PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] Choice?



ChrisR
04-01-18, 13:01
There are several occasions where we offer the non-offending team a choice. Most recently when a side commits multiple infringements.

How about this:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into goal. Blue defender immediately grounds it. You're just about to whistle for the 22DO when you see your AR signalling that a Red player was off-sides at the kick.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

Taff
04-01-18, 13:01
Personally, I would give them the choice.

Phil E
04-01-18, 13:01
You can only give the choice if you are playing multiple advantages.

Doesn't apply in this case so you go back for the penalty (which should be more advantageous than a 22DO anyway).

SimonSmith
04-01-18, 14:01
There are several occasions where we offer the non-offending team a choice. Most recently when a side commits multiple infringements.

How about this:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into goal. Blue defender immediately grounds it. You're just about to whistle for the 22DO when you see your AR signalling that a Red player was off-sides at the kick.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

Depends if the offside is material to the outcome of what happened to the ball in-goal.

If it had an impact, we're going for the penalty; if not, it's a 22m and a word with the offside player.

There's no way, in law, to justify offering a choice.

didds
04-01-18, 14:01
what sim,on said. If the chip happened near the left wing and the offside winger was the right wing - immaterial.

if the chip was on the left wing and it was the lpeft winger bearing down from offisde on the defender - material.

in between those two points you have differing materialites...

didds

Blackberry
04-01-18, 14:01
How about this
It wasn't material because they didn't score the try?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-01-18, 14:01
I won't have an AR signalling offside so 22DO for me :)

ChrisR
04-01-18, 15:01
Agree with the materiality factor.

I was thinking that this choice is akin to the knock-on into touch, just a bit more complex.

Phil E
04-01-18, 16:01
Agree with the materiality factor.

I was thinking that this choice is akin to the knock-on into touch, just a bit more complex.

No it isn't, the knock on into touch is specifically referenced in law, as is the choice for multiple advantages. The one you have described isn't.

DocY
04-01-18, 16:01
TBH, I think arguing about materiality is missing the point - of course we're not going to penalise if it's not material.

To focus on the point: I'd be unlikely to offer the choice, simply because I'd expect the penalty (most of the time) to be more advantageous, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with offering the choice and if a player asked (assuming it was done quickly) for the DO I'd let them have it.

Balones
04-01-18, 18:01
Interesting one. You generally only award a penalty for offside if it is material. Assuming that the offside is material in this case. Where would you give the penalty if 1) - The materiality occurred before the try line. 2) - The materiality occurred in-goal.

ChrisR
04-01-18, 20:01
I'm not sure that I've seen a PK offence waved off by a referee because of materiality.

ChrisR
04-01-18, 20:01
If you were playing scrum advantage to the defenders for an attacking offence 10m out and the attackers had put the ball into goal where it was grounded by the defenders would it make a difference?

Treadmore
04-01-18, 20:01
Depends if the offside is material to the outcome of what happened to the ball in-goal.

It's an AR - don't they flag only material infringements?
Put another way, I wouldn't be expecting an AR to flag something immaterial.

Dickie E
04-01-18, 20:01
Interesting one. You generally only award a penalty for offside if it is material. Assuming that the offside is material in this case. Where would you give the penalty if 1) - The materiality occurred before the try line. 2) - The materiality occurred in-goal.

there is another option: scrum where the kicker was.

If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.

Ian_Cook
04-01-18, 20:01
How about this
It wasn't material because they didn't score the try?

Not necessarily. The if the defending team were under pressure, i.e. not able to play the ball as they wish, because of the offside player, that is material.

Dickie E
04-01-18, 21:01
There are several occasions where we offer the non-offending team a choice. Most recently when a side commits multiple infringements.

How about this:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into goal. Blue defender immediately grounds it. You're just about to whistle for the 22DO when you see your AR signalling that a Red player was off-sides at the kick.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

the OP is a good question but I think there are some red herrings (ARs, materiality) muddying the water. Can I change the question thus:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into in-goal. Ref observes Red chaser in front of the kicker and calls "advantage". Red kicker has over-cooked the kick and ball goes over DBL.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

For me, I would award the penalty with no 22 option. But what would I do if the captain asked me if they could take 22DO instead?

Balones
04-01-18, 21:01
I won't have an AR signalling offside so 22DO for me :)

If you don’t see the offside then it has to be the 22DO.

