PDA

View Full Version : Ball dropped while trying to score



Steve70
23-02-16, 08:02
Quick one this...

Player drops ball as he crosses the line and it rolls forward, but not TIG, or over the DBL.

No-one does anything - they all look at it.

If defenders make it dead, it's a 22 DO.

If defenders pick it up and try and play on, then advantage to them...?

If attacker realises and tries to jump on it after he's dropped it, then knock-on and scrum 5 to defenders?

Nobody does anything though - so then it's a knock on, and scrum 5 with defenders put-in...?


Happened the other day. Everyone stopped and looked at the ball, then me. They all thought "oh, that's it, he's dropped it, it's a restart ..." And I gave a 22DO. But I guess I could've shouted 'still in play..?' And waited for someone to do something with it?

Bunniksider
23-02-16, 08:02
Your 22DO restart was a mistake but if both teams bought it and play resumed without any problems, happy days. Though a learning point for next time.

Knock on in (or into) in goal is specifically covered in law:

12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward

(c) Knock-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.

(d) 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 touchline. .

Rich_NL
23-02-16, 09:02
Assuming it's a knock-on, I'd have shouted "knock-on advantage (defenders), play on". I don't want to ruin their chance of a 100m break and glorious counter-try, after all.

crossref
23-02-16, 09:02
but surely
- if an attacker knocks it on, and a defender gathers it and runs up field - play on
- if a defender knocks on, and an attacker grounds it to score a try - try

Nigib
23-02-16, 12:02
but surely
- if an attacker knocks it on, and a defender gathers it and runs up field - play on
- if a defender knocks on, and an attacker grounds it to score a try - try

Yes - assuming you've given Advantage?

ChrisR
23-02-16, 12:02
but surely
- if an attacker knocks it on, and a defender gathers it and runs up field - play on
- if a defender knocks on, and an attacker grounds it to score a try - try

.... and a fine example of the inequity of current law. Don't get me started .......

crossref
23-02-16, 13:02
.... and a fine example of the inequity of current law. Don't get me started .......

you think defenders should be able to ground it for a 22m drop out ? So do I.

Rich_NL
23-02-16, 14:02
I'd call a 22D/O (or a try in the reverse case) an advantage over a scrum. So they can... what's the problem?


(c) Knock-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.

What ought one do when the knock-on occurs on the line (or within ~3m), next to a post? It's not a 5m scrum, but at the spot. So... shift everything along until the scrum is just safely outside the posts?

crossref
23-02-16, 14:02
I'd call a 22D/O (or a try in the reverse case) an advantage over a scrum. So they can... what's the problem?

?

I think they can't have a 22 D/O as the advantage because (e)

8.3 When the advantage law is not applied
(a) Referee contact. Advantage must not be applied when the ball, or a player carrying it, touches the referee.
(b) Ball out of tunnel. Advantage must not be applied when the ball comes out of either end of the tunnel at a scrum without having been played.
(c) Wheeled scrum. Advantage must not be applied when the scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees (so that the middle line has passed beyond a position parallel to the touchline).
(d) Player lifted in the air. Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in the air or forced upwards and has no support on the ground. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.
(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.

but I don't really like this argument -- if red knock on inside the blue 22m, and blue kick for touch, we do call advantage over, and have the lineout.

Nigib
23-02-16, 15:02
I'd call a 22D/O (or a try in the reverse case) an advantage over a scrum. So they can... what's the problem?



What ought one do when the knock-on occurs on the line (or within ~3m), next to a post? It's not a 5m scrum, but at the spot. So... shift everything along until the scrum is just safely outside the posts?

You can't have a scrum In Goal. The place for the scrum is on the 5m in line with where the offence occurred

OB..
23-02-16, 15:02
.... and a fine example of the inequity of current law. Don't get me started .......So why are you choosing to restart a discussion we have already had elsewhere recently? Nobody disputes that a defender can pick up the ball and run with it. The dispute was because the law gives a scrum 5 if he grounds it, whereas you would prefer it to be a 22.

crossref
23-02-16, 15:02
So why are you choosing to restart a discussion we have already had elsewhere recently? Nobody disputes that a defender can pick up the ball and run with it. The dispute was because the law gives a scrum 5 if he grounds it, whereas you would prefer it to be a 22.

But OB.. what Law are relying on to say that the ref can't play advantage and then award a 22m DO (when the knock on takes place in goal) ? The Law doesn't specifically cover the scenario of the defender grounding the ball

Rich_NL
23-02-16, 15:02
I think they can't have a 22 D/O as the advantage because
(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]

I don't read that as a disqualification - the ball's not been made dead at the time advantage is being played. Making it dead is an act that follows the advantage being given. No? Or does this law really mean that a ball cannot be made dead while advantage is being played?


You can't have a scrum In Goal. The place for the scrum is on the 5m in line with where the offence occurred

It doesn't require a scrum in goal, although it may require some scrummagers in-goal. The point is - 12.1 c) and d) are clearly and explicitly different. When it's knocked from the field of play into the in-goal, the scrum is from the point of the infringement, not the 5m line.

crossref
23-02-16, 15:02
the Law again --

(a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.

c) Knock-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.
that's clear enough. No dropout available

(d) 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 touchline.
this is worded differently - it's like (a) - I am coming round to the view that if you play advantage (and why shouldn't you) and defenders touch down then it should be a drop out. After all if they kicked it way upfield into touch you'd give a line out.

DocY
23-02-16, 16:02
I am coming round to the view that if you play advantage (and why shouldn't you) and defenders touch down then it should be a drop out. After all if they kicked it way upfield into touch you'd give a line out.

Precisely! I can't see anything in law that says this isn't allowed. The only credible reasoning I've heard for it not being so was in another thread last week: advantage is played to reduce stoppages. But as you say, if the ball had been hoofed into touch, that could well be treated as advantage.

My general feeling on advantage (as mentioned re the final penalty in the France Ireland game) is "would the players be happy with you calling advantage over?". In this case, I reckon they'd be happy with you calling advantage over just before they touch down - happier than saying "no advantage. Defending scrum".

An IRB ruling on this would be nice.

OB..
23-02-16, 17:02
(d) 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 touchline.
this is worded differently - it's like (a) - I am coming round to the view that if you play advantage (and why shouldn't you) and defenders touch down then it should be a drop out. After all if they kicked it way upfield into touch you'd give a line out.(d) still says the consequence of a knock-on in in-gioal is a scrum. The question is whether the defenders can get the advantage of a drop out by grounding the ball. That action makes the ball dead. No advantage has been gained before the ball is made dead and law 8 says advantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

If they chose to pick it up and kick to touch, of course you can play advantage - they may prefer to give the opposition the throw in further up field rather than have the throw-in at a 5m scrum.

crossref
23-02-16, 17:02
(d) still says the consequence of a knock-on in in-gioal is a scrum. The question is whether the defenders can get the advantage of a drop out by grounding the ball. That action makes the ball dead. No advantage has been gained before the ball is made dead and law 8 says advantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

If they chose to pick it up and kick to touch, of course you can play advantage - they may prefer to give the opposition the throw in further up field rather than have the throw-in at a 5m scrum.

(a) says the consequence of any knock on is a scrum --- but we all know that doesn't rule out advantage instead.

So it's this that is the crux

(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.

BUT if that means they cannot touch down for a 22m, it also (surely) would mean they couldn't kick it out for a lineout... But they can
AND if that means they cannot touch down for a 22m, it also (surely) would mean that attackers can't touch down a defensive KO for a try ... but they can

I am thinking they CAN touch down for a DO.

OB..
23-02-16, 17:02
I have looked back at the history of this bit of law.
At that time, Law 14 referred to in-goal and Law 17 to a knock-on or throw-forward.

197814 (3) Except where a try or goal is scored, if an attacking player kicks, carries, passes or knocks the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.
17 Note (3) If an attacking player knocks-on in the field of play and the ball travels into in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded by a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.

1981 14 (3) Except where the ball is knocked on or thrown forward or if an attacking player kicks, carries or passes the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.
17 Note (iii) if an attacking player kicks, carries, passes or knocks the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, a scrummage should be awarded at the place of the knock-on or throw-forward.
(There were some incremental changes between 1978 and1981)

I think this makes it unequivocally clear that the aim was to change the law from awarding a drop-out to awarding a scrum. I don't see that there has been a significant change in the law since then.

DocY
23-02-16, 18:02
I think this makes it unequivocally clear that the aim was to change the law from awarding a drop-out to awarding a scrum. I don't see that there has been a significant change in the law since then.

To me, the situation being described here sound more like they're referring to knock-ons into in goal, rather than knock-ons in goal.
I remember players waiting for a knocked-on ball to travel into in-goal then claiming the DO and that is what this was trying to stop (though it was a long time ago and my memory is a bit hazy).

OB..
23-02-16, 18:02
(a) says the consequence of any knock on is a scrum --- but we all know that doesn't rule out advantage instead.Agree, but that is because Law 8 says advanatge can take precedence over other laws. In this case if you apply Law 8, it tells you it does not apply after the ball is dead.


So it's this that is the crux

(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.

BUT if that means they cannot touch down for a 22m, it also (surely) would mean they couldn't kick it out for a lineout... But they canNot if they ground it first. A knock-on does not make the ball dead.

AND if that means they cannot touch down for a 22m, it also (surely) would mean that attackers can't touch down a defensive KO for a try ... but they canYes, the try is scored when the attacker grounds the ball and thus makes it dead. Up to that point advantage could be played


I am thinking they CAN touch down for a DO.After my excursion into history I am 100% certain that the intention of the law is to disallow the award of a dropout following a knock-on or throw-forward. It was deliberately and explicitly changed.

crossref
23-02-16, 18:02
I think this makes it unequivocally clear that the aim was to change the law from awarding a drop-out to awarding a scrum. I don't see that there has been a significant change in the law since then.

but OB these both refer to knock-ons in the field of play, that go into the in-goal and are touched down.
That's definitely a scrum, I agree.
That's coverered by today's (c)

c) Knock-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.


but where the knock on takes place in goal, the Law is worded differently (d) and in that instance I see no reason why defenders shouldn't touch down for a DO

OB..
23-02-16, 18:02
To me, the situation being described here sound more like they're referring to knock-ons into in goal, rather than knock-ons in goal.
I remember players waiting for a knocked-on ball to travel into in-goal then claiming the DO and that is what this was trying to stop (though it was a long time ago and my memory is a bit hazy).It covered both, which is why I quoted both the knock-on law and the In-goal law.

crossref
23-02-16, 18:02
It covered both, which is why I quoted both the knock-on law and the In-goal law.

