PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] Knock-on into in-goal



Pablo
11-03-19, 09:03
I know this has been asked before, but my searches haven’t found a consensus since the law book rewrite.

Knock-on into (or in) the in-goal was explicitly covered in the 2017 law book as being a defending scrum 5m out, rather than being a 22m drop-out - the theory being, and adviser once explained to me, “not getting scored in is advantage enough”!

I had this knock-on situation arise three times on Saturday, and I gave the scrum every time (at least I was consistent!), but the non-offending side asked about the 22. I said no with enough conviction and confidence that it wasn’t argued, but when I went to check the law book afterwards, I found the explicit reference on this situation has been removed.

I still believe the decision is correct, but requires a somewhat tortuous justification in law compared to the 2017 clarity, and find myself wondering what others do. And I certinaly don’t think it was WR’s intent to changed the outcomes of this situation.

So, do you:
- still award scrum 5m to defenders, and if so, what’s your justification?
- give the 22 drop-out for a ball played into in-goal by attack, even though it was knocked on?

Rich_NL
11-03-19, 09:03
I still award the 5m defensive scrum. My justification is interpreting 7.3.f that way (and not for defenders' knock-ons where the ball is made dead by scoring a try), because that's how it's always been interpreted in practice.

collybs
11-03-19, 11:03
Law 7.3 (f)
Advantage must not be applied and the referee must blow the whistle immediately when:
The ball is made dead.

As the ball has been made dead advantage must not be applied.

crossref
11-03-19, 12:03
In 2017 the Law about knock ons that cross the goal line was taken away.

So knock ons that cross the goal line are now exactly the same as a knock on in any other part of the pitch, and the Law of advantage applies .

When playing advantage , if the ball goes dead then you can no longer play advantage (obvs) so you blow your whistle
If advantage has been gained .. advantage over , restart as appropriate
If no advantage was gained, back to the knock on

didds
11-03-19, 12:03
so the debate is over whether the choice between a ~5m scrum or a 22 d/o is "advantage" .

???

didds

ChuckieB
11-03-19, 12:03
I had changed my view after the last big debate on this. I am now comfortable to argue that making the ball dead is a play under pressure and therefore not to be treated/considered an advantage in itself.

Just a thought process that allows me to be consistent in my application of the 5m scrum.

The Fat
11-03-19, 12:03
so the debate is over whether the choice between a ~5m scrum or a 22 d/o is "advantage" .

???

didds

Yes.
Law 19 Scrum

Where the game is restarted with a scrum and which team throws in is determined as follows:

Infringement / stoppage
A knock-on or throw forward, apart from at a lineout.

Location of scrum
In the scrum zone at the point closest to the place of infringement.

Who throws in
The non-offending team.

crossref
11-03-19, 17:03
I had changed my view after the last big debate on this. I am now comfortable to argue that making the ball dead is a play under pressure and therefore not to be treated/considered an advantage in itself.

Just a thought process that allows me to be consistent in my application of the 5m scrum.

What if it clearly isn't under pressure?

didds
11-03-19, 17:03
Oh gawd. Just when I thought Id got this stuff sorted in my head, here we go again... (that's not a dig at anybody in this site!).

didds

ChuckieB
11-03-19, 18:03
What if it clearly isn't under pressure? Possession within your own in goal area after an attacking knock on not meeting the definition of pressure for you then?

Its hardly the freedom to play the ball as you wish to keep the game continuing and your attacking options open which is what the advantage law is really all about.

it's a defensive play rather than an attacking play.

crossref
11-03-19, 18:03
Shrug , a lot of time players under no pressure at all dot down a ball to get the drop out.

Usually when the oppo have kicked it into the in goal, true..

It's a great way to launch a counter attack , many advantages over counter attacking from the goal line

I don't think anyone consider it negative play .. it's routine


We could even make a direct comparison

Red 13 grubber kicks into blue in goal , white touch it dowm
Red 13 throws forward into blue in goal, white touch it down

didds
11-03-19, 19:03
the clear comparisons being for those two scenarios occurring on half way for a similar linear distance and what outcomes would you expect.

that's the historical context. it now seems WR has muddied the waters and I have no idea what the reality is now.