What you do with ARs depends on whether the team of three have comms or not. At society level when ARs are required it is not unusual for there not to be any comms.

Balones
04-01-18, 21:01
[If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.[/QUOTE]

Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.

Balones
04-01-18, 22:01
[If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.

Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.[/QUOTE]

Of course it may well be the same place most of the time, but not always. Retiring players etc.

Dickie E
04-01-18, 22:01
Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.

Of course it may well be the same place most of the time, but not always. Retiring players etc.[/QUOTE]

4. An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or
b. Moves forwards towards the ball; or
c. Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately to an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.
Sanction: The non-offending team can choose either:i. Penalty at the place of infringement; or
ii. Scrum where the offending team last played the ball.

If Red kick the ball on their own 10 metre line and a team mate (standing on halfway) starts to move forward, then, if the referee penalises the team mate, he would give the penalty on the halfway line. That is how we would do it here.

Jolly Roger
04-01-18, 23:01
Under the current law trials and listed in 2017 LOTG at 8.1.a options can be offered when there are multiple penalty infringements:

When advantage is being played for multiple penalty infringements by the same team, the referee allows the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous of the penalty marks.

In this scenario there is only one infringement, offside, so there is no opportunity in law to offer options to the defending team unless it relates to the penalty event itself. So if offside was material in pressurising the defender to touch down then award a penalty. Otherwise it should be a 22.

ChrisR
05-01-18, 00:01
the OP is a good question but I think there are some red herrings (ARs, materiality) muddying the water. Can I change the question thus:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into in-goal. Ref observes Red chaser in front of the kicker and calls "advantage". Red kicker has over-cooked the kick and ball goes over DBL.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

For me, I would award the penalty with no 22 option. But what would I do if the captain asked me if they could take 22DO instead?

Seems like the consensus is "No choice" although it seemed fitting and although there is precedence elsewhere there is no specific supporting law for this scenario.

With the ball going beyond the DBL it seems the offsides isn't material but having called "Advantage" are you then committed to the PK?

beckett50
05-01-18, 11:01
There is another point to consider here.

Why is the AR signalling so obviously that you are 'hung out to dry'? What did your pre-match brief say about signalling of offences?

Also rather than call "Advantage" straight away a quick shout "Hold Red" may well preclude you from having to make the decision.

Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.

We don't know from where the chip took place, but it may well be the case - if it happened inside Blue's 22 - that a 22DO will offer better territorial advantage because they can hoof the ball way up field and pin Red back into their own half with a good kick chase and maybe force a turnover.

Every situation will be different, both from a match viewpoint and also a referee viewpoint.

ChrisR
05-01-18, 12:01
As Dickie E pointed out there are some red herrings in the OP, such as an AR and materiallity, so let's change the scenario.

Attacking Red, 10m out from Blue's goal, knocks the ball forward but gets a toe to it and grubbers it into goal as you call "Scrum advantage Blue". What would your call be if:

a. It goes over the DBL

b. Blue kicks it over the DBL

c. Blue grounds it

d. Red beats Blue to it and grounds it.

Phil E
05-01-18, 12:01
:deadhorse:

Thunderhorse1986
05-01-18, 13:01
Attacking Red, 10m out from Blue's goal, knocks the ball forward but gets a toe to it and grubbers it into goal as you call "Scrum advantage Blue". What would your call be if:



a. It goes over the DBL - no advantage, scrum Blue
b. Blue kicks it over the DBL - no advantage, scrum Blue
c. Blue grounds it - no advantage, scrum Blue
d. Red beats Blue to it and grounds it - no advantage, scrum Blue

Dickie E
05-01-18, 20:01
[If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.

Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.[/QUOTE]

I've shown you mine, can I see yours?

Where would this place of "materiality" be?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
09-01-18, 12:01
I had a choice issue come up in my game on Saturday and I'm not sure if what we arrived at was one of all the choices available.

Anyway here goes.

Green attacking. They are about on 40m line. Green are awarded a PK for in the side - play advantage.
Another PK awarded on 22 a bit closer to touchline for something similar - play a new advantage.
Green box kick into corner. Red full back scoots into corner and goes to hoof bobbling ball into touch and slices it so badly it goes dead in goal.