No, your quotes from 1978 and 1981 all cover the scenario of the ball being knocked on INTO the in goal

1978
14 (3) Except where a try or goal is scored, if an attacking player kicks, carries, passes or knocks the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.

17 Note (3) If an attacking player knocks-on in the field of play and the ball travels into in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded by a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.


1981
14 (3) Except where the ball is knocked on or thrown forward or if an attacking player kicks, carries or passes the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.

17 Note (iii) if an attacking player kicks, carries, passes or knocks the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, a scrummage should be awarded at the place of the knock-on or throw-forward.

beckett50
23-02-16, 18:02
OBs earlier post crossref

didds
23-02-16, 19:02
The point is - 12.1 c) and d) are clearly and explicitly different. When it's knocked from the field of play into the in-goal, the scrum is from the point of the infringement, not the 5m line.

except presumably when the knockon occured < 5m from the line in which case it is a 5m scrum surely?

didds

OB..
23-02-16, 19:02
Sorry - I forgot to include the 1989 update:
14 (3) Except where the ball is knocked on or thrown-forward in the field of play or in in-goal [...]

crossref
23-02-16, 20:02
well, let's have the whole 1989 Law then - what does it say ?

OB..
23-02-16, 21:02
well, let's have the whole 1989 Law then - what does it say ?
It says the same as the previous version ie but for the exceptions the result would be a drop out. However the exceptions are therefore dealt with as a knock-on or throw-forward. Scrummage.

(I can't be bothered to type out the whole thing.)

Chris_j
23-02-16, 21:02
My view is that current law is clear and unambiguous for a change!

12.1 a) through d) all provide the single option of a scrum from an accidental knock on. Nothing in the current law 8 prevents advantage being played from any knock on that does not go directly into touch or touch in goal (dead).

Advantage can be accrued by the act of making the ball dead, rather than after it. A defender recovering the ball in in-goal and touching it down is actively realising that advantage in the same way as if they recovered a knock on in the fop and immediately made it dead by a clearing kick to touch.

Similarly if an in goal defender was to kick or run a knock on into touch in goal it could be advantage gained.

12.1 c) and d) tell us what happens if no advantage accrues, such as when the knock on goes directly touch in goal.

The referee is then the sole judge as to advantage gained.

Why are we looking at words long removed from the laws to reinterpret what is very clearly expressed in the current law?

crossref
23-02-16, 21:02
not quite - (c) (knocked INTO goal) is a special case : it tells you that when the ball is knock INTO goal, and touched down, you actually go back for the scrum. We all agree that's clear.

OB..
23-02-16, 22:02
My view is that current law is clear and unambiguous for a change!

12.1 a) through d) all provide the single option of a scrum from an accidental knock on. Nothing in the current law 8 prevents advantage being played from any knock on that does not go directly into touch or touch in goal (dead).

Advantage can be accrued by the act of making the ball dead, rather than after it. A defender recovering the ball in in-goal and touching it down is actively realising that advantage in the same way as if they recovered a knock on in the fop and immediately made it dead by a clearing kick to touch.

Similarly if an in goal defender was to kick or run a knock on into touch in goal it could be advantage gained.

12.1 c) and d) tell us what happens if no advantage accrues, such as when the knock on goes directly touch in goal.

The referee is then the sole judge as to advantage gained.

Why are we looking at words long removed from the laws to reinterpret what is very clearly expressed in the current law?I entirely agree, but some people think the current law is unfair and would like to return to the previous version. They believe they can do so using the advantage law. The historical perspective makes it clear that the current law was a deliberate change, and it was not just a case of the law makers overlooking a (possible?) use of the advantage law.

People are of course entitled to a different view on fairness, but referees must all take the same line on this even if they disagree with it.

Chris_j
23-02-16, 22:02
not quite - (c) (knocked INTO goal) is a special case : it tells you that when the ball is knock INTO goal, and touched down, you actually go back for the scrum. We all agree that's clear.

No more special than a knock on from a line out, and we play advantage from that. I don't read any of 12.1a,b,c or d as being special in that regard. They all say "a scrum IS awarded" yet we all know that does not preclude advantage.

Ian_Cook
24-02-16, 02:02
I don't read that as a disqualification - the ball's not been made dead at the time advantage is being played. Making it dead is an act that follows the advantage being given. No? Or does this law really mean that a ball cannot be made dead while advantage is being played?



It doesn't require a scrum in goal, although it may require some scrummagers in-goal. The point is - 12.1 c) and d) are clearly and explicitly different. When it's knocked from the field of play into the in-goal, the scrum is from the point of the infringement, not the 5m line.

But a scrum cannot be set within 5m of the goal line...

20.1 FORMING A SCRUM
(b) If this is less than 5 metres from a touchline, the place for the scrum is 5 metres from that
touchline. A scrum can take place only in the field of play. The middle line of a scrum must
not be within 5 metres of the goal line when it is formed.


...so if the ball is knocked on less than 5m from the goal-line and goes into in-goal, the resulting scrum is going to be a 5m scrum whether the ball is grounded or not.

Pegleg
24-02-16, 07:02
I'm not convinced that I like the law but that's my tough! I can't officiate based on what I like or do not like in the law.

It's clear, to me, that WR feels that a 22 is, if you like, "too much" of an advantage. So I have to man up and accept that and get on with refereeing the laws.

I guess one comparrison is this.

A PK is awarded and the SH trying to gain an advantage runs using advantage. We allow this, coming back for the PK if no advantage accrues.

A PK is awarded and the SH drops the ball so that the ref does not play advantage to, perrish the thought, win an extra 10m and / or a card) takes a quick tap. We do not allow this. You must take a "formal" / "proper" PK.

Move this to the KO into or in goal. You can try to take the advantage by playing on, again knowing that you can come back fir the scrum if no such advantage accrues. OR you take the "formal" scrum instead.

So the law makers are not preventing you playing advantage but by tappi9ng down advantage is not an option.

So, we are then back th the sanction. In both the cases we are discussing the sanction is a Scrum. So that is where we return.

Rich_NL
24-02-16, 08:02
Thanks for clearing that up, guys. Every day's a school day :)

crossref
24-02-16, 08:02
I am not convinced by OB..'s argument.

We have two scenarios (some posts above seem to think there is only one)

1 - ball is knocked in INTO to the in-goal, you play a moment of advantage and the defenders make the ball dead
2 - ball is knocked on INSIDE the in-goal, you play a moment of advantage and the defenders make the ball dead

the Law deals with these scenarios separately, (c) and (d), and the two Laws are worded differently, and the outcomes are different

1 - is completely covered by (c), it's a 5m scrum. the Law makers consider that knocking on into the in-goal is not the same as deliberately taking the ball into the in goal, so a 22 DO is not merited.

2 - is covered by (d), it would depend who had taken the ball in goal. I'd contend that
if the defenders took the ball in goal then we are looking at an attacking 5m scrum, so no advantage gained we'll go back to the knock on, and scrum to defenders

if the attackers took the ball into the in goal then advantage gained - 22m drop out



If you say that they can't gain advatage by making it dead for a DO, you'd have to explain how they can gain advantage by kicking it dead upfield for a lineout

L'irlandais
24-02-16, 08:02
Quick one this...

If attacker realises and tries to jump on it after he's dropped it, then knock-on and scrum 5 to defenders?

Nobody does anything though - so then it's a knock on, and scrum 5 with defenders put-in...?


Happened the other day. Everyone stopped and looked at the ball, then me. They all thought "oh, that's it, he's dropped it, it's a restart ..." And I gave a 22DO. But I guess I could've shouted 'still in play..?' And waited for someone to do something with it?in the original post, Steve70 was looking for a quick reply to Attacking player knocks on in goal, nobody touches down the ball. What should the referee do?

The question was resolved. For me personally that RRF members start nit picking over the poorly written LOTG is not helpful to the discussion. Ifs and buts... It was not a defender who dropped the ball over the goal line, and if one had it would not have been a knock-on, since the ball has not gone toward the opponent's DBL. Surely, end of!

crossref
24-02-16, 08:02
in the original post, Steve70 was looking for a quick reply to Attacking player knocks on in goal, nobody touches down the ball. What should the referee do?

The question was resolved. For me personally that RRF members start nit picking over the poorly written LOTG is not helpful to the discussion. Ifs and buts... It was not a defender who dropped the ball over the goal line, and if one had it would not have been a knock-on, since the ball has not gone toward the opponent's DBL. Surely, end of!

in your quote , you have disingenuously removed the other three scenarios Steve70 brought up in the original post!

Steve70 also asked


If defenders make it dead, it's a 22 DO.

If defenders pick it up and try and play on, then advantage to them...?

If attacker realises and tries to jump on it after he's dropped it, then knock-on and scrum 5 to defenders?


It's the first one on that list that has led to the discussion.

DocY
24-02-16, 08:02
OB's historical perspective might explain the divide when this came up in a society meeting last year - there was a split in age with older guys saying a scrum and younger saying a DO was an option.

I still agree with crossref though (based on current laws) - if the two situations should be treated in the same way I don't see why there'd be two separate laws and if you could never get a DO as advantage for making the ball dead there'd be no need for (c).

crossref
24-02-16, 08:02
if you could never get a DO as advantage for making the ball dead there'd be no need for (c).
indeed. a good point

OB..
24-02-16, 10:02
If you say that they can't gain advatage by making it dead for a DO, you'd have to explain how they can gain advantage by kicking it dead upfield for a lineoutI thought I already did.

(d) still says the consequence of a knock-on in in-gioal is a scrum. The question is whether the defenders can get the advantage of a drop out by grounding the ball. That action makes the ball dead. No advantage has been gained before the ball is made dead and law 8 says advantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

If they chose to pick it up and kick to touch, of course you can play advantage - they may prefer to give the opposition the throw in further up field rather than have the throw-in at a 5m scrum.In the last case the ball is not dead until it goes into touch.

L'irlandais
24-02-16, 10:02
in your quote , you have disingenuously removed the other three scenarios Steve70 brought up in the original post!.No what I have quoted is the part of his post which refers to what actually happened when "the ball was dropped while trying to score."

OB..
24-02-16, 11:02
OB's historical perspective might explain the divide when this came up in a society meeting last year - there was a split in age with older guys saying a scrum and younger saying a DO was an option.I'm one of the older guys, as I was playing rugby when the changes were made.

When I looked back at them I was surprised to find that the IRB made a real mess of it, and the overall changes dribbled in over several years. At one time you could get a drop out if a knock-on went into in-goal but not if a throw-forward did. Similarly you could get a drop out if you knocked on in in-goal, but not if you knocked on into in-goal.


