, but he defered to the ref, and he didn't get as far as what the restart would have been if it had been a knock on.

So close to a test case!

Camquin
25-09-16, 23:09
So he ruled that Grey takes it in, then Green strip the ball so there was no knock on, then the ball goes dead TIG, hence 22m.

It is here 63:45 on the game clock.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/video/full-match-leicester-tigers-v-bath-rugby-round-4/

Not sure if the TMO was convinced - but ref is sole judge of fact.

ChrisR
25-09-16, 23:09
Since it was not a KO if Grey had been able to ground the ball before it went dead then it would have been a try to Grey.

Rich_NL
26-09-16, 10:09
Since it was not a KO if Grey had been able to ground the ball before it went dead then it would have been a try to Grey.

No. It was lost forward of the Grey player, but not necessarily a KO. It could have been stripped by Green - had this happened in the FOP, it would have been play on.

crossref
26-09-16, 10:09
No. It was lost forward of the Grey player, but not necessarily a KO. It could have been stripped by Green - had this happened in the FOP, it would have been play on.

the referee was of the view that it was stripped by green. From that it followed there was no KO, and a 22m restart.

the TMO hinted that in his opinion green had NOT made contact. The implication being it was lost forward.

The referee said : no, he was satisfied green HAD stripped it, and so the TMO - quite properly - deferred to him.

If the TMO's line had been pursued we would have had a knock on in the in-goal, going right over the DBL - the case we argued about in the summer... it was tantalising !

ChrisR
26-09-16, 12:09
No. It was lost forward of the Grey player, but not necessarily a KO. It could have been stripped by Green - had this happened in the FOP, it would have been play on.

The referee deemed it lost backwards off green, not forwards off grey. If it's "play on" in the FOP then it's "play on" in goal.

DocY
26-09-16, 12:09
Where's my big wooden spoon?



If the TMO's line had been pursued we would have had a knock on in the in-goal, going right over the DBL - the case we argued about in the summer... it was tantalising !

I don't think this was *quite* the case. I don't think there was much debate about what happens if the ball is knocked dead (since doing nothing really can't be considered playing advantage), but what would happen if after the KO. green played the ball and then made it dead.

This happened in a Scarlets game about this time last year, I think. Can't remember who they were playing, but red KO in in goal, and the other team made it dead.
The ref did award a 22, but when it came up in a society meeting the overriding opinion was that it was a law error.

ChrisR
26-09-16, 13:09
If it's a KO in or into goal then it should be a 5m scrum defending ball regardless of how the ball is made dead. Not my choice but that is the law. Discussed here at great length.

If the defender takes the ball, without grounding it, he may play on and run/kick it out of goal but grounding it reverts to the defending 5m.

crossref
26-09-16, 13:09
If it's a KO in or into goal then it should be a 5m scrum defending ball regardless of how the ball is made dead. Not my choice but that is the law. Discussed here at great length. Not my choice but that is the law. Discussed here at great length.


without wanting to discuss it all over again, but just because you state it as if it was completely black and white and as if there could be no possible argument, let's just note that

-- the Law regarding a knock on INTO the in goal is very clear and straight-forward. Defensive 5m scrum

-- but when it comes to knock on INSIDE the in goal, the Law is less straightforward and revolves around how you understand the advantage Law - when/how is adv gained, and does it matter if you gain adv by making it dead.

Also note that - under your logic - if grey HAD knocked it on, they would be better off !
(5m scrum to Green, rather than 22m DO)

Camquin
26-09-16, 15:09
22.13 says that if there is an attacking infringement in goal the penalty for which is a scrum (e.g. a knock on) you restart with a 5m scrum - but does not mention advantage.

In the field of play a knock on into touch now carries options (scrum or lineout).
It is not clear if knock on into TIG carries the same, or if it matters which side of the goal line it occurs.

As ever, the laws need a decent edit.

DocY
26-09-16, 15:09
I actually had a KO in goal a week ago. I remembered the argument on here and blew my whistle before anything else could happen!

The skill level was such that the chances of them gaining advantage from the knock on were negligible.

crossref
26-09-16, 16:09
22.13 says that if there is an attacking infringement in goal the penalty for which is a scrum (e.g. a knock on) you restart with a 5m scrum - but does not mention advantage.

In the field of play a knock on into touch now carries options (scrum or lineout).
It is not clear if knock on into TIG carries the same, or if it matters which side of the goal line it occurs.

.

you can (almost) always play advantage, can't you. Advantage trumps other Laws.
But this instance advantage wasn't played, so that wasn't the issue.

the issue to discuss here is whether it was lost forward, or whether green ripped it.

grey carried the ball into the in goal, so

- if you believe green ripped it >> then 22m drop out. That's clear.
- if you believe grey lost it forward >> then what ?

If you give a 5m defending scrum then you are saying that grey knock-on actually puts grey into a better position ...

I think that was where the TMO was going - but that really wouldn't feel right, would it?

(I have a feeling that Carney was two steps ahead of the TMO, and that's why he was clear he had seen a green rip. much easier that way)

TheBFG
26-09-16, 16:09
Carley was never going to give anything that might have been an advantage to Bath :biggrin: That PK he gave against the SH for "changing his line of run" just went to prove, up there amongst the worst PK's given this season, technically correct, but nothing that doesn't happen on virtually every other kick in the modern game, but i'm not bitter :wink:

Bath completely outgunned, can't believe they're playing "we have soooo many injuries" already card :mad:

Camquin
26-09-16, 17:09
In this case the ball went into touch, so there was no chance of advantage.



And therein lies the conundrum.
Is it fair to the defenders that they do not get the drop out and hence the attackers appear to benefit from knocking on.
On the other hand, would it be fair to the attackers to be marched 22+ metres back just for knocking on, just because they do so in-goal or near the in-goal, when they would not be anywhere else.

If the drop out were taken from the goal line, rather than the 22m we would probably not worry about the issue.
But that is not how the game was played at Rugby.

DocY
26-09-16, 17:09
That PK he gave against the SH for "changing his line of run" just went to prove, up there amongst the worst PK's given this season, technically correct, but nothing that doesn't happen on virtually every other kick in the modern game, but i'm not bitter :wink:


Didn't see it, but was the SH retreating after a kick? If so, good on the ref! It's a bugbear of mine that's really taken off this season.

Rich_NL
27-09-16, 07:09
The referee deemed it lost backwards off green, not forwards off grey. If it's "play on" in the FOP then it's "play on" in goal.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying originally - yes, absolutely!