I blow for PK and Green skipper opts for PK on 22. From crowd I hear a comment (not abusive or critical) querying if the 5m scrum wouldn't be the better option. Either skipper didn't hear it or wanted the PK but should I have offered the 5m attacking scrum too or I do I not have that latitude? Not sure? Similarly if skipper has said "can we have the 5m scrum?" is it available?

crossref
09-01-18, 12:01
Great scenario
If the skipper asked for the scrum , I would give it. It seems silly to insist that no adv was gained, when he thinks it was gained

Rich_NL
09-01-18, 13:01
Interesting! I don't see why they wouldn't have that option.

Thunderhorse1986
09-01-18, 13:01
Interesting! I don't see why they wouldn't have that option.

I don't think you can offer the scrum option. You haven't announced advantage over, but you can't keep accruing the advantage after the ball is made dead to the new restart. The decision on advantage as I see it should be at the point the ball is made dead, not thereafter.

You could also argue you change the defending side's behaviour if you do or don't call advantage over. The defender mnay have tried to fall on the ball if you had called advantage over, for example.

Elpablo73
09-01-18, 13:01
I had a choice issue come up in my game on Saturday and I'm not sure if what we arrived at was one of all the choices available.

Anyway here goes.

Green attacking. They are about on 40m line. Green are awarded a PK for in the side - play advantage.
Another PK awarded on 22 a bit closer to touchline for something similar - play a new advantage.
Green box kick into corner. Red full back scoots into corner and goes to hoof bobbling ball into touch and slices it so badly it goes dead in goal.

I blow for PK and Green skipper opts for PK on 22. From crowd I hear a comment (not abusive or critical) querying if the 5m scrum wouldn't be the better option. Either skipper didn't hear it or wanted the PK but should I have offered the 5m attacking scrum too or I do I not have that latitude? Not sure? Similarly if skipper has said "can we have the 5m scrum?" is it available?

Lee, I don't see how you could give the 5m scrum, as the trial is written - it is only for penalties.

But the thinking behind it's inclusion was to stop repeated infringements where an advantage would be played, so that would seem to open the door to the possibility!

Do you follow the letter of the law or the spirit?

Camquin
09-01-18, 16:01
I think the non offending side always have the right to decline the penalty and take the tactical advantage gained.

It is generally unwise so rarely done.

thepercy
09-01-18, 17:01
Red kick the ball into ingoal, ball is made dead? So a Green 22DO? Even if Green brought the ball into ingoal and it was made dead, with PK ADV I wouldn't offer options to Red.

didds
09-01-18, 17:01
Red kick the ball into ingoal, ball is made dead? So a Green 22DO? Even if Green brought the ball into ingoal and it was made dead, with PK ADV I wouldn't offer options to Red.

red are the defenders. green attacking, red put the ball in goal and dead

didds

thepercy
09-01-18, 17:01
red are the defenders. green attacking, red put the ball in goal and dead

didds
I messed up the colors, am I missing something else? Green kick into corner, of ingoal? Red kick ball over DBL or TIG, if no ADV then Red 22DO?

crossref
09-01-18, 17:01
Green attacking kick to corner of field of play
Red defender slices ball over his own goal line and into TIG , so 5m scrum to green

ChrisR
09-01-18, 18:01
If Red defender puts the ball into touch 5m out (instead over over his own DBL) would you allow Green to claim the lineout as his tactical advantage? I would. Same for over the DBL.

Take note of the dead ball definition change from '17 to '18. Is it pertinent to this discussion?

2017 Dead: The ball is out of play. This happens when the ball has gone outside the playing
area and remained there, or when the referee has blown the whistle to indicate a
stoppage in play, or when a conversion kick has been taken.

2018 Dead: The ball is dead when the referee blows the whistle to stop play or following an
unsuccessful conversion.

crossref
09-01-18, 19:01
The 2018 Laws haven't got to grips with the zombie ball .. those situations that are dead (under that definition) but where one side is free to play the ball so it's not really dead and we don't allow (for instance ) replacements, questions
Eg when you blow for a PK and the quick tap is on , or touch and the QTI is on

thepercy
09-01-18, 21:01
OK, now I get it, was having a hard time imagining the scenario.

Thunderhorse1986
10-01-18, 11:01
I think the non offending side always have the right to decline the penalty and take the tactical advantage gained.

It is generally unwise so rarely done.

Isn't the referee the sole judge of advantage?