I still agree with crossref though (based on current laws) - if the two situations should be treated in the same way I don't see why there'd be two separate laws and if you could never get a DO as advantage for making the ball dead there'd be no need for (c).The current approach is belt and braces. Are you trying by some convoluted logic to argue that this approach means a drop out must be a valid option under some conditions?

Something are covered twice in separate laws - 15.5 (g) and 22.4 (e) (and may even conflict - see 19.6 and 6.B 5 (d) Exception 1).

The Fat
24-02-16, 11:02
12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward

(c) Knock-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.

(d) 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 touchline.



22.13 Attacking infringement with scrum sanction

If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.


22.14 Defending infringement with scrum sanction

If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.


22.16 Infringements in in-goal

All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.

A knock-on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place of infringement.


Very few laws are as black & white as this.

crossref
24-02-16, 11:02
12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward

(c) Knock-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.

(d) 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 touchline.



22.13 Attacking infringement with scrum sanction

If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.


22.14 Defending infringement with scrum sanction

If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.


22.16 Infringements in in-goal

All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.

A knock-on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place of infringement.


Very few laws are as black & white as this.

I agree!

BUT
- can you play advantage after a knock on ? Yes in ALL cases.
- so, if you play advantage, and advantage accrues, no scrum will take place.

So for the knock on INSIDE the in goal, by the attackers, the question is whether advantage can be gained by making the ball dead for a DO. and it seems to me no reason why not.

crossref
24-02-16, 11:02
I thought I already did.
In the last case the ball is not dead until it goes into touch.

so by this reasoning - if they kick it dead over the DBL, or TIG, it's not dead until goes over, so when they do it's 22m DO - right?

Dickie E
24-02-16, 11:02
Blue knock on in Red in-goal. Red pick up ball and ref calls "advantage Red". Red pass it wide a couple of times - still in-goal. Ref calls "advantage over". Red dot it down. Restart?

Dickie E
24-02-16, 11:02
Very few laws are as black & white as this.

(c) Knock-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.

(d) 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 touchline.


The difference is the bit in red. The inference for (d) is that if it is not made dead then it is a scrum. But what if it is made dead? This law is silent on that scenario. So need to look for another law for direction.

crossref
24-02-16, 11:02
Blue knock on in Red in-goal. Red pick up ball and ref calls "advantage Red". Red pass it wide a couple of times - still in-goal. Ref calls "advantage over". Red dot it down. Restart?

you need to know : who took the ball into the in goal ? :)

If blue did - drop out
If red did - 5m scrum blue (and the ref will feel rather silly at calling adv over... and may even have to back track, and go back to the knock on)

Ian_Cook
24-02-16, 11:02
When I looked back at them I was surprised to find that the IRB made a real mess of it.

Really OB? You were surprised?

The Fat
24-02-16, 12:02
(c) Knock-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.

(d) 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 touchline.


The difference is the bit in red. The inference for (d) is that if it is not made dead then it is a scrum. But what if it is made dead? This law is silent on that scenario. So need to look for another law for direction.

Enter Law 22

DocY
24-02-16, 12:02
The current approach is belt and braces. Are you trying by some convoluted logic to argue that this approach means a drop out must be a valid option under some conditions?

Something are covered twice in separate laws - 15.5 (g) and 22.4 (e) (and may even conflict - see 19.6 and 6.B 5 (d) Exception 1).

I don't think it's terribly convoluted logic - the wording of the two laws is different, which suggests to me that the application may be different.
To me, belt and braces would be if (d) stated "... knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal and the ball is made dead there...", but it doesn't.
It may be the intention that the result should be the same (and I can believe that it is, particularly having been appraised of the historical changes), in which case the law is poorly written.

crossref
24-02-16, 12:02
for me the whole intention of the Law is to address the situation of the attacking side accidentally putting the ball into the in-goal (by a knock on) and stating that this doesn't end up with a 22m DO (the defenders don't merit so much luck)

if the attackers carry the ball over into the in goal -- then business as normal, ball eventually goes dead it's a 22m.

DocY
24-02-16, 12:02
Enter Law 22

Right. Where you have 22.7 (a) saying it's a DO if the attacking team sent or carried the ball into in-goal and 22.7 (b) dealing with the knock-on into in-goal (and not applying in the case in question).

Law 8 does need to be considered though and it seems to me that that's the one muddying the waters.

didds
24-02-16, 13:02
Blue knock on in Red in-goal. Red pick up ball and ref calls "advantage Red". Red pass it wide a couple of times - still in-goal. Ref calls "advantage over". Red dot it down. Restart?

why would the ref call advantage over if the ball is still in-goal being passed? what tactical or territorial advantage has been gained? e.g. A 4 man overlap is not a tactical advantage until actually used - the promise of its use is insufficient.

I suppose if its a 25m deep in goal and the handling move started just inside the DBL and the ball has almost reached the try line there could be territorial advantage but its use is still pretty limited! :)



didds

OB..
24-02-16, 14:02
if the attackers carry the ball over into the in goal -- then business as normal, ball eventually goes dead it's a 22m.It depends why it goes dead. If that is caused by the attackers, then it is a dropout. If the defenders choose to make it dead from a knock-on, they have chosen not to seek to play advantage, so the outcome is a 5m defending scrum. If the ball was kicked into the in-goal by an attacker and the ball is made dead "without delay", then the outcome is NOT a 5m scrum, but the options as prescribed by law. The aim in that case is to deter attackers from benefitting too much by kicking dead.

crossref
24-02-16, 15:02
If the defenders choose to make it dead from a knock-on, they have chosen not to seek to play advantage, so the outcome is a 5m defending scrum.

OK, I'll drop it now - but this is the nub of where I disagree with you :

You allow them them kick it dead into touch, to get the advantage of territory, but you don't allow them to kick it dead into TIG to get the advantage of a dropout. I don't see any basis for that in the current Law.

OB..
24-02-16, 15:02
OK, I'll drop it now - but this is the nub of where I disagree with you :

You allow them them kick it dead into touch, to get the advantage of territory, but you don't allow them to kick it dead into TIG to get the advantage of a dropout. I don't see any basis for that in the current Law.They gained no advantage before the ball went dead. Once it was dead, advantage could not apply.

Another way of putting it is that the advantage you would like them to have is one that would be given to them only by your preferred version of the law, but not by any positive rugby action, such as kicking to gain ground, or picking up and running.

The fact that the law once did award a drop out, and was deliberately changed is surely evidence enough of what the law makers want.

ChrisR
24-02-16, 16:02
They gained no advantage before the ball went dead. Once it was dead, advantage could not apply.

No, they did not gain an advantage before the ball went dead. They had the opportunity to gain an advantage. The advantage is realized by making it dead if 22.7 (a) is applied and a 22DO is awarded.

Another way of putting it is that the advantage you would like them to have is one that would be given to them only by your preferred version of the law, but not by any positive rugby action, such as kicking to gain ground, or picking up and running.

OB, you are falling into the trap of judging the legal actions of players by your vision of how the game should be played.
How would you judge this: Red kick the ball into Blue's goal. Blue get there first and ground the ball. Is that 'negative play'? Would you deny them the 22DO? How is that different from Red knocking on in/into goal and Blue grounding it?

The fact that the law once did award a drop out, and was deliberately changed is surely evidence enough of what the law makers want.

Then they should have thought it through before the three martinis and not let the 12 yrs old ESL student write it up. You have applied the chronological introduction of the laws to arrive at your preferred interpretation. You will also claim that specificity overrides generality. I could agree with you on the latter if the knock-on was written as an exception, but it is not and it is written in a more general form without regard to how the ball is made dead.

OB..
24-02-16, 17:02
They gained no advantage before the ball went dead. Once it was dead, advantage could not apply.

No, they did not gain an advantage before the ball went dead. They had the opportunity to gain an advantage. The advantage is realized by making it dead if 22.7 (a) is applied and a 22DO is awarded.
You are arguing that 22.7 (a) trumps other laws. However they are specific to a knock-on or throw-forward, so they trump 22.7 (a).

Another way of putting it is that the advantage you would like them to have is one that would be given to them only by your preferred version of the law, but not by any positive rugby action, such as kicking to gain ground, or picking up and running.


OB, you are falling into the trap of judging the legal actions of players by your vision of how the game should be played.I am following the law in that advantage is supposed to "make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements." Grounding the ball stops play.

How would you judge this: Red kick the ball into Blue's goal. Blue get there first and ground the ball. Is that 'negative play'? Would you deny them the 22DO? How is that different from Red knocking on in/into goal and Blue grounding it?The situations are covered by different parts of the laws. Knock-on into in-goal is an unintentional act. Kick into in-goal is a deliberate act (even though it may be misjudged).
The law on kicking the ball into in-goal was introduced to discourage that tactic. The law on the outcome of a knock-on was deliberately changed from awarding a drop out.

The fact that the law once did award a drop out, and was deliberately changed is surely evidence enough of what the law makers want.


You have applied the chronological introduction of the laws to arrive at your preferred interpretation.They made a series of changes all aimed at ensuring that a knock-on is treated as an infringement with a scrum sanction instead of a drop out. Somehow you think they wanted to leave the door open for a drop out. You have no chance of convincing me of that.
You will also claim that specificity overrides generality. It would be nonsense to have it the other way round.
I could agree with you on the latter if the knock-on was written as an exception, but it is not and it is written in a more general form without regard to how the ball is made dead.22.7 (a) is generic. How do you justify ignoring 22.7 (b)? By arguing that it does not count because it is not phrased as an exception? It counts because it is part of the law, and the only sensible way of making both paragraphs mean something is to recognise that it is in practice an exception even if not specifically written as such..

Ian_Cook
24-02-16, 19:02
OK, I'll drop it now - but this is the nub of where I disagree with you :

You allow them them kick it dead into touch, to get the advantage of territory, but you don't allow them to kick it dead into TIG to get the advantage of a dropout. I don't see any basis for that in the current Law.

Because you would be giving them 22m or more of territorial advantage just for kicking it dead. Its too big of a gain for simply kicking it into TiG for a knock on infringement and is the whole reason why the Law was changed in the first place.