didds

Marc Wakeham
13-03-19, 09:03
Advantage is a device to allow continuity of play. By making the ball dead the “non offending” has stopped continuity. There fore they have “declined” / ended the opportunity to play advantage
Why are you allowed to kick for touch (making the ball dead but not to ground it and gain? Well as kick to touch only becomes dead IF the kick succeeds: It may not get there / possession is handed over to the other side / A QTI may be an option to the other side and so on.
The law makers considered a 22 drop out to be “too much advantage” I’m not sure how you can have too much advantage. Eg a RED knock on in Blue’s 22. Blue play advantage and score at the other end. Surely if 22 meters of ground is “too much advantage” then a try from 80 mtrs is also too much. The “non offending” side could kick for touch. Let’s say they kick it 20 meters. Advantage over but let’s say they kick it 50 mtrs to touch is that “too much”?
However, that is not our call. The law makers decided to put the guidance into “the book” and it was now clear. A knock on into in goal that is minored MUST see a scrum 5 to the defending side as the outcome. Life was easy when the law book was simple.
Along came the “simplification” and it was decided that this bit of clarification was no longer needed. In fairness they did tell us that no laws were changing, so there was a clue that the Scrum 5 law still applies. However, it is clear, that the policy of letting Theresa May do the re-write was always going to be flawed.
For me it is business as usual. Knock on into in goal that is “minored” is a 5m scrum to the “non offending” side.

Dickie E
13-03-19, 11:03
For me it is business as usual. Knock on into in goal that is “minored” is a 5m scrum to the “non offending” side.

But I still love the irony of a knock back in in-goal by the the attacking team and then "minored" is a 22 drop out.

Marc Wakeham
13-03-19, 12:03
But I still love the irony of a knock back in in-goal by the the attacking team and then "minored" is a 22 drop out.



What offence has been committed? It is simply a ball carried into in goal and minored,

Rich_NL
13-03-19, 12:03
The point is that the attacking team commit a technical offence and defenders touch down -> defensive scrum five
Attacking team play well but defenders touch down -> 22DO

The attackers relatively benefit from knocking on.

didds
13-03-19, 12:03
(devil's advocate)

I suppose there could be an argument that says the defending team actually gain >=5m of territory with a 5m scrum, that elsewhere on the pitch they wouldn't get...

didds

crossref
13-03-19, 13:03
Those metres of territory come from the attackers putting ball into the in goal, not from the knock on

Marc Wakeham
13-03-19, 13:03
The point is that the attacking team commit a technical offence and defenders touch down -> defensive scrum five
Attacking team play well but defenders touch down -> 22DO

The attackers relatively benefit from knocking on.

The Attacking team got in to the scoring zone and failed to score. That is their problem. Drop out 22.

DocY
13-03-19, 13:03
The Attacking team got in to the scoring zone and failed to score. That is their problem. Drop out 22.

But only if they fail to score without infringing! Fail to score by knocking on and it's a 5m scrum.

crossref
13-03-19, 14:03
But only if they fail to score without infringing! Fail to score by knocking on and it's a 5m scrum.

... or is it ? :)

Marc Wakeham
13-03-19, 23:03
But only if they fail to score without infringing! Fail to score by knocking on and it's a 5m scrum.

That is the law makers desire.

Knock on = lose the try scoring chance and possession etc.

Fail to score with the ball in your possession? hard luck.

Not for me / us to make the call on the "corectness" of the law. Ours to apply the law.

crossref
13-03-19, 23:03
.

Not for me / us to make the call on the "corectness" of the law. Ours to apply the law.

Well, I know already that I am going to be quoting that one back at ya !

Phil E
14-03-19, 12:03
Well, I know already that I am going to be quoting that one back at ya !

3868
msf

Pablo
14-03-19, 13:03
Thanks all. My justification also hinged on 7.3 (f) along the lines of:
-Green has knocked on into in-goal
-Black has regathered, advantage is applied
-Black touches down, gaining no advantage
-Advantage cannot be applied now the ball is dead (7.3f)
-We return to the last offence, Green's knock-on, which requires a scrum
-The scrum must be located in the scrum zone (19.1), i.e., 5m out from the goal-line

So much for the simplified re-write "clarifying" the law here - the 2017 law book was much clearer!

OB..
14-03-19, 13:03
Thanks all. My justification also hinged on 7.3 (f) along the lines of:
-Green has knocked on into in-goal
-Black has regathered, advantage is applied
-Black touches down, gaining no advantage
-Advantage cannot be applied now the ball is dead (7.3f)
-We return to the last offence, Green's knock-on, which requires a scrum
-The scrum must be located in the scrum zone (19.1), i.e., 5m out from the goal-line

So much for the simplified re-write "clarifying" the law here - the 2017 law book was much clearer!But at least the law has not changed!

crossref
14-03-19, 13:03
Thanks all. My justification also hinged on 7.3 (f) along the lines of:
-Green has knocked on into in-goal
-Black has regathered, advantage is applied
-Black touches down, gaining no advantage


!