If Red defender puts the ball into touch 5m out (instead over over his own DBL) would you allow Green to claim the lineout as his tactical advantage?

I wouldn't. I'd award the penalty, from which the attacking team have an option at the penalty to kick at goal, tap and go, scrum or kick to touch for a lineout.


If the offence had happened 50m downfield and non-offending team had kicked it all the way downfield I may have called advantage over already due to territorial advantage and therefore they would just get the lineout, not the option.

Pinky
10-01-18, 13:01
Isn't the referee the sole judge of advantage?

Not now as options are offered to the non-offending team to choose where they want the penalty


I wouldn't. I'd award the penalty, from which the attacking team have an option at the penalty to kick at goal, tap and go, scrum or kick to touch for a lineout.


If the offence had happened 50m downfield and non-offending team had kicked it all the way downfield I may have called advantage over already due to territorial advantage and therefore they would just get the lineout, not the option.

That would apply if you had called advantage over, but given we were playing advantage from a (presumably) kickable penalty, this is a really good question. If another penalty infringement had occurred where the red 15 kicked it, then no doubt he would have had the choice. I suppose really what the question is is whether the attacking team can decline the penalty and take the "normal" restart of 5m attacking scrum. I think that would be OK, and I would not mark down a ref for this being an error in law, indeed I might laud it as really good understanding of the game and advantage (if I realised what he had done!)

crossref
10-01-18, 13:01
Referee is the sole judge of lots of things but no poi t being pig headed about it

In the OP green put opponents under a period of sustained pressure during which red commit two pk offence , and then kick ball over own tryline.
If the captain says he is happy with that advantage gained and would like the 5m scrum it would seem very jobswrth to insist that he hadn't gained adv so had to come back 20m for a PK he doesn't want

Perhaps he has no kicker and a great scrum
Perhaps they need 5 points to win the game so 3 is no good to them

Thunderhorse1986
10-01-18, 13:01
I don't think it's pig headed to follow what is in the law book. The laws make a provision for certain options, not for others.

Flipping your sentence on its head (maybe it's reducto ad absurdium), what if a captain decides he hasn't had enough advantage. Do you let him keep playing until he says "advantage over"? By allowing captain's the choice of when their advantage is or isn't over do you end up going down this wormhole?

As I said earlier I think a lot of this comes down to the idea of when advantage can be played and when it can't be, and when the ball is dead (which also covers the knock-on in goal leading to a 22 drop out or scrum restart debate). Could be here all day! Has this been asked to a senior lawmaker anywhere and has there been an answer?

crossref
10-01-18, 13:01
The options are a red herring, really , it's an advantage question. If the non offending team feel advantage has been gained, then should the ref rule that it wasn't

And the dead is a red herring as well, it's common place to gain adv by kicking the ball dead.

Phil E
10-01-18, 14:01
The options are a red herring, really , it's an advantage question. If the non offending team feel advantage has been gained, then should the ref rule that it wasn't.

The new Law 7 does not give the option for the Captain to decide when advantage is over (or not).

2. Advantage ends when:
a. The referee deems that the non-offending team has gained an advantage. The
referee allows play to continue; or
b. The referee deems that the non-offending team is unlikely to gain an advantage.
The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the infringement from
which advantage was being played; or
c. The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an
advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first
infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies
the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s); or
d. The offending team commits a second infringement from which no advantage
can be gained. The referee stops play and applies the appropriate and more
advantageous sanction (either tactically or territorially).

didds
10-01-18, 14:01
Referee is the sole judge of lots of things but no poi t being pig headed about it

In the OP green put opponents under a period of sustained pressure during which red commit two pk offence , and then kick ball over own tryline.
If the captain says he is happy with that advantage gained and would like the 5m scrum it would seem very jobswrth to insist that he hadn't gained adv so had to come back 20m for a PK he doesn't want

Perhaps he has no kicker and a great scrum
Perhaps they need 5 points to win the game so 3 is no good to them


well presumably they'd have the option of a kick for lineout - but I totally agree with what CR says.

didds

Rich_NL
10-01-18, 14:01
The options are a red herring, really , it's an advantage question. If the non offending team feel advantage has been gained, then should the ref rule that it wasn't

And the dead is a red herring as well, it's common place to gain adv by kicking the ball dead.