In-goal knock on scenarios

A = Attacking team,
D = defending team
Assuming no advantage played
NOTE: The playing of advantage would only be material if the ball is carried, kicked or taken out of in-goal subsequent to a knock on by the attacking teram

Scenario 1 - Knocked on in the field of play by A. Ball goes directly into in-goal and is made dead by either team
Result - Scrum at the KO mark which can be no closer than 5m to the goal line. D to throw in - 12.1 (c) & 22.7 (b)

Scenario 2 - Knocked on in the field of play by A. Ball goes in-goal after deflecting off a D player and is made dead by either team
Result - D scrum at the KO mark which can be no closer than 5m to the goal line. D to throw in - 12.1 (c) & 22.7 (b)

Scenario 3 - A puts ball into in-goal where D knocks the ball on and ball is made dead by D
Result - 5m scrum on a line through where the ball was knocked on. A to throw in - 12.1 (d)

Scenario 4 - A puts ball into in goal where D knocks the ball on and ball is made dead by A (other than by grounding)
Result - 5m scrum on a line through where the ball was knocked on. A to throw in - - 12.1 (d)

Scenario 5 - A puts ball into in goal where A knocks the ball on and ball is made dead by either team
Result - 5m scrum on a line through where the ball was knocked on. D to throw in - 12.1 (d)



I see no possible outcome from a any scenario where the ball is either knocked forward in in-goal or into in goal, and being made dead by either team (other than Scenario 4 where a try would be scored if the ball was grounded by A) that would result in a 22DO.

Have I missed anything?

crossref
24-02-16, 19:02
A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout


You might also like to consider A carrying over the line and losing the ball backwards (no knock on) and D making it dead for a dropout, and explain the reasoning that would lead you to think that A are in a better position when they knock on..

thepercy
24-02-16, 20:02
A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout


You might also like to consider A carrying over the line and losing the ball backwards (no knock on) and D making it dead for a dropout, and explain the reasoning that would lead you to think that A are in a better position when they knock on..

For me the difference is there is no advantage when made dead in-goal, but when kicked ahead, advantage (territorial) is gained, then it goes dead.

Dickie E
24-02-16, 21:02
I see no possible outcome from a any scenario where the ball is either knocked forward in in-goal or into in goal, and being made dead by either team (other than Scenario 4 where a try would be scored if the ball was grounded by A) that would result in a 22DO.

Have I missed anything?

Scenario 6 - A knock-on just short of D goal line and an onside A player toe pokes ball into in-goal where it is made dead by D. Restart?

OB..
24-02-16, 21:02
A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DOHe had not gained an advantage before the ball went dead, so go back to the infringement.


If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineoutHe has gained ground.



You might also like to consider A carrying over the line and losing the ball backwards (no knock on) and D making it dead for a dropoutNo infringement.
explain the reasoning that would lead you to think that A are in a better position when they knock on..Why should the outcomes be the same? If an attacker grounds it first he scores a try, whereas if there was a knock-on, he can't. Open play is different situation from an infringement.

If you are arguing for a change in the law, I doubt if you will get anywhere. If you are trying to find a loophole to allow you to award a drop out following a knock-on or throw-forward, I think you have failed.

crossref
24-02-16, 22:02
OB I am not finding a loophole, to me the law is clear, but you are trying to force an erroneous reading on it, based on how it was in 1989

The Fat
24-02-16, 23:02
Scenario 6 - A knock-on just short of D goal line and an onside A player toe pokes ball into in-goal where it is made dead by D. Restart?

Defending team feed for scrum where KO occurred but not less than 5m from goal line

Chris_j
24-02-16, 23:02
The fallacy here is the continued assertion that advantage cannot be gained in in goal by making the ball dead. The current law 8 is clear that advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead, but that is very different to it being gained in the act of making it dead. There is the potential for a clear tactical advantage gained in converting a 5m defending scrum into a 22m drop out when ending a phase of advantage after a knock on by making the ball dead in in goal. That to me is as clear as that there could be a territorial advantage gained by hoofing the ball to touch 50m up field.

If if someone can point out the law which rules out playing advantage with the ball in play after any knock on I would be interested to see it.

The scenarios posted to support a scrum being the only resolution to a knock on which terminates in in goal lead to the perverse outcome that the defenders are worse off if the ball is knocked on by the attackers into or in in goal and made dead by defenders, when compared to the ball being legally played into in goal by the attackers then made dead.

I cannot not think of any element of the laws which mandates that an error automatically benefits the infringing side. To my mind this scenario certainly does not.

Ian_Cook
25-02-16, 00:02
A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

No

A take the ball in goal and knock on
D makes it dead
5m scrum, D to throw in

Advantage is utterly irrelevant if the ball ends up being made dead in goal.



D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout

Yes, correct because the ball was not made dead in-goal, it was made dead in the field of play

RobLev
25-02-16, 00:02
The fallacy here is the continued assertion that advantage cannot be gained in in goal by making the ball dead. The current law 8 is clear that advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead, but that is very different to it being gained in the act of making it dead. There is the potential for a clear tactical advantage gained in converting a 5m defending scrum into a 22m drop out when ending a phase of advantage after a knock on by making the ball dead in in goal. That to me is as clear as that there could be a territorial advantage gained by hoofing the ball to touch 50m up field.

If if someone can point out the law which rules out playing advantage with the ball in play after any knock on I would be interested to see it.

The scenarios posted to support a scrum being the only resolution to a knock on which terminates in in goal lead to the perverse outcome that the defenders are worse off if the ball is knocked on by the attackers into or in in goal and made dead by defenders, when compared to the ball being legally played into in goal by the attackers then made dead.

I cannot not think of any element of the laws which mandates that an error automatically benefits the infringing side. To my mind this scenario certainly does not.

I for one don't understand your argument. Law 22.7(b) says that if the attacking side knocks on into the in-goal, and the defending side makes it dead there, the result is a scrum 5, defending put in. How can application of the advantage rule contradict the clear Law?

Ian_Cook
25-02-16, 00:02
Scenario 6 - A knock-on just short of D goal line and an onside A player toe pokes ball into in-goal where it is made dead by D. Restart?



If D knocked it on, scrum no closer than 5m from goal-line, line in line with knock on. A to throw in

If A knocked it on 5m scrum line in line with knock on. D to throw in

Dickie E
25-02-16, 03:02
If A knocked it on 5m scrum line in line with knock on. D to throw in

That's interesting. So what you are saying is if A knock-on and ball finds its way into in goal the only restart outcome that can happen is a scrum.

OK.
Sceanrio 7(a).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in FoP and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

Sceanrio 7(b).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in in-goal and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

PS: "advantage over after the kick" is not an option. Kicker was under pressure and makes a poor kick

The Fat
25-02-16, 05:02
[QUOTE=Dickie E;312383]That's interesting. So what you are saying is if A knock-on and ball finds its way into in goal the only restart outcome that can happen is a scrum.

OK.
Sceanrio 7(a).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in FoP and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

Sceanrio 7(b).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in in-goal and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

PS: "advantage over after the kick" is not an option. Kicker was under pressure and makes a poor kick[/QUOTE

In both cases we simply go back for the original KO and set a scrum on the 5m line

crossref
25-02-16, 07:02
I for one don't understand your argument. Law 22.7(b) says that if the attacking side knocks on into the in-goal, and the defending side makes it dead there, the result is a scrum 5, defending put in. How can application of the advantage rule contradict the clear Law?
Roblev, the argument is what happens after a knock on INSIDE the in goal (not INTO) keep up! :)

crossref
25-02-16, 08:02
No

A take the ball in goal and knock on
D makes it dead
5m scrum, D to throw in

Advantage is utterly irrelevant if the ball ends up being made dead in goal.



Ian - the bit in bold is the crucial part of your argument : what's your Law reference for that?

here's the advantage Law, it makes no reference to in goal, I don't think there is any support for your assertion
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=8

The Fat
25-02-16, 08:02
I refer back to my post where I provided 4 or 5 law references that make it absolutely clear what WR say is the result of such incidents. The defending team have the option of picking up the ball and running/passing/kicking. If no advantage is gained (which is what IS required under the advantage law), we simply come back to the first infringement i.e. the knock-on, and form a scrum. Simple, isn't it?

crossref
25-02-16, 08:02
I refer back to my post where I provided 4 or 5 law references that make it absolutely clear what WR say is the result of such incidents.

Post 44 ? You don't address the application of the advantage Law in that
For knock on INSIDE the in goal it's the Advantage Law that's crucial here, you haven't addressed it with references


The defending team have the option of picking up the ball and running/passing/kicking.
yes - and lets say they kick


If no advantage is gained (which is what IS required under the advantage law), we simply come back to the first infringement i.e. the knock-on, and form a scrum. Simple, isn't it?
absolutely simple,
so - if the defending team believe a lineout is better than a 5m scrum they kick it out, advantage gained. lineout
if f the defending team believe a dropout is better than a 5m scrum they kick it out, advantage gained. drop out

If not - same as Ian what's your Law reference?

didds
25-02-16, 09:02
A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout


what if the ball only clears into touch 1m in the FoP? Is that "advantage"

didds

crossref
25-02-16, 09:02
that's a completely different general question about kicks taken when advantage is being played, and whether it's the action of kicking that means 'adv over' or the outcome of the kick that achieves the adv over.
Its a great topic, but needs a thread of its own, and doesn't derserve to be buried at the bottom of this thread that (I imagine) many people are no longer reading!

The Fat
25-02-16, 09:02
what if the ball only clears into touch 1m in the FoP? Is that "advantage"

didds

Ball goes into touch 1m from goal line = no advantage gained. What is better for the defending team as the result of the kick? A 5m LO with the attacking team to throw in or a 5m scrum with their feed? I would certainly hope the ref would not call advantage over until he could see where the ball was going to land.

Crossref,
I have read all of the exchanges between yourself and OB. I am firmly in OB's court so not much to be gained by me re-posting much of what he has already said.

I have previously had this conversation with those in higher places within NSWRU and the ARU and my interpretation of the laws is consistent with what they are telling me.

crossref
25-02-16, 09:02
Crossref,
I have read all of the exchanges between yourself and OB. I am firmly in OB's court so not much to be gained by me re-posting much of what he has already said.

I have previously had this conversation with those in higher places within NSWRU and the ARU and my interpretation of the laws is consistent with what they are telling me.

OB's argument is different from Ian's.

OB argues that knock-on INSIDE the in-goal must be treated the same as knock-on INTO the in goal, because he believes that is the intention of the Law-writers, evidenced by how the Law was 1987

Ian accepts that knock-on INSIDE the in goal is treated in Law differently from knock-on INTO the in-goal, but attempts to uses the advantage law to arrive at the same result anyway (amusingly : if he is right then it would make the Law on INTO - which is OB starting point - actually redundant)


I am not sure which camp you are in as you haven't really said.

Ian_Cook
25-02-16, 09:02
That's interesting. So what you are saying is if A knock-on and ball finds its way into in goal the only restart outcome that can happen is a scrum.