That last statement is the nub of it

On the face of it , it's a 22m DO

You think they have gained no advantage, but that's only because you have decided not to give them the 22mDO

Other posters (even on this thread) argue that far from gaining no advantage, they have somehow gained TOO MUCH advantage , and that is why they should be denied the drop out

Pablo
14-03-19, 15:03
You think they have gained no advantage, but that's only because you have decided not to give them the 22mDO

Not sure what you're getting at here. I haven't decided not to give them the 22 on a whim - I've applied the logic of the law. They had a chance to play the ball out, didn't, advantage isn't applied to a dead ball, so I returned to the offence that triggered advantage.



Other posters (even on this thread) argue that far from gaining no advantage, they have somehow gained TOO MUCH advantage , and that is why they should be denied the drop out

And I would be inclined to agree. It certainly seems from the 2017 edition of the laws that this was the law makers' intention.

crossref
14-03-19, 15:03
And I would be inclined to agree. It certainly seems from the 2017 edition of the laws that this was the law makers' intention.

Which is an odd conclusion as the rewrite actually removed the exception relating to knock ons that cross the goal line, making them the same as all other knock-ons.

Pablo
14-03-19, 15:03
Which is an odd conclusion as the rewrite actually removed the exception relating to knock ons that cross the goal line, making them the same as all other knock-ons.

The intention of the 2017 law book was clear. The intention of the rewrite, we were repeatedly told, was to simplify without making changes, except where law experiments were explicitly called out).

Since no such specific call out has ever been published regarding the status of a knock-on in/into in-goal, it's not that odd a conclusion to arrive at.

ChrisR
14-03-19, 18:03
In a world cup year no changes are to be made to the laws. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2020. I'm thinking this will be addressed.

crossref
14-03-19, 18:03
In a world cup year no changes are to be made to the laws. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2020. I'm thinking this will be addressed.

well, that's a different topic - but thy made a number of changes in 2019 Book, some highlighted, some not.

thepercy
14-03-19, 20:03
That last statement is the nub of it

On the face of it , it's a 22m DO

You think they have gained no advantage, but that's only because you have decided not to give them the 22mDO

Other posters (even on this thread) argue that far from gaining no advantage, they have somehow gained TOO MUCH advantage , and that is why they should be denied the drop out

Its too much because it is after the ball is dead that the advantage would accrue. If they scoop the ball up and run 105 m to score, the advantage is gain after 10-15 m and we don't have to blow our whistle and we play on.

ctrainor
14-03-19, 23:03
If a team is getting mullered in the scrums, to give them a 5M scrum defending scrum is not advantage. I would normally look for advantage in these scenarios and if defending team was getting hammered and the result didn't matter, I'd be inclined to give a 22 drop out. Empathy!
Here's a scenario Red attacking but knock the ball forward into in goal. Blue pick it up and pass to another player and I call advantage over. Second blue player then dots it down before crossing out of in goal.
I can now legally and morally call a 22 with no arguments from anyone as blue has gained tactical advantage. Simples!

crossref
14-03-19, 23:03
!
Here's a scenario Red attacking but knock the ball forward into in goal. Blue pick it up and pass to another player and I call advantage over. Second blue player then dots it down before crossing out of in goal.
I can now legally and morally call a 22 with no arguments from anyone as blue has gained tactical advantage. Simples!

Good scenario.. I usually make it a kick that is the trigger for advantage over but a pass is a good alternative...

The Fat
15-03-19, 00:03
If a team is getting mullered in the scrums, to give them a 5M scrum defending scrum is not advantage. I would normally look for advantage in these scenarios and if defending team was getting hammered and the result didn't matter, I'd be inclined to give a 22 drop out. Empathy!
Here's a scenario Red attacking but knock the ball forward into in goal. Blue pick it up and pass to another player and I call advantage over. Second blue player then dots it down before crossing out of in goal.
I can now legally and morally call a 22 with no arguments from anyone as blue has gained tactical advantage. Simples!


Wrong

The Fat
15-03-19, 00:03
Good scenario.. I usually make it a kick that is the trigger for advantage over but a pass is a good alternative...

Your supporting argument that the blue team has gained a real advantage just because they have completed a single pass is misguided and, in this case, simply wrong.

