PDA

View Full Version : knock-on in-goal



Davet
05-04-04, 18:04
Red attacking, Red 12 is diving forward over goal-line but loses posession, spilling the ball forward into Blue in-goal. Blue 15 grounds the ball.

Law 12(1)cKnock-on or throw-forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw-forward happened.

Red scrum was by far the stronger, so even with their own put-in Blue were struggling.

I have always read this law as indicating that there must be a scrum, rather than a 22 drop-out.

Consensus? what about advantage?

And what about the knock-on by an attacking player who is actually in-goal at the time, (eg Dominici springs instantly to mind) rather than as the Law puts it "in the field of play"?

Robert Burns
05-04-04, 18:04
Is a knock on in goal not a 5m scrum in line with where the knock on took place?

I would say play advantage if blue decides to kick it mile down the pitch or out of play, however if blue decides to ground it thats their own fault as the law states it must then be a scrum.

Thats what i think.

PeterTC
12-04-04, 19:04
I thought if the knock on was from the field of play into goal, then it is scrum 5, if it is a knock on in goal, then touched down by defending side, it is a 22 as there is no specific law saying they can't have the advantage. Think that's what my advisor said.

SimonSmith
13-04-04, 16:04
I thought if the knock on was from the field of play into goal, then it is scrum 5, if it is a knock on in goal, then touched down by defending side, it is a 22 as there is no specific law saying they can't have the advantage. Think that's what my advisor said.

12.1.d tends to contradict that, I think:
"Knock-on or throw-forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either
team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is
awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres
from the touch-line."

Deeps
13-04-04, 18:04
12.1.d tends to contradict that, I think:
"Knock-on or throw-forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either
team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is
awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres
from the touch-line."

Simon,

I agree with you here yet the real question, as I have brought up before, is how far do you play advantage in these situations?

I well remember when this article was brought in that advantage was considered to go only so far. For example, if the defenders achieved a touch down from an attacking knock on and thus presumably might be entitled to a consequent 22 metre drop out, this was considered to be too much of an advantage for a minor infringement and the defending 5 metre scrum became the correct call. However, as pointed out above, if the defenders boot it down field or into touch instead, a 5 metre defending scrum may not be appropriate. Yet judging when advantage has not been achieved might take a while for the attackers invariably will retrieve the ball from a long kick or will be expected to win their own ball at lineout. Is an attacking lineout on the 22 a better advantage to the defenders than their scrum on the 5 metres? If a maul between the 10 and 22 metre lines follows the boot down field with the attacking team in possession, is this a better situation for the defence than perhaps the unpredictable consequences of a 5 metre scrum? Does the defence have to be in possession of the ball to gain an advantage?

In the opposing situation where a defender knocks on in or from goal and the ball is recovered by the attacking team, none of us would deny the attackers a try as a consequence. How much play/time do you give the attackers to snaffle the ball and score before calling it back for a 5 metre scrum?

Some potentially difficult calls to make here.

Robert Burns
13-04-04, 20:04
I have a problem with a small phrase you used.

Too much advantage?

I can understand too little advantage and then you go back, but to much? surely it gets to the point where advantage is played to your liking and you call it over.

I have reread the situation and I have changed my mind.

I think that once the ball is knocked on the defending team now have the advantage, what they do in that next split second is the advantage, if they put it down, a 22 to them, if they boot it, advantage over play on, if they are tackled and lose the ball, advantage not gained, scrum at place where knock on happened (remember original scenario this is in the field of play).

I think all three option would be deemed fair.

PeterTC
13-04-04, 20:04
I can see what this all boils down to, but 12.1(c) into the in-goal specifically says if touched down, it has to be a scrum at the place of the knock on whereas 12.1(d) only addresses the knock on, it doesn't say it is then touched down in goal. Maybe there is an intention to say advantage can be played (i.e. a try can be scored if it is adefending knock on, or grounding for a 22 for an attacking knock on), but if none comes, it addresses the issue as to where the scrum could take place. Then again, it could be designed to mean that anything that happens after a knock on in-goal is irrelevant and it should automatically be a 5 metre scrum, athough then surely this would mean that a defending side knocking-on in goal would prevent an attacking side scoring a try as you can'[t play advantage. As Deeps says, it's difficult to call what advantage is, and what exactly the law is trying to get at.