No, I'm saying is if A knock-on and ball finds its way into in goal, and the ball is made dead there, the only restart outcome that can happen is a scrum. That is unambiguous in Law

12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(c) Knock-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


OK.
Scenario7(a).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in FoP and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

Scrum at the mark where A knocked the ball on, but no closer to the goal-line that 5m. D to throw in


Scenario 7(b).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in in-goal and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

5m scrum on a line opposite the place where the ball was knocked on in-goal. D to throw on


PS: "advantage over after the kick" is not an option. Kicker was under pressure and makes a poor kick

Advantage is never realistically going to accrue unless D has gained a tactical or territorial advantage.

A kick from in-goal after the ball has been knocked on is merely an opportunity to gain advantage

8.2 WHEN ADVANTAGE DOES NOT ARISE
The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough.
If the non-offending team does not gain an advantage, the referee blows the whistle and
brings play back to the place of infringement.

I would never call advantage over in such a situation until or unless I see that the kick has clearly gone downfield some distance...rule of thumb IMO

► at least to the 22m if it went into touch
► somewhere near the 10m line if it stays in the FoP

DocY
25-02-16, 10:02
And the OP started the thread with the words "Quick one" :D

It is curious that, as crossref has pointed out, the attacking team are in a better position having infringed than not infringed.

It's also curious that ending advantage would (unambiguously) advantage the defending team - I'm sure there's no other situation where this would apply!

I'm still struggling to see, in law, why the act of making the ball dead wouldn't be considered advantageous* (I think everyone accepts that it would be an advantage**). I accept that it is not the intention of the advantage law and that the lawmakers might have intended that a scrum be the outcome, but I don't see that it's prescribed by the current laws.

It would all be so much more simple if 12.1 (d) included the words "and is made dead there", but where would be the fun in that!

*referring to law 8
**as used in common parlance

crossref
25-02-16, 10:02
It would all be so much more simple if 12.1 (d) included the words "and is made dead there", but where would be the fun in that!


IF that's what the Law-makers wanted to achieve.
My view is that
knock-on INTO goal - the Law Makers deliberately wanted to make a special case (and did so, clearly)
knock-on INSIDE the in-goal - Law Makers intended to be just covered by the general advantage Law of Advantage.

DocY
25-02-16, 11:02
IF that's what the Law-makers wanted to achieve.
Indeed.

I'd be interested to know how anyone would change the laws to clarify the situation if this is not what the law makers wanted to achieve.

DocY
25-02-16, 11:02
knock-on INSIDE the in-goal - Law Makers intended to be just covered by the general advantage Law of Advantage.

With this in mind, would you see these two situations differently:

a) attacking player puts the ball into in-goal, knocks-on, then makes it dead himself (over DB/TIG line or touching down)
b) as above, but a defender deliberately makes the ball dead?

crossref
25-02-16, 11:02
With this in mind, would you see these two situations differently:

a) attacking player puts the ball into in-goal, then makes it dead himself (over DB/TIG line or touching down)
b) as above, but a defender deliberately makes the ball dead?

not sure what you mean - is there a knock on involved?

Ian_Cook
25-02-16, 11:02
I don't get why people are finding this scenario of an attacking player knocking the ball forward into in-goal so difficult to understand.

With the exception of a knock on that goes into touch (where the non-infringing team has options), a knock-on ANYWHERE in the field of play is a scrum at the mark if no advantage accrues; the opposing team to throw in. All that happens when the ball gets made dead in-goal is that advantage cannot accrue... scrum at the mark, and as is the case with all scrums, it cannot be set closer than 5m to any boundary line outside the field of play.

DocY
25-02-16, 11:02
not sure what you mean - is there a knock on involved?

Sorry, yes - edited now.

OB..
25-02-16, 11:02
here's the advantage Law, it makes no reference to in goal,Why should it? The law is not restricted to the field of play and therefore applies to the whole playing area.
I don't think there is any support for your assertion
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=88.3 (f) Unless advantage was gained before the ball was made dead, Law 8 cannot apply.

crossref
25-02-16, 12:02
I don't get why people are finding this scenario of an attacking player knocking the ball forward into in-goal so difficult to understand.

With the exception of a knock on that goes into touch (where the non-infringing team has options), a knock-on ANYWHERE in the field of play is a scrum at the mark if no advantage accrues; the opposing team to throw in. All that happens when the ball gets made dead in-goal is that advantage cannot accrue... scrum at the mark, and as is the case with all scrums, it cannot be set closer than 5m to any boundary line outside the field of play.

sigh

the scenario of an attacking player knocking the ball INTO the in goal isn't under discussion. the Law covers that precisely.
it's the knock on INSIDE the in goal that is causing discussion.

crossref
25-02-16, 12:02
With this in mind, would you see these two situations differently:

a) attacking player puts the ball into in-goal, knocks-on, then makes it dead himself (over DB/TIG line or touching down)
b) as above, but a defender deliberately makes the ball dead?

a) is not uncommon - attacker kicks into the in goal, chases, and trying to gather a bouncing ball, fumbles and knocks on over the DBL

Drop out.

Ian, OB would you give a scrum? If so you have granted the attacker a benefit from his knock on

crossref
25-02-16, 13:02
a) is not uncommon - attacker kicks into the in goal, chases, and trying to gather a bouncing ball, fumbles and knocks on over the DBL
Drop out.


actually I think that's wrong, it is 5m scrum.

Phil E
25-02-16, 13:02
actually I think that's wrong, it is 5m scrum.

Yep, first offence.

ChrisR
25-02-16, 14:02
Scenario 6 - A knock-on just short of D goal line and an onside A player toe pokes ball into in-goal where it is made dead by D. Restart?

As I understand the scenario the ball falls short of in-goal from the KO but is then subsequently kicked through goal by an attacking player.

Surely we must consider the two possible restarts to determine if advantage is appropriate.

1. For the KO a defending scrum at place of KO no closer than 5m to the goal line.

2. For the attacker's kick through goal a 22DO. (or scrum back at point of kick)

You can't award 2 unless playing advantage for 1. Since there isn't a second 'offense' I can't see any reason for not applying advantage and awarding the 22DO.

DocY
25-02-16, 14:02
As I understand the scenario the ball falls short of in-goal from the KO but is then subsequently kicked through goal by an attacking player.

Surely we must consider the two possible restarts to determine if advantage is appropriate.

1. For the KO a defending scrum at place of KO no closer than 5m to the goal line.

2. For the attacker's kick through goal a 22DO. (or scrum back at point of kick)

You can't award 2 unless playing advantage for 1. Since there isn't a second 'offense' I can't see any reason for not applying advantage and awarding the 22DO.

In this case, I'd be in favour of the scrum - I'd say defending team have to actually do something to gain an advantage (ability to play the ball as they wish) and they don't in this situation.

crossref
25-02-16, 14:02
Yep, first offence.

well there's only one offence in that scenario

but what came to mind is a knock-on into touch.

until recently the Law was clear : a knock on into touch was a scrum. Just recently they added an option : scrum of lineout, but they didn't add the same option for a knock on over the DBL, so I think scrum.

Ian_Cook
25-02-16, 18:02
a) is not uncommon - attacker kicks into the in goal, chases, and trying to gather a bouncing ball, fumbles and knocks on over the DBL

Drop out.

Ian, OB would you give a scrum? If so you have granted the attacker a benefit from his knock on


I would give a 5m scrum, defending ball.

22.13 ATTACKING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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 Law is clear and unequivocal. If you award a DO in those circumstances, you have made a Law error.

No, I have not granted the attacking team the benefit from his knock on. Technically, were it not for the fact that a scrum cannot be set in goal, the defender has gained at least 5m of ground and the advantage of possession.

NOTE: IIRC, at the time these changes were made in the late 1980s, a scrum could be set anywhere in the FoP, including right on the goal-line.

The Fat
25-02-16, 19:02
As I understand the scenario the ball falls short of in-goal from the KO but is then subsequently kicked through goal by an attacking player.

Surely we must consider the two possible restarts to determine if advantage is appropriate.

1. For the KO a defending scrum at place of KO no closer than 5m to the goal line.

2. For the attacker's kick through goal a 22DO. (or scrum back at point of kick)

You can't award 2 unless playing advantage for 1. Since there isn't a second 'offense' I can't see any reason for not applying advantage and awarding the 22DO.

If blue player knocked-on on halfway and before red had a chance to gather the ball and play on under the call of advantage, a blue player toe pokes the ball, you would blow for a scrum to red. Why would you change that decision because it happens 1m from the red goal line?

Ian_Cook
25-02-16, 19:02
Yep, first offence.

... and that is the nub of this whole discussion.

If the knock on is the first infringement, THAT is what you come back to if no advantage is gained by the non-infringing side. Whether the ball goes into in-goal or not, is made dead or not, this doesn't change. The Laws in these "in-goal" situations simply tell you where the scrum is set and who throws in. The only exceptions to this are

1. Knock on into touch (which has options)
2. A subsequent more serious infringement such as offside by the infringing team or foul play by either team, which supersedes the knock on infringement

As soon as the ball is knocked-on by either team, you have an infringement... the 22DO is off the table.

Also, to reiterate for those trying to apply advantage here to get around the Law so that they can award a 22DO, when a knock-on is made, and the defending team kicks the ball, that is NOT advantage over unless the kick is successful AND gains territorial or tactical advantage..

Territorial: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and kicks it 50m downfield - advantage over

Territorial: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and kicks it but shanks it off the side of his foot into touch - no advantage, scrum at the mark

Tactical: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and throws a wide pass to a team-mate with a 3-1 overlap - advantage over

Tactical: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and throws a wide pass to a team-mate who gets hammered by a defender -no advantage, scrum at the mark

Most referees would apply judgements like these anywhere else in the field of play, why on earth would they not do so merely because the ball goes into in-goal.

Dickie E
25-02-16, 19:02
why on earth would they not do so merely because the ball goes into in-goal.

You're using a rehetorical question as a figure of speech, right? Or do you really not understand the argument and need it explained again?

Note: I am not an advocate of crossref's view, but certainly understand it.

OB..
25-02-16, 19:02
NOTE: IIRC, at the time these changes were made in the late 1980s, a scrum could be set anywhere in the FoP, including right on the goal-line.The law said a scrum could only be formed in the field of play,but it was not until 1996 that it was specified that all the players in the scrum must have heir feet in the field of play. I certainly remember it only being applied to the front row at one time, but that may have been an intepretation, since I can't find anything speciifc.

crossref
25-02-16, 21:02
Ian_Cook - you never answered my post #75 -- I was actually interested to know your reasoning..

