PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] Defender passes ball into own in-goal. Ball kicked dead by attacker.



CrouchTPEngage
30-04-19, 22:04
I thought we had done this one to death but I was surprised by 2 things in this video from the Leicester v Bristol game last weekend.

Listen to the commentary. Commentator says that attackers have kicked that ball over the line and hence it should be a 22 DO.
Referee, Mr. Dickson can be heard awarding a 5m scrum but then , after consulting (presumably ) his AR, then awards a 22 DO to Leicester. The video stops just before, but the restart was indeed a 22 DO !!

In the replay, I see Genge (Leicester) pass the ball back into his own in-goal and where, a Bristol attacker kicks the ball dead.
Was it right ?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoRmw4C-SDMgJVWTCvPZoPrR7pvQTmr5/view?usp=sharing

Dickie E
01-05-19, 04:05
that's bizarre. Should have been a try :) but failing that, a 5 metre scrum.

crossref
01-05-19, 06:05
5m scrum, but we are going to get more of this in goal confusion as this is one area where the new book is not very clearly laid out

Flish
01-05-19, 08:05
5m scrum for me - although I made the same mistake / brain fart earlier in the season. I'll admit it's a little odd, not many scenarios where the team that puts the ball off the field gets the restart advantage, but there it is.

Phil E
01-05-19, 08:05
The ref changed his mind a couple of times in deciding what to give and players from both sides were giving him advice on the decision. I think he just got confused himself in the end. It was clearly taken in by Leicester and should have been a 5m scrum.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the new law book as Karl Dickson knows the law, as do his experienced AR's and the TMO. It was just a mistake.

Leicester got away with that one.

Phil E
01-05-19, 09:05
Just had a listen to the reflink recording and it goes like this.

Ref: Taken back by Green, 5m scrum

(He is then listening to another voice, but I cant hear that, it might have been an AR or the TMO, but I only get the ref's side of the conversation.)

Ref:
Who kicked it in?
Was it taken back in?
Passed back by Green so 5m scrum to White
Then kicked out by White
They kicked it dead, 22
My mistake sorry, I apologise, my mistake
Passed back in, then he's kicked it dead 22

Bristol player then says its like a charge down, whats the difference.

Ref says: It was passed back in then you kicked it dead

Bristol player says you're not understanding my point.

Ref: 'You' kicked it dead 22

Player: never mind



PS: commentator says it should have been a 22 as White kicked it dead :shrug:

Pinky
01-05-19, 09:05
5m scrum white.

DocY
01-05-19, 10:05
Definite scrum 5. How the ball was made dead doesn't matter, only who put it into in goal.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
01-05-19, 12:05
Karl Dickson reffing the prem.:shrug:

crossref
01-05-19, 12:05
Definite scrum 5. How the ball was made dead doesn't matter, only who put it into in goal.

Unfortunately the new Law Book contains references to who and how it was made dead ..which make it seem like it is important and serves to cloud the issue

.RESTART KICKS FOLLOWING A TOUCH-DOWN (22-METRE DROP-OUT)


Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.


This particular incident .. 5m scrum

CrouchTPEngage
01-05-19, 14:05
Unfortunately the new Law Book contains references to who and how it was made dead ..which make it seem like it is important and serves to cloud the issue

.RESTART KICKS FOLLOWING A TOUCH-DOWN (22-METRE DROP-OUT)


Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.


This particular incident .. 5m scrum

That's interesting, crossref.
Is the law book clear on what happens when an attacking player takes the ball into in-goal and the ball is made dead by "an attacking player" ?

crossref
01-05-19, 14:05
That's interesting, crossref.
Is the law book clear on what happens when an attacking player takes the ball into in-goal and the ball is made dead by "an attacking player" ?

No .. that scenario is no longer covered in the Laws

DocY
01-05-19, 15:05
Unfortunately the new Law Book contains references to who and how it was made dead ..which make it seem like it is important and serves to cloud the issue

.RESTART KICKS FOLLOWING A TOUCH-DOWN (22-METRE DROP-OUT)


Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.


This particular incident .. 5m scrum

Well bugger me with a pitchfork! That's a pretty big omission!

Jz558
01-05-19, 15:05
Didds is going to be gutted.

Defender
In
Dead
S.....hit he's given a drop out!!

didds
01-05-19, 15:05
Well bugger me with a pitchfork! That's a pretty big omission!

Its bollocks isn't it?

The mind boggles frankly.

on the one hand you could say this HAS to be deliberate cos otherwise why stipulate "opponent" as the one making it dead?
on the other you just seriously suspect its just some ghastly cock-up with some cut and paste job that inadvertently left it in from somewhere else. with a pathetic attempt (if any) to proof this.

*sigh*

tewdric
01-05-19, 17:05
It may be more that attacker taking in and attacker also making dead is very obviously a 22, whereas one could be confused if an attacker takes in and a defender makes dead.

crossref
01-05-19, 21:05
It may be more that attacker taking in and attacker also making dead is very obviously a 22, whereas one could be confused if an attacker takes in and a defender makes dead.

Well, when an attacker takes it in, and a defender subsequently makes it dead.. that's obviously a 22m DO as well isn't it ?

didds
01-05-19, 22:05
Well, when an attacker takes it in, and a defender subsequently makes it dead.. that's obviously a 22m DO as well isn't it ?

well its been tghat way for over 43 years from my direct experience CR, indeed. Aside from the stupidity ion the new lawbook which I cannot believe is what is actually intended albeit by implication/inference.

didds

tewdric
02-05-19, 08:05
I'm not defending it just trying to guess the logic for it. Cock up rather than conspiracy for me.

Taff
04-05-19, 10:05
By coincidence one of the things St Nigel talked to us about at the last monthly meeting was the importance of working things out logically when presented with an unusual situation.

In this case the ball was put in-goal by Green defenders and made dead (it doesn't matter who made it dead) - so attacking 5m Scrum.

But I'm sat at my comfy desk with a good coffee and no pressure.

didds
04-05-19, 20:05
Just remember (and ignore the ambiguosity introduced in the "new" lawbook IMO).

"DIDDS"


didds