SimonSmith
14-04-04, 13:04
I can see what this all boils down to, but 12.1(c) into the in-goal specifically says if touched down, it has to be a scrum at the place of the knock on whereas 12.1(d) only addresses the knock on, it doesn't say it is then touched down in goal. Maybe there is an intention to say advantage can be played (i.e. a try can be scored if it is adefending knock on, or grounding for a 22 for an attacking knock on), but if none comes, it addresses the issue as to where the scrum could take place. Then again, it could be designed to mean that anything that happens after a knock on in-goal is irrelevant and it should automatically be a 5 metre scrum, athough then surely this would mean that a defending side knocking-on in goal would prevent an attacking side scoring a try as you can'[t play advantage. As Deeps says, it's difficult to call what advantage is, and what exactly the law is trying to get at.

I think we could be over thinking this, to be honest.

There is nothing that stops you playing advantage from the knock on, either over the goal line or actually in-goal.
The defending team can have the opportunity to clear its lines either by running or by kicking.

The issue above seems to be: if no advantage is gained, why is the decision automatically a 5m scrum as opposed, for example, to a 22m drop.

I can see a number of reasons for this. As I've outlined elsewhere, I have a sneaking suspicion that a 22m drop is not seen as an advantage - in fact, given that the defending team stands a significant chance of losing the ball, it could even be seen as a disadvantage.

What is clear to me is that we are playing advantage from a knock on. No advantage? Apply the sanction for a knock on - a scrum. For me, 22m drop is NOT an advantage.

As for the concern about what actually constitutes advantage - that's why we get paid the big bucks! I have been advised to apply the dictum: what does the non-offending captain want? Given the scenario that the two options open are either a defending scrum 5 or an attacking line out close to the 10m line, then the referee has to make a quick decision. What would be running through my mind?

Is this a sufficient territorial gain? How are they doing in the line outs? But, most critically, what's likely to happen if I give the scrum? And 9 times out of 10 - scrum, defending no 10 gets the ball under pressure, and scrambles away the kick - which probably means that possession will be turned over either due to missing touch, or the attacking side getting the line out. So it boils down to: how good was the kick?

It's a long, and convoluted post I know, but I think the discussion needs to get past the 22m drop out.

Davet
15-04-04, 13:04
Simon

I think I agree that the Law is specific; if the ball is made dead then Scrum, on the 5m; but that advantage can apply unless the ball is made dead.

You say:
What is clear to me is that we are playing advantage from a knock on. No advantage? Apply the sanction for a knock on - a scrum. For me, 22m drop is NOT an advantage.

As to whether a 22 is greater or lesser advantage than the scrum...

I think that 22 could well be the better option - if we had a scrum then I would expect my 9 or 10 to kick the ball clear of the danger zone, probably doing so from in-goal and hopefully get play back up to our 22, bit more if we are lucky. On the other hand if I opted for the 22, then I could drop long and get the ball deep into their half. OK I may not get possession back, but I have territory. Plus lots can go wrong at a scrum - a fumble by my 9 and they're in!

SimonSmith
15-04-04, 17:04
On the other hand if I opted for the 22, then I could drop long and get the ball deep into their half. OK I may not get possession back, but I have territory. Plus lots can go wrong at a scrum - a fumble by my 9 and they're in!

Possession is the name of the game - go long, they've got the ball, and a lot of tactical options. Go short, and they might win the ball close to the line.

One thing that sticks in my mind is that teams used to - before the law change - kick the ball from hand very long, into in-goal or even dead, thereby forcing the opposition to drop out. They wouldn't have been doing that if the 22m gave a perceived advantage to their opponents.
Remember, that's why the law was changed with regard to the ball being kicked dead....

Davet
15-04-04, 17:04
Simon

I accept that forcing a 22 drop out by the opposition is not a bad call - but surely forcing a 5m scrum is even better? Even if their put-in. I know that when I was playing my front row would have been delighted with the opportunity.

And yes possession is important - but so is territory. Possession when on the back foot near your own line is a chancy affair. That's why the normal option is the kicked clearance - yes it gives away possession, but it gets you out of the red zone.

Rocky
15-04-04, 20:04
I think that more advantage would be gained from the 22 drop out than the scrum on the 5m line. As has been said, it's safer in such a position to get the ball as far away as possible. With a scrum on the 5m line, there is a 50-50 chance of losing the ball to the opposition in a very dangerous area of the field. With a drop out, you can hit the ball into the opposing half.