Chris_j
25-02-16, 22:02
I for one don't understand your argument. Law 22.7(b) says that if the attacking side knocks on into the in-goal, and the defending side makes it dead there, the result is a scrum 5, defending put in. How can application of the advantage rule contradict the clear Law?

Advantage doesn't contradict other laws but does always offer alternative consequences. For example 12.1 (a) states unequivocally that the outcome of any knock on or throw forward is a scrum at the place of infringement, yet we don't see arguments that advantage cannot be allowed after any knock on. The syntax of law 22.7 is identical to that of law 12.1.

I currently referee to the common understanding of 22.7 but have started to think that is wrong in law, despite the learned opinion of OB, Ian et al. We should be prepared to apply advantage to the consequence of every law where advantage is not expressly prohibited. I also think that turning a 5m scrum into a drop out is almost always of clear tactical advantage to the defending team.

RobLev
25-02-16, 22:02
Advantage doesn't contradict other laws but does always offer alternative consequences. For example 12.1 (a) states unequivocally that the outcome of any knock on or throw forward is a scrum at the place of infringement, yet we don't see arguments that advantage cannot be allowed after any knock on. The syntax of law 22.7 is identical to that of law 12.1.

I currently referee to the common understanding of 22.7 but have started to think that is wrong in law, despite the learned opinion of OB, Ian et al. We should be prepared to apply advantage to the consequence of every law where advantage is not expressly prohibited. I also think that turning a 5m scrum into a drop out is almost always of clear tactical advantage to the defending team.

But what advantage does the defender gain by making the ball dead after a KO into the in-goal? Advantage in all other cases involves the non-offending side continuing to play to the extent that they are in a better position than taking the scrum/PK only offer. You seem to be saying that because a 22DO is more advantageous than a scrum5, you'll award that instead of the scrum5 the law mandates...

ChrisR
25-02-16, 23:02
Law 22.7(a) and 22.7(b) are contradictory.

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN

(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touchin-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.

(b) 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.

Now, simply insert the words in red and the contradiction disappears.

(b) 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 by an attacking player grounding it, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.


Now take a look at the knock-on in goal laws.

22.13 ATTACKING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION

If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

22.14 DEFENDING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION

If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

What is missing from both laws is the requirement for the ball to be made dead by either team. So one would have to deduce that after a KO in goal there can be no advantage played. This means that if a defender KO's in goal and an attacking player grounds the ball then the "try" is disallowed and the 5m scrum ordered.

If you say that is total crap and the try should be allowed (as I would) then you should accept the argument that if the attackers KO and the defenders ground it (playing advantage) then they should get the 22DO.

Let me be clear on this point. Under current wording of the Laws and the current conventions of knock on in/into goal I fully expect a 5m scrum to be ordered regardless of how or by whom the ball is made dead.

I don't like it. There are numerous scenarios that seemingly "reward" a player who KOs in or into goal. What frustrates me is how simple it would be to correct and yet the WR answer is invent a new restart, the 5m drop out.

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 02:02
Advantage is utterly irrelevant if the ball ends up being made dead in goal.

Ian - the bit in bold is the crucial part of your argument : what's your Law reference for that?

here's the advantage Law, it makes no reference to in goal, I don't think there is any support for your assertion
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=8

8.3 WHEN THE ADVANTAGE LAW IS NOT APPLIED
(f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been
made dead.

Made dead means everwhere in the playing area, not just in the field of play. What gives you the idea that this Law does not apply if the ball has been made dead in goal?

After the ball is knocked into in-goal by the attacking team, it is certainly possible to PLAY advantage with the ball in-goal before it is made dead, but I cannot see any possible way for the defending to gain a tactical or territorial advantage until they at least bring the ball out of in-goal, and I would not expect ANY referee at any level to call "advantage over" with the defending team still in the in-goal with the ball.

If they make the ball dead, they choose not to try to gain an advatge and instead will do what they would do anywhere else on the field, go mack to the mark for the knock-on for a scrum with their feed.

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 03:02
You're using a rehetorical question as a figure of speech, right? Or do you really not understand the argument and need it explained again?

Note: I am not an advocate of crossref's view, but certainly understand it.

Yes it was a figure of speech and yes I understand Crossref's view. I think its flawed.


12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throwsforward
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.
(d) 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 touchline.

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(b) 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.

22.13 ATTACKING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

22.14 DEFENDING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

These Laws leave absolutely ZERO wiggle room for any outcome other that a scrum once the ball has been knocked forward into in goal, or taken, carried or played into in goal, and then knocked forward there, and then made dead.

There is simply there is no way that a 22DO can result.

crossref
26-02-16, 06:02
But Ian, it's your interpretation of the ADVANTAGE Law that leads you to your conclusion. Given the advantage law as you understand it, that you can't get advantage by making the ball dead, then all four of the laws you quote are made completely redundant. What's the point of them? You could take all four away and you'd still reach the same conclusion...

And on advantage you misunderstood my point, in post #69 you said that you CAN get advantage by kicking the ball dead in touch, but you CAN'T get advantage by kivking the ball dead in TIG


for a kick over the DBL or TIG

Advantage is utterly irrelevant if the ball ends up being made dead in goal.

for touch

Yes, correct because the ball was not made dead in-goal, it was made dead in the field of play

how is this distinction justified in Law?

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 07:02
But Ian, it's your interpretation of the ADVANTAGE Law that leads you to your conclusion. Given the advantage law as you understand it, that you can't get advantage by making the ball dead, then all four of the laws you quote are made completely redundant. What's the point of them? You could take all four away and you'd still reach the same conclusion...

Its not my interpretation of the Advantage Law, it is simply what the Law actually says

8.3 WHEN THE ADVANTAGE LAW IS NOT APPLIED
(f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been
made dead.

The referee PLAYING advantage is not the same as a team GAINING advantage.

Law 8.3 (f) instructs the referee that must not PLAY advantage once the ball is dead. A team still might get some kind of advantage by application of whichever Law is appropriate for a specific scenario, but that is not a gain under the advantage Law per se.


And on advantage you misunderstood my point, in post #69 you said that you CAN get advantage by kicking the ball dead in touch, but you CAN'T get advantage by kicking the ball dead in TIG


for a kick over the DBL or TIG

for touch


how is this distinction justified in Law?

12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throwsforward
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.

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(b) 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.

"for a kick over the DBL or TIG" - in this situation the ball is made dead there in the in goal, so 12.1 and 22.7 apply

"for touch" - in this situation the ball is made dead in the field of play, so 12.1 and 22.7 do not apply

crossref
26-02-16, 08:02
Sigh, Ian - pay attention to this! - 12.1.c and 22.7.b both deal with the ball knocked INTO to the in-goal, and in that scenario it's perfectly clear that you don't get a 22DO. I agree. Everyone agrees.

The scenario we disagree on is the knock on inside the in-goal, where 12.1c and 22.7.b don't apply.
- Red carry or kick the ball into blue's in goal
- Red then knock on

a) Blue pick it up, assess options and choose to kick the ball a distance into touch (we agree: lineout)
b) Blue pick it up, assess options and choose to kick the ball to TIG (we disagree)


In both cases blue kick the ball dead to gain an advantage, in one case you allow that in the other you don't, but with no basis in Law..... explain ....

DocY
26-02-16, 09:02
The different interpretations of the advantage law seem the crux to me and what is meant by "after the ball has been made dead". I would argue that the act of making the ball dead (in this scenario) constitutes advantage (with 22.11(b) applying), though granted it isn't the intention of the advantage law - the law in its current form doesn't prohibit it. I guess other object to this on the grounds that some how that advantage has to be being played between the making dead and the DO?

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 09:02
Sigh, Ian - pay attention to this! - 12.1 and 22.7 both deal with the ball knocked INTO to the in-goal, and in that scenario it's perfectly clear that you don't get a 22DO.

The scenario we disagree on is the knock on inside the in-goal.
- Red carry the ball into the in goal
- Red then lose it forewards
- Blue pick it up, assess options and kick the ball TIG

The situation you are talking about is also clearly dealt with in Law

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it
becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touchin-
goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.
No infringement in the in-goal, so DO22 is appropriate, but if there is an infringement in the in-goal, then these Laws come into play...

12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(d) 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 touchline.
22.13 ATTACKING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

22.14 DEFENDING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.
All three Laws say its a scrum. You may not like it, but I do, and its the Law.

Explain to me why the defending a team should be able to kick the ball into TiG, and in do doing, get a risk-free 22m leg-up, followed by a likely further gain of perhaps 40m, Further explain to me why the attacking team should be punished by 22-60m for a mere knock-forward.

If the defending team want a bigger gain from situation than the 5m gain in ground and the scrum throw in (with and near certain possession) afforded to them by the Law, they need to earn it and take some risk. When the attacking team knock on, the defending team need to play on, get back into the field of play and undertake an exit play to gain their ground. Alternatively, boot the bloody thing as far downfield as they can....

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 09:02
The different interpretations of the advantage law seem the crux to me and what is meant by "after the ball has been made dead". I would argue that the act of making the ball dead (in this scenario) constitutes advantage (with 22.11(b) applying), though granted it isn't the intention of the advantage law - the law in its current form doesn't prohibit it. I guess other object to this on the grounds that some how that advantage has to be being played between the making dead and the DO?

And I would argue that making the ball dead constitutes nothing other than that the ball is made dead.

22.11 only tells you when the ball is dead, and what happens when there has been no infringement in-goal

crossref
26-02-16, 09:02
All three Laws say its a scrum. You may not like it, but I do, and its the Law.


OK now we are moving forward, yes it is the Law, and I like it fine -
the outcome of a knock-on in goal is a scrum, just like knock-on in the FoP

12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward
(a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.

But wait - after any knock-on advantage can be played, and if advantage is gained the scrum never takes place.

So the crux of this question is all about the advantage Law.
a) can advantage be played for a knock on in goal. We agree: Yes
b) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into touch for a line out up field. We agree: Yes
c) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into TIG for a DO. Here we disagree.

You ask me why do I think they can get a DO? I say because that's the way the Law is. Your answer is all about whether it's fair or whether they deserve it. Well they may not deserve the 22 DO -- but I'd say the same to you : you might not like it but it's the Law.

(I'd say they do deserve it, because if red drop the ball backwards in goal, blue can get a dropout - so I don't see why blue should be made worse off by red knocking on...)

Pegleg
26-02-16, 10:02
OK now we are moving forward, yes it is the Law, and I like it fine -
the outcome of a knock-on in goal is a scrum, just like knock-on in the FoP

12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward
(a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.

But wait - after any knock-on advantage can be played, and if advantage is gained the scrum never takes place.