Thunderhorse raises a good point, though. In the case of a knock-on into in-goal, the 22DO is too much advantage for the defenders, so we go back for the scrum.

I think the difference is that in the case of the OP, it's not the team with the advantage killing the ball, but a play by the offending team.

didds
10-01-18, 15:01
Maybe this just muddies the waters but what if in LLP#s #29 scenario (defender kicks throiugh and tig..]

... the first two PKs were on the attackers own 5m line and then 22m line... then they kicked long and under pressure the defender then kicks through and into TIG... I doubt very much anywone would suggest that the attackers come back for a PK on their own 22m and not get the scrum 5.

So all we are talking now is "distances" - the basic underlying concepts are the same.

Potentially the reality is that its advantage over, scrum 5. the attackers have realised a territorial or tactical advanatge.

Offering the choice merely stems from that even though it may not be written in law as such.

Safety - ENJOYMENT (nee equity) - law ?

didds

Pinky
10-01-18, 15:01
The new Law 7 does not give the option for the Captain to decide when advantage is over (or not).

2. Advantage ends when:
a. The referee deems that the non-offending team has gained an advantage. The
referee allows play to continue; or
b. The referee deems that the non-offending team is unlikely to gain an advantage.
The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the infringement from
which advantage was being played; or
c. The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an
advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first
infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies
the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s); or
d. The offending team commits a second infringement from which no advantage
can be gained. The referee stops play and applies the appropriate and more
advantageous sanction (either tactically or territorially).

Neither did the old law 8, but we have long coached refs to tell 9s not to knock on, but to ask if they want the penalty rather than the advantage. Don't think it is any different now.

Phil E
10-01-18, 16:01
Neither did the old law 8, but we have long coached refs to tell 9s not to knock on, but to ask if they want the penalty rather than the advantage. Don't think it is any different now.

That's deciding they don't want any advantage, which is a big difference from allowing them to decide if/when advantage starts and finishes.

OB..
10-01-18, 16:01
it's common place to gain adv by kicking the ball dead.It is not the fact of making the ball dead that gives the potential advantage, it is the gain made BEFORE the ball goes dead.


Thunderhorse raises a good point, though. In the case of a knock-on into in-goal, the 22DO is too much advantage for the defenders, so we go back for the scrum.We go back for a scrum because the law was specifically changed in order to mandate that. Referees are not being asked to judge if the drop out is excessive for the offence - the law makers have decided that it is.

thepercy
10-01-18, 17:01
If the offence had happened 50m downfield and non-offending team had kicked it all the way downfield I may have called advantage over already due to territorial advantage and therefore they would just get the lineout, not the option.

This was a PK ADV, so no matter how the ball was kicked down field, if the kicking team do not re-gather the ball, then we come back for the PK, PK ADV needs to be territorial and tactical.

crossref
10-01-18, 17:01
This was a PK ADV, so no matter how the ball was kicked down field, if the kicking team do not re-gather the ball, then we come back for the PK, PK ADV needs to be territorial and tactical.

And if the captain considers he has got that, why deny it to him

Rich_NL
10-01-18, 17:01
This was a PK ADV, so no matter how the ball was kicked down field, if the kicking team do not re-gather the ball, then we come back for the PK, PK ADV needs to be territorial and tactical.

Really?

thepercy
10-01-18, 17:01
Really?

A PK gives you the opportunity to kick for territory and get possession of the ball. How is just kicking for territory and losing possession more advantageous to the non-infringing team?

Elpablo73
11-01-18, 14:01
Why are people quoting Laws (from both 2017 or 2018 books) for the option being given when that is part of the global Laws Trials and is an addition to the advantage laws?:confused:

crossref
11-01-18, 15:01
I don't think the law trial is relevant to this scenario, which is all about whether advantage was gained or not, and how much you pay attention to the opinion of the captain in that

Rich_NL
11-01-18, 16:01
A PK gives you the opportunity to kick for territory and get possession of the ball. How is just kicking for territory and losing possession more advantageous to the non-infringing team?

You get to kick for territory and have a lineout for possession, it's not a given. If a lone fullback caught it with three opponents bearing down on him, I might well allow breathing room. Similarly for a fortuitous bounce, etc.

VM75
18-01-18, 21:01
Id ignore the AR's signal & give him a less than subtle look of 'really!' you waved in for that ??!!!