If I was on the blue team, I would much rather have the chance to boot it away from the danger zone than have to go have a scrum on my own 5m line even if it was my own team putting the ball in.

So, it would be best, in my opinion, to play advantage and let blue have the drop out.

PeterTC
15-04-04, 22:04
An question for some of our more experienced refs here, as I don't know the answer. The clause in Law 12.1(c) that it must be a 5metre scrum was I believe added a few years ago? If that is correct (I think it is), wasn't it to do with the amount of advantage a side would gain in getting a 22? I think I heard that it was introduced as they felt that getting a 22 from a knock on in the field of play was TOO much of an advantage, though I may well have misheard this, or it may just be a myth.

didds
16-04-04, 11:04
I think Simon is completely correct in his bit about getting over the 22m drop out.... but following on from his point about hewat would the defending captain prefer it might be that previous occurrences in the match habve shown the defending side ARE likely to win a restart such as a 22m drop out.... ;-)

I'll get me coat...

didds

Davet
16-04-04, 13:04
An question for some of our more experienced refs here, as I don't know the answer. The clause in Law 12.1(c) that it must be a 5metre scrum was I believe added a few years ago? If that is correct (I think it is), wasn't it to do with the amount of advantage a side would gain in getting a 22? I think I heard that it was introduced as they felt that getting a 22 from a knock on in the field of play was TOO much of an advantage, though I may well have misheard this, or it may just be a myth.
I have heard this said a couple of times - but the concept that there can be "too much advantage" strikes me as most odd.

If red knock on deep inside blue 22, and blue 14 seizes the ball and races away unopposed towards the red goal line, am I expected to call him back; since the 7 point result from his inevitable under the posts effort is "too much advantage"?

If I did so, would I get out of the bar alive?

Account Deleted
16-04-04, 18:04
If a side is getting a pasting in the scrum the last thing they'll want is a scrum five with the other team putting in and 8 man shove. Allowing the 22 has to be correct. The notion of "too much" advantage????????????????? No comment on that bramer!

SimonSmith
16-04-04, 19:04
I don't think that the issue is that of "too much advantage" - I think it's one of applying the correct penalty for an offence.

I'm not sure I can't think of any other situation where the referee's decision would not be consistent with the offence - if a player knocks on in to touch when trying to catch a ball, I always give the scrum for the first offence, being the knock on. There has not been a second offence committed for which to make another decision.

This isn't handled very well by the laws - it should make it clear whether or not the referee has the discretion to apply a lawful, but inappropriate (sorry, can't think of a better word) sanction - lineout after k/on, 22m after k/on in goal.


I'm also getting a little confused by this thread - obviously living in America is starting to get to me. <JOKE! JOKE!>

Straw poll: knock on over the goal line, grounded by defence. Assume no advantage gained. Who would give a srum 5 and who would give a 22m?

Rocky
16-04-04, 21:04
22 as surely the advantage is gained - being able to boot the ball away from the drop out.

Deeps
16-04-04, 22:04
Straw poll: knock on over the goal line, grounded by defence. Assume no advantage gained. Who would give a srum 5 and who would give a 22m?

To contribute to the straw poll, I would call scrum 5. Law 22.7 (b) specifically excludes a 22 metre drop-out as the result of an attacking knock on from the field of play. Ask how can the ball be 'made dead' in goal, clearly either team can. Any advantage accruing from such an attacking knock on would require the defenders to get better territorial/tactical gain than likely to result from a scrum at 5 metres, whatever you decide that might be. If the referee calls advantage, so that there is no doubt, then the defence has the traditional opportunity to try something, safe in the knowledge that if it fails they will get the put in at a 5 metre scrum. Yet, instead of looking for such an opportunity, should the defence make the ball dead after the knock on then this is negative play and does not deserve nor should be rewarded by the territorial advantage of a 22 metre drop out. That is too much advantage [to keep Dave T on thread!] to the defending side obtained through negative play from the knock on infringement.

I believe that is the reason Law 22.12 was introduced and in my book the 5 metre scrum is the correct call. Law 22.15 applies also; not only does it reinforce 22.12 but it also seems to stress that no special treatment of a knock on is appropriate just because it happens in in goal. It would not be appropriate to define this as one of those occasions when advantage does not apply as it does apply of course but then as soon as the ball is 'made dead', play stops and Laws 22.7/22.12 apply.