So the crux of this question is all about the advantage Law.
a) can advantage be played for a knock on in goal. We agree: Yes
b) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into touch for a line out up field. We agree: Yes
c) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into TIG for a DO. Here we disagree.

You ask me why do I think they can get a DO? I say because that's the way the Law is. Your answer is all about whether it's fair or whether they deserve it. Well they may not deserve the 22 DO -- but I'd say the same to you : you might not like it but it's the Law.

(I'd say they do deserve it, because if red drop the ball backwards in goal, blue can get a dropout - so I don't see why blue should be made worse off by red knocking on...)

They can't because the law makers are saying: "IF you want advantage PLAY THE BALL" you cant have the in goal equivilent of drop the ball and take a quick one".

No one is stopping advantage being played but they are saying we think 22 metres advantge is too much ( now you can disagree with that in principle. But it is another debate). So either Tap it down and we have a scrum OR run / kick etc and play advantage.

crossref
26-02-16, 10:02
They can't because the law makers are saying: "IF you want advantage PLAY THE BALL" you cant have the in goal equivilent of drop the ball and take a quick one".

No one is stopping advantage being played but they are saying we think 22 metres advantge is too much ( now you can disagree with that in principle. But it is another debate). So either Tap it down and we have a scrum OR run / kick etc and play advantage.

I'm not arguing on principle or what people deserve, or what it is 'too much' advantage - I'm just following the Law book

But going along with your line of thinking for a moment - how can it possibly be right that a 22 DO is 'too much' advantage, because that's what you routinely get if the attackers deliberately put the ball into the in goal and then you make it dead --- that's just what happens, it's the normal thing.

So

- if red kick the ball into the in goal, blue can touch it down for a 22 DO (which presumably you don't consider 'too much' advatage, because it's simply what the Law says)

- but if red kick the ball into the in goal, and then fumble it forwards trying gather it, you'd say blue cannot now get a 22 DO whatever the law might say, because now, for some reason, because red knocked on, all of a sudden it would be 'too much' advantage for them to make it dead for a 22 DO.

can you see the flaw in this? red knock would make blue worse off.

(I am sort of waiting for a bulb to light up and you to say - hey, sh*t, he's right!)

Rich_NL
26-02-16, 11:02
It's not necessarily a flaw, though. In the second case, they were most likely closer to scoring and blue is saved by a minor handling mistake of the opposition's, rather than their own defensive play covering the kick.

That's how it can possibly be right. :)

OB..
26-02-16, 11:02
I'm not arguing on principle or what people deserve, or what it is 'too much' advantage - I'm just following the Law bookNo, you're not. You are arguing that the advantage law requires a referee to award a dropout when the ball is made dead from these knock-ons. The law says advantage is designed to encourage players to play on, and also says advantage cannot be played after the ball is made dead. Your interpretation of it makes no sense to me, and flies in the face of the clearly expressed intentions of the law-makers when they deliberately changed all previous references to awarding a dropout. Nothing in the laws has since changed that situation.


But going along with your line of thinking for a moment - how can it possibly be right that a 22 DO is 'too much' advantage, because that's what you routinely get if the attackers deliberately put the ball into the in goal and then you make it dead --- that's just what happens, it's the normal thing.

So

- if red kick the ball into the in goal, blue can touch it down for a 22 DO (which presumably you don't consider 'too much' advantage, because it's simply what the Law says)Chalk and cheese. The law makers wanted to discourage the tactic of long kicks into the in-goal as a way of gaining ground.


- but if red kick the ball into the in goal, and then fumble it forwards trying gather it, you'd say blue cannot now get a 22 DO whatever the law might say, because now, for some reason, because red knocked on, all of a sudden it would be 'too much' advantage.Red has lost an easy try. Is that a common enough situation to justify overturning the law in all other cases? Even if you were right?


can you see the flaw in this? red knock would make blue worse off.Under current law, blue is in exactly the same situation as for any other knock-on. You want them to be better off. However that is irrelevant since the law is clear.


(I am sort of waiting for a bulb to light up and you to say - hey, sh*t, he's right!)Whereas I am puzzled that you are so keen to use legalistic wrangling over the wording of the laws in order to overturn their clear intention. Do you really think the law-makers intended this supposed loophole to exist?

DocY
26-02-16, 11:02
It's not necessarily a flaw, though. In the second case, they were most likely closer to scoring and blue is saved by a minor handling mistake of the opposition's, rather than their own defensive play covering the kick. That's how it can possibly be right. :)I think the debate has been around the laws, more than what's a fair sanction, but how about the case when the attacker can't take a kick through cleanly, knocks it forward (still not hit the ground or another player), the defence get there and play the ball before he can gather it (so preventing him scoring a try)? Isn't this good defensive play?
On the other hand, a kick is put through to land just in the field of play to try to get the fullback to carry the ball over the goal line, but the kick travels a foot too far, the fullback catches in in goal and touches down for a DO. Isn't this a "minor mistake" from the attacking team resulting in a DO?
But in a situation that the attacking team lose the ball in in goal and it's grounded by a defender, it's better for the attacking team to have infringed than not infringed. That's the bit that doesn't seem right.

The Fat
26-02-16, 11:02
Can I just point out that, a few posts back, Pegleg and Ian agreed with each other.
That almost makes 120 posts worthwhile. Almost.:wink:

crossref
26-02-16, 11:02
OB - but we still come back to :
- the advantage law is commonly understood to allow people to kick the ball dead into touch, so why not kick the ball dead into TIG?
- and in the other thread (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19557-advantage-and-freely-taken-kick) we agreed that advatage is over when you freely kick it, it doesn't matter what the outcome of the kick is.


Still at least we are having the right discussion now, as this IS all about the advantage Law, not about 12 or 21.


however NOTE that if the advantage Law is to be interpreted as precluding a team from making a ball dead in goal --- then Laws 12.1.c and 22.7.b, that cover knock-on into goal are redundant : why have a special case (in two different laws) denying the drop-out after a ball is knocked INTO in goal, if the drop out isn't possible in any case?

I really don't think I am wrngling, nor is there a loophole: Different Laws, with different wording cover knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE the in-goal. I have to assume that the reason for writing different Laws, with different wordings, is because they dictate different outcomes...

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 11:02
Different Laws, with different wording cover knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE the in-goal. I have to assume that the reason for writing different Laws, with different wordings, is because they dictate different outcomes...

And you would assume right.

The former is a scrum at the mark, which can be no closer than 5m to the goal-line; throw in to the defending team

The latter is a 5m scrum on a line through the place of the knock on, throw in to the opponents of the team that first knocked on.


I'm not arguing on principle or what people deserve, or what it is 'too much' advantage - I'm just following the Law book

But going along with your line of thinking for a moment - how can it possibly be right that a 22 DO is 'too much' advantage,

It is precisely why the Law makers changed the Law in the furst place


because that's what you routinely get if the attackers deliberately put the ball into the in goal and then you make it dead --- that's just what happens, it's the normal thing.

Deliberately putting the ball into in-goal is not an infringement, knocking the ball forward is!


ETA


A knock on by the defending team on the 10m line (if no advantage accrues) is a scrum at that mark, attacking team to throw in. Correct?

A knock on by the attacking team on the 10m line (if no advantage accrues) is a scrum at that mark, defending team to throw in, we don't advance the ball 22m upfield of where the ball was knocked on.

crossref
26-02-16, 12:02
And you would assume right.

The former is a scrum at the mark, which can be no closer than 5m to the goal-line; throw in to the defending team

The latter is a 5m scrum on a line through the place of the knock on, throw in to the opponents of the team that first knocked on.

sigh - that post is really not helpful- we all agree that advantage can be played, and if advantage is played, and advantage gained, then there is no scrum at all.. it's how advantage can be gained that is the issue, not the location of the scrum if it isn't.



It is precisely why the Law makers changed the Law in the furst place

yes, for knock-on INTO the in goal (because it's not the same as deliberately putting the ball in there).

(Why do you keep returning to knock on INTO the in-goal, when it's knock-on INSIDE the in goal that is the issue?)

Phil E
26-02-16, 13:02
Still at least we are having the right discussion now,

No, we're not!

One person is :deadhorse: and everyone else is banging their heads against a brick wall :chair:

crossref
26-02-16, 13:02
here's an interesting one:

attacking knock on very close to try line, and defender touches down.
- Steve Walsh is concerned to determine whether the knock on happened INTO the in goal, or INSIDE the in goal.
- having determined it happened INSIDE the in goal [not sure it was! but that's not the point here] he awards the 22m drop out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-kV3kw8X4

So Steve Walsh is following my line of thinking.

To be fair to Ian/OB. SA Referees (http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830784/) did conclude SW was wrong - they say it makes no difference whether it was inside or outside, but their argument doesn't help us - they simply quote 12.1(c) INTO and 12.1(d) INSIDE which are different and then say, there you are it's the same. They don't consider the crucial question of playing and gaining advantage.

I have googled around to try and find some other clips, but without success yet, it's quite a rare thing, an attacking knock on INSIDE, and the defenders make dead.

RobLev
26-02-16, 13:02
OB - but we still come back to :
- the advantage law is commonly understood to allow people to kick the ball dead into touch, so why not kick the ball dead into TIG?

...

I am quite obviously not OB, but this is incorrect.

The (scrum) advantage law is commonly understood to allow the non-infringing side to play on, by among other actions kicking for touch to gain ground, albeit losing possession by doing so. The advantage is not gained by making the ball dead, but by hoofing it 40m downfield. In fact it doesn't matter whether the ball does go dead - if the defenders kick the ball 40m downfield under a scrum advantage, the advantage will be over even if the ball lands in the oppo #15's hands in the FoP. Play has been moved 40m downfield, and that is the advantage.

If you kick the ball towards, but not into, TiG, no ground is gained. Play remains in in-goal. No advantage is gained. If it then rolls one more time and goes dead, there has still been no advantage gained so play goes back to the scrum for the infringement.

Thunderhorse1986
26-02-16, 13:02
I am quite obviously not OB, but this is incorrect.

The (scrum) advantage law is commonly understood to allow the non-infringing side to play on, by among other actions kicking for touch to gain ground, albeit losing possession by doing so. The advantage is not gained by making the ball dead, but by hoofing it 40m downfield. In fact it doesn't matter whether the ball does go dead - if the defenders kick the ball 40m downfield under a scrum advantage, the advantage will be over even if the ball lands in the oppo #15's hands in the FoP. Play has been moved 40m downfield, and that is the advantage.

If you kick the ball towards, but not into, TiG, no ground is gained. Play remains in in-goal. No advantage is gained. If it then rolls one more time and goes dead, there has still been no advantage gained so play goes back to the scrum for the infringement.

