Knock-on into in-goal

[OB..]

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]

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]

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

I see what you did there

[The Fat]

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.