League mate
18-04-04, 04:04
I would ask the team that grounded the ball in their in-goal if they wanted the scrum or the 22m as I assume that the 22m kick would be of more advantage to them .

Otherwise I would give a 22m kick .

Pablo
18-04-04, 19:04
Straw poll: knock on over the goal line, grounded by defence. Assume no advantage gained. Who would give a srum 5 and who would give a 22m?

Coincidentally, this subject was recently raised in my own Society, and the debate went on for a while...

The conclusion we reached was that advantage applies if the defending team are in a position to take it, but if they fail to do so and the ball is made dead, then play is restarted with a 5m scrum and NOT a 22d/o. This is very specifically covered under Law 22.12:

If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the penalty is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, play is restarted with a 5-metre scrum. The scrum is formed in line with the place of the infringement and the defending team throws in the ball.

This simply serves to back up Law 22.7 (b) as mentioned by Deeps. So, sorry, but all you guys who gave a 22m drop-out were wrong...

Pablo
18-04-04, 20:04
Further to my last post, I've just remembered that the reason this caused so much jaw-ache was not the case of the attackers knocking-on (which everyone was eventually agreed upon as I've explained above), but the case of the defenders knocking-on...

There was a ref in the Society who claimed the following: defender knocks-on, attacker pounces on ball, and Our Brave Ref (he'd have to be!) awards.... 5m scrum, attacking ball!!!

Why? Read Law 22.13:

If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the penalty is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, play is restarted with a 5-metre scrum. The scrum is formed in line with the place of the infringement and the attacking team throws in the ball.

Now, I hasten to add, I don't agree with this... but it's an interesting point. I would play advantage and award the try (in part because I suspect I'd get lynched if I gave an attacking scrum!). But is a try "too much advantage"?

... Get your heads around that one!...

Rocky
18-04-04, 21:04
Coincidentally, this subject was recently raised in my own Society, and the debate went on for a while...

The conclusion we reached was that advantage applies if the defending team are in a position to take it, but if they fail to do so and the ball is made dead, then play is restarted with a 5m scrum and NOT a 22d/o. This is very specifically covered under Law 22.12:

If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the penalty is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, play is restarted with a 5-metre scrum. The scrum is formed in line with the place of the infringement and the defending team throws in the ball.

This simply serves to back up Law 22.7 (b) as mentioned by Deeps. So, sorry, but all you guys who gave a 22m drop-out were wrong...

You are right about what the law says. However, what about advantage?
You say in your latest post that you would play advantage and award a try if the defending player knocked on in-goal. So if the attacking player knocked on in-goal, would you play the advantage which is, surely, the 22m drop out?

PeterTC
18-04-04, 22:04
Indeed surely using Law 22.12 as the reason for a 5m scrum, the principle about defender knocking on in-goal should use Law 22.13 and award an attacking 5m as you talk about Pablo. I always feel that 22.12 is more a clarification as to where a scrum should be if there is no advantage, ditto with 22.13. We must remember that these 2 laws are both not specific to a knock-on in goal.

Which would then bring us back to saying that the decision is not down to these, but whether a 22m or 5m scrum is more advantageous.

Rocky
18-04-04, 22:04
22 is surely more advantageous. 5m scrum you stand a chance of losing the ball in an extremely dangerous position. 22 drop out, you can boot it away from the danger zone.

League mate
18-04-04, 22:04
I guess the defining rule is that the defending player made the ball dead when he grounded it , so advantage is the scrum as the rules do not anticipate the strength of the scrum . The rule book is impartial .
If the defending team have the weaker scrum , I gues it's tough luck try again next week .

Does that sound right ?

Rocky
18-04-04, 22:04
I'm still not sure about that as with a scrum there is a 50/50 chance of losing the ball, regardless of whether one pack is dominant.

Deeps
18-04-04, 23:04
Rocky - Law 22.7 makes it crystal clear that if the defenders ground the ball following an attacking knock on then a 5 metre scrum is mandatory, you cannot interpret this law any other way - it is specific. Of course advantage should be played from the knock on but once the ball has been made dead then the defence has chucked away its chance of any advantage. If the 22 metre option was still allowed then the defence would take it every time, it's a cop out. It's the easy option, it gets them out from under the cosh and discourages innovative rugby.

Do the defence deserve a break from pressure because of the special circumstances of being in - goal? Certainly not, positive play should be rewarded, not negative play. Remember the punters and the sponsors want to see more interesting rugby with more tries.