This whole argument that has now entered (probably) its second year is perpetrated by members on this forum who simply do not understand how the concept of advantage works.

Rich_NL
15-03-19, 09:03
The point is that the attacking team commit a technical offence and defenders touch down -> defensive scrum five
Attacking team play well but defenders touch down -> 22DO

The attackers relatively benefit from knocking on.

Of course, the flip side is that the defenders are rewarded more for stopping a competent, valid attack, than for making the ball dead when they had advantage anyway.

crossref
15-03-19, 09:03
Your supporting argument that the blue team has gained a real advantage just because they have completed a single pass is misguided and, in this case, simply wrong.

This whole argument that has now entered (probably) its second year is perpetrated by members on this forum who simply do not understand how the concept of advantage works.

A pass isn't the crux of my argument ,that's just one scenario

I like a kick scenario as we all agree that advantage is over when it is freely kicked away ..

But a touchdown works as well .

If cast aside all preconceptions, and simply follow the Law Book you will find my argument :)

DocY
15-03-19, 11:03
The 'mullered in the scrum' post brings to mind a recent thread about teams asking to play, or not play, advantage.

If a captain came up to you during the game and said "ref, we're getting mullered in the scrums. If they infringe, can you call advantage over if we've got any possession so we don't have to scrummage?" would you still go for the 5m scrum in this case, or call AO as soon as the defending player in in goal collected the ball?

And if you wouldn't call AO in this case, would you also no call it if the same thing happened on half way (i.e. the non-infringing team took possession 10m back from the infringement)?

OB..
15-03-19, 12:03
The 'mullered in the scrum' post brings to mind a recent thread about teams asking to play, or not play, advantage.

If a captain came up to you during the game and said "ref, we're getting mullered in the scrums. If they infringe, can you call advantage over if we've got any possession so we don't have to scrummage?" would you still go for the 5m scrum in this case, or call AO as soon as the defending player in in goal collected the ball?

And if you wouldn't call AO in this case, would you also no call it if the same thing happened on half way (i.e. the non-infringing team took possession 10m back from the infringement)?
If you call AO and the defender then grounds the ball, the question is "How did the ball get into the in-goal?". The answer is "From an attacking knock-on", therefore the outcome is 5m defending scrum.

This cannot arise in midfield because grounding the ball is pointless.

DocY
15-03-19, 12:03
If you call AO and the defender then grounds the ball, the question is "How did the ball get into the in-goal?". The answer is "From an attacking knock-on", therefore the outcome is 5m defending scrum.

This cannot arise in midfield because grounding the ball is pointless.

Sorry, I was referring to an attacking knock on in in goal. Agreed that the situation you describe is (or rather was) obviously covered in law.

Dickie E
15-03-19, 21:03
This cannot arise in midfield because grounding the ball is pointless.

I see what you did there :)

The Fat
15-03-19, 22:03
A pass isn't the crux of my argument ,that's just one scenario

I like a kick scenario as we all agree that advantage is over when it is freely kicked away ..

But a touchdown works as well .

If cast aside all preconceptions, and simply follow the Law Book you will find my argument :)

The part I have highlighted suggests that you would call advantage over as soon as a player puts boot to ball. I don't think you can assume we would all agree with that view.
You really do need to get your head around exactly what the thinking is behind a scrum advantage for a knock-on.
Following the law book supports my view which is also the way it is refereed around the world (except for the dissenting few). If you argue that your interpretation of Law 12 supports your view then you are saying it is a new law that has not been communicated by WR.

OB..
08-02-20, 20:02
Today's referee awarded a 22 when the ball was knocked on into in-goal (from some distance out).

He hadn't seen that situation before, so guessed but was happy to accept that he got it wrong. None of the players complained.

Dickie E
09-02-20, 08:02
happy to accept that he got it wrong.

law reference?

crossref
09-02-20, 10:02
Today's referee awarded a 22 when the ball was knocked on into in-goal (from some distance out).
[[...]None of the players complained.

so you were only person who thought it was wrong :wink:

crossref
09-02-20, 11:02
The part I have highlighted suggests that you would call advantage over as soon as a player puts boot to ball. I don't think you can assume we would all agree with that view.


yes, indeed.
So talk me through how you assess if advantage is over

blue attacking, send the ball into red in goal, and knock on
red defender gathers the ball and you play advantage
red defender kicks the ball .... if you don't call adv over when he kicks it, talk me through what you are waiting for and what is the decision if
a) the kick is directly into touch
b) if the kick is directly into touch-in-goal