This law is a proportionate sanction for the knock on infringement; it prevents the attacking side from being over penalised for a minor offence and, importantly, remains consistent with the treatment of all other knock on infringements.

Of course if the defence knock on in - goal then advantage applies to the attackers. Sure they can score from this, this is positive play remember but if the defence holds them up after a suitable number of attacking moves then we proceed to the 5 metre scrum.

League mate
19-04-04, 00:04
How do your grades work ? C grade is ? Do the levels get you better games ?

Deeps
19-04-04, 11:04
How do your grades work ? C grade is ? Do the levels get you better games ?

Very simply, under the previous system when you qualified you did so as a D grade referee. In other words qualified but not yet assessed as to competence/ability. Your subsequent assessment would place you somewhere in the C grades, C1 (the highest), C2 or C3. You could then aspire to promotion to B grade (B3, B2, B1). B1" meant that you were under consideration for 'the Panel', the A grade. In the English RFU as I understand it there are 60 Panel referees from which one can aspire to referee at the highest level. This is only an off the cuff quick explanation and I am sure others will correct me here and add if necessary.

The new system equates your former grading directly with the level of game to which you are deemed competent to take charge of. As a former C1, I am now a Level 10 referee which enables me to referee Levels 10, 11, 12 etc and occasionally a Level 9 game. Hopefully an advisor will show up at one of your better higher grade games and, along with a sufficiency of post match feedback cards saying nice things about you, will help you on and up the ladder.

Most of us wait until we stop playing before we take up the whistle. The trick is to start early, well before you stop playing if you want to get on and upwards. In Hampshire, we start training referees at the tender age of 14; I think this is OK although an individual should have several years playing time under his belt as well.

As to better games, to answer your question, in theory you should be getting the same games you had before. In practice though, using the Level grading (which we have here in Hants all this season) should mean that your game appointments are better structured for you. The appointer has a clearer view of how to divi up the different levels of game to available referees ensuring those of a certain level get their fair share of the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to quality. If my appointments' committee members subscribe to this, guys I am ready for a higher level of challenge. ? ? Ah well, pigs might fly first...

Pablo
19-04-04, 11:04
Rocky - Law 22.7 makes it crystal clear that if the defenders ground the ball following an attacking knock on then a 5 metre scrum is mandatory, you cannot interpret this law any other way - it is specific. Of course advantage should be played from the knock on but once the ball has been made dead then the defence has chucked away its chance of any advantage. If the 22 metre option was still allowed then the defence would take it every time, it's a cop out. It's the easy option, it gets them out from under the cosh and discourages innovative rugby.

Do the defence deserve a break from pressure because of the special circumstances of being in - goal? Certainly not, positive play should be rewarded, not negative play. Remember the punters and the sponsors want to see more interesting rugby with more tries.

This law is a proportionate sanction for the knock on infringement; it prevents the attacking side from being over penalised for a minor offence and, importantly, remains consistent with the treatment of all other knock on infringements.

Of course if the defence knock on in - goal then advantage applies to the attackers. Sure they can score from this, this is positive play remember but if the defence holds them up after a suitable number of attacking moves then we proceed to the 5 metre scrum.

Excellent post Deeps. This is almost precisely my line of reasoning, clearly explained.

We like to reward positive play.

Hence: attackers knock-on, defenders cop out and ground ball, negative play, scrum 5m to defenders, reward them for their opponents screwing up, but keep pressure on them.

Conversely, defenders knock-on, attackers ground ball, positive play, rewarded with a try...

Positive play makes for better, more entertaining rugby. Let's reward it.

PeterTC
19-04-04, 22:04
OK, have to say that the last post convinced me. I feel we have been using roundabout arguments to get to the point, but Deeps' post has convinced me of it and sums it up perfectly.

Rocky
19-04-04, 23:04
Same here. I can now accept the scrum 5 decision. As you say, reward positive play.

Robert Burns
20-04-04, 01:04
not convinced, could the defending team not ground the ball, run to the 22, kick quickly, have their player catch and run further forward. Would you not call that positive play? i would.

Davet
20-04-04, 12:04
As an answer to the straw poll - then the only possible decision - under the Law as she is writ - is a a 5m scrum if the ball is made dead in goal following a knock-on by an attacking player - Law 12.1.c

The question of advantage is interesting; I simply cannot get my head around the concept of "too much advantage", and would be in favour of the Law allowing the defending side the option, either; scrum their put in where the knock-on happened, (5m if it all happened in-goal); OR a 22 drop-out. As Simon and I have probably illustrated, there are pros and cons for each. Many other situations are covered by options, why not this?

As to a defender knocking-on in-goal, as posited by Pablo - I think advantage would clearly apply; under Law 22 there is no problem with giving advantage, and under Law 12 we are looking 1.d as opposed to 1.c (which only applies to attacking knock-on), so although the try clearly makes the ball dead 1.c is irrelevant and 1.d allows advantage - i.e. the try.

PeterTC
20-04-04, 17:04
Dave, this is my problem though. Everyone quotes Law 12.1(c). But put simply, it isn't relevant. Law 12.1(c) states:

Knock-or or throw forward INTO the in-goal If an attacking player knocks-or or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents' in-gola and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw-forward happened

Thus, 12.1(c) only applies to a knock-on in the field of play into the in-goal, not knock-ons in goal.

Davet
20-04-04, 17:04
Dave, this is my problem though. <snip>
Thus, 12.1(c) only applies to a knock-on in the field of play into the in-goal, not knock-ons in goal.
PeterTC - absolutely; see my post which opened this thread asking about this very element.

So - when an attacking player is already in-goal and knocks on, and the ball is then made dead, is it a 5m scrum defenders put-in, or a 22 drop-out, or could we ask the defending captain what he wants to do?

Deeps
20-04-04, 18:04
PeterTC - absolutely; see my post which opened this thread asking about this very element.

So - when an attacking player is already in-goal and knocks on, and the ball is then made dead, is it a 5m scrum defenders put-in, or a 22 drop-out, or could we ask the defending captain what he wants to do?

Guys,

Where does 22.15 fail to provide you with a solution? The attacking player has infringed; it matters not who made the ball dead. The attacker may hope the knock on went unnoticed and ground the ball hoping for a try but making it dead instead. A defender may catch the knock on, ground it, kick or head it over the dead ball line also making the ball dead. You spotted the knock on, no advantage accrued to the defending team so a 5 metre scrum to the defenders.

!2.1(c) and (d) for that matter only indicate where the resulting scrum takes place. Just because 12.1 (d) does not contain the words 'and it is made dead there' does not exclude the intent of 22.12 nor the specific direction of 22.15 which is overiding.

Once the ball has been made dead then a restart is required. 22.15 states that 'All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in in the field of play.' , 22.7 (b) specifically excludes a 22m drop out for an attacking knock on in the field of play [which covers infringements in goal remember!] where the ball subsequently goes into in-goal and is made dead there. To do anything other than order a 5 metre scrum e.g a 22m drop out whatever side of the goal line the knock on occurred, is inconsistent and in my opinion in contravention of law.

At this point I do declare that said dead horse is well and truly flogged.

PeterTC
20-04-04, 20:04
Indeed it is Deeps, as someone has finally put a fully fledged argument which doesn't use 12.1 and instead links 2 relevant laws together.

I have been convinced for a day or so now, an earlier post did that plus even more thought on the subject, and this finally gives the total legal rundown as to why it is so. The main point to be made is that you have to look at 22.7 in terms of 22.15 in order for the laws to actually totally make sense as to what should happen.

Robert Burns
20-04-04, 23:04
Ok.

Spoke to our resident RFU Guru Dave Broadwell tonight on this and it was easy.

If ball made dead by defending team (either ball grounded or kicked out of play without going back into the firled of play) 5m Scrum.

If Defending team get ball and punt it down the field or run with it back intop open play, no problems. advantage....play on.

So those who have been saying this over the last 4 pages, well done. lol you were right.

Deeps
21-04-04, 09:04
Ok.

Spoke to our resident RFU Guru Dave Broadwell tonight on this and it was easy.

Yes but each can arrive at the correct solution in the same way Dave Broadwell did, by consulting the Laws of the Game. I do not think he has any special inside track to the 'interpretation of the moment'.

I have heard Dave Broadwell is easy too! :p

Robert Burns
21-04-04, 19:04
I have heard Dave Broadwell is easy too! :p
ha ha, do you know him? I'll pass on your comments, lol

League mate
21-04-04, 22:04
where do you get a copy of up to date rules of union .

Robert Burns
22-04-04, 04:04
www.irb.com (http://www.irb.com) has the full law book online.