I am in Ian/OB etc camp here in general.

But to challenge the above I would say the advantage for a scrum is not so much the 40m territorial advantage but having the time and space to make an unpressured kick in and of itself constitutes a tactical advantage, again regardless of where it ends up. I think this was agreed in another topic about advantage.

Now, you could extend this scenario. Attack carry ball into the in goal, then knock on in goal. Defender picks up the ball, looks around, maybe jogs across the pitch, being under no pressure with no opposition nearby, assess his options, and then decides to kick straight into the TIG, or through the DBL. Is his advantage already over as soon as he chooses to kick? He has had the tactical advantage to play the ball as he wishes, and has done so, even if no territorial advantage has yet been gained. This would then suggest the 22DO is the correct option. But would you have needed to have called advantage over before the kick went dead? I know this is not that likely and with no opposition nearby the defender turned ball carrier would likely run forward and thus gain an advantage there. But it is a possibility and I wonder in this specific event would it alter anyone i the "always a scrum" camp's view?

OB..
26-02-16, 14:02
Attack carry ball into the in goal, then knock on in goal. Defender picks up the ball, looks around, maybe jogs across the pitch, being under no pressure with no opposition nearby, assess his options, and then decides to kick straight into the TIG, or through the DBL. Is his advantage already over as soon as he chooses to kick? He has had the tactical advantage to play the ball as he wishes, and has done so, even if no territorial advantage has yet been gained. This would then suggest the 22DO is the correct option. But would you have needed to have called advantage over before the kick went dead? I know this is not that likely and with no opposition nearby the defender turned ball carrier would likely run forward and thus gain an advantage there. But it is a possibility and I wonder in this specific event would it alter anyone i the "always a scrum" camp's view?You are trying to argue that running around with the ball is a tactical advantage, which I think is stretching the concept too far. If we are going to allow a player to get a drop out by delaying grounding the ball, we are immediately into arguments about how much delay is needed. Some people think that picking up the ball before grounding is is not "without delay". Let's keep things simple.

(The only point of interest might be if by delaying he managed to run the clock down past 80 minutes before making the ball dead. But then the scrum vs dropout argument would not matter anyway.)

Pegleg
26-02-16, 15:02
I'm not arguing on principle or what people deserve, or what it is 'too much' advantage - I'm just following the Law book

But going along with your line of thinking for a moment - how can it possibly be right that a 22 DO is 'too much' advantage, because that's what you routinely get if the attackers deliberately put the ball into the in goal and then you make it dead --- that's just what happens, it's the normal thing.

So

- if red kick the ball into the in goal, blue can touch it down for a 22 DO (which presumably you don't consider 'too much' advatage, because it's simply what the Law says)

- but if red kick the ball into the in goal, and then fumble it forwards trying gather it, you'd say blue cannot now get a 22 DO whatever the law might say, because now, for some reason, because red knocked on, all of a sudden it would be 'too much' advantage for them to make it dead for a 22 DO.

can you see the flaw in this? red knock would make blue worse off.

(I am sort of waiting for a bulb to light up and you to say - hey, sh*t, he's right!)

One is a sanction the other is advantage. they are different things. What I think about "too much advantage" is not the point. It's what the law makers thing. I just referee I don't make the law. Prsumably the feel you have to create (earn) the advantage and not have it given to you on a plate.

So my light bulb is saying "Hey, crossref's WRONG!" Sorry.

Pegleg
26-02-16, 15:02
Can I just point out that, a few posts back, Pegleg and Ian agreed with each other.
That almost makes 120 posts worthwhile. Almost.:wink:


I rarely have issues with Ian's thinking. I do have issues with his "style" at times. Same as other posters.

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 18:02
I am in Ian/OB etc camp here in general.

But to challenge the above I would say the advantage for a scrum is not so much the 40m territorial advantage but having the time and space to make an unpressured kick in and of itself constitutes a tactical advantage, again regardless of where it ends up. I think this was agreed in another topic about advantage.

Now, you could extend this scenario. Attack carry ball into the in goal, then knock on in goal. Defender picks up the ball, looks around, maybe jogs across the pitch, being under no pressure with no opposition nearby, assess his options, and then decides to kick straight into the TIG, or through the DBL. Is his advantage already over as soon as he chooses to kick? He has had the tactical advantage to play the ball as he wishes, and has done so, even if no territorial advantage has yet been gained. This would then suggest the 22DO is the correct option. But would you have needed to have called advantage over before the kick went dead? I know this is not that likely and with no opposition nearby the defender turned ball carrier would likely run forward and thus gain an advantage there. But it is a possibility and I wonder in this specific event would it alter anyone i the "always a scrum" camp's view?


If you were to call "advantage over", I would not expect you to do so unless they had a an actual tactical or territorial advantage (as Law 8 says, a mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough).

For a tactical advantage, I would expect the defending team to have a clear overlap or outnumbering of opposing players to the right or left of the ball carrier.

For a territorial advantage, the ball would need to be advanced by being carried at least to the place of the mark (not where the actual knock on was in goal, but where the scrum would be, 5m out from the goal-line), or be kicked a considerable distance beyond that point, since that would entail loss of possession.

For those who argue that simply kicking the ball in an advantage situation is "advantage over", I disagree. Would you call advantage over if the kick was charged down?

I completely disagree with crossref's contention/interpretation that making the ball dead is somehow a manifestation of making a gain under advantage Law. It is not, and it never has been... making the ball dead means just what is says... play ends and restarts with whatever restart is mandated under the Law. For a knock, whether it is in the in-goal, or in the FoP and goes into in-goal that restart is a scrum, the place of which is determined by the circumstances of the knock on.

When there has been any infringement in-goal for which the sanction is a scrum, then the outcome is a scrum. This is clearly spelled out in 22.13 and 22.14; there is no way that awarding a 22DO in this situation can ever be correct, and no amount of weasel words and clever legalistic manipulation of Law 8 can justify a referee deliberately subverting a Law that was intentionally changed to prevent him doing what he is trying to do.

Treadmore
26-02-16, 22:02
and no amount of weasel words and clever legalistic manipulation of Law 8 can justify a referee deliberately subverting a Law that was intentionally changed to prevent him doing what he is trying to do.

I think OB's history lesson is persuasive, however, in Law 8 we have:

The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.
Precendence over Law 22 is ok.
Grounding the ball is not an infringement.

8.1 Advantage in practice
(a)
The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b)
Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c)
Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d)
Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.

The Law supports a referee's discretion in deciding that grounding a ball is to play the ball as they wish.

No weasel words there?

Ian_Cook
26-02-16, 23:02
I think OB's history lesson is persuasive, however, in Law 8 we have:

The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.
Precendence over Law 22 is ok.
Grounding the ball is not an infringement.

No, but a knock on in-goal is an infringement


8.1 Advantage in practice
(a)
The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b)
Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c)
Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d)
Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.

The Law supports a referee's discretion in deciding that grounding a ball is to play the ball as they wish.

So, once the defending team has grounded the ball, you say advantage is over (the ball is dead, and Law 8 says advantage can no longer be played). Fair enough then. Grounding the ball ends general play, just as kicking the ball into touch ends general play. Therefore you do what the Law tells you to do next; restart play with a scrum.

No amount of playing with words and twisting meanings can give the referee an all-clear to disregard what he is SPECIFICALLY instructed to do, and then substitute his own personal Laws to suit his own sense of what he deems to be fair play.

If the ball is knocked on in-goal and is made dead in goal, the only possible way to restart is with a 5m scrum. There are no other options. If he now restarts with a 22DO, he has intentionally ignored the Law.

ChrisR
26-02-16, 23:02
12.1 (d) 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 touchline.

Fron Ian, above: If the ball is knocked on in-goal and is made dead in goal, the only possible way to restart is with a 5m scrum. There are no other options. If he now restarts with a 22DO, he has intentionally ignored the Law.

So, we all agree that the defenders KO, the attackers ground the ball and so earn themselves the put in to the 5m scrum.

Obviously not. The try is awarded.

And if the attackers KO and the defenders ground the ball then we all agree that they can claim the 22DO.

Apparently not.

OB..
27-02-16, 00:02
12.1 (d) 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 touchline.

Fron Ian, above: If the ball is knocked on in-goal and is made dead in goal, the only possible way to restart is with a 5m scrum. There are no other options. If he now restarts with a 22DO, he has intentionally ignored the Law.

So, we all agree that the defenders KO, the attackers ground the ball and so earn themselves the put in to the 5m scrum.

Obviously not. The try is awarded.

And if the attackers KO and the defenders ground the ball then we all agree that they can claim the 22DO.

Apparently not.
Come off it! Nobody was talking about attackers getting a try from a defending knock-on. Do we really need to spell out that sort of detail every time?! It makes life mush simpler if we assume a common context within the thread, and only challenge it when it makes a difference to the points under discussion..

Treadmore
27-02-16, 10:02
So, once the defending team has grounded the ball, you say advantage is over (the ball is dead, and Law 8 says advantage can no longer be played). Fair enough then. Grounding the ball ends general play, just as kicking the ball into touch ends general play. Therefore you do what the Law tells you to do next [and Law 8 tells you don't stop for an infringement (the knock-on) if the defenders have played the ball as they wish (grounded it in this case)]; restart play with a scrum.

No amount of playing with words and twisting meanings can give the referee an all-clear to disregard what he is SPECIFICALLY instructed to do, and then substitute his own personal Laws to suit his own sense of what he deems to be fair play.


Ian, the history lesson on how the law changed was persuasive, as I said, but I think you are twisting meanings - you keep saying advantage can't apply once the ball is made dead (by grounding) but that is not the argument being made.

As I understand the argument being made by others we have:

1. The knock-on (infringement) has happened - can the ref play advantage? Yes, Law 8 says she can.
2. If the defender retrieves the ball can they ground it? Yes - Law 8 says they have freedom to play the ball as they wish.
3. Can the referee accept that grounding counts as advantage gained (and thus now over)? Yes, Law 8 covers it explicitly under tactical advantage - they had freedom to play the ball as they wished.
4. Can the referee now ignore the knock-on infringement? Yes, Law 8 encourages application of advantage, with precedence over most other Laws, so that there are fewer stoppages for infringements.
5. Is grounding the ball contrary to the spirit of Law 8? No, the purpose of Law 8 is fewer stoppages for infringements. Grounding the ball is not an infringement.
6. Is Law 22 (22.13) exempt from application of advantage? No, Law 8.3 lists when it cannot apply and knock-on in-goal is not one of those occasions.
7. Is the referee playing advantage after the ball is made dead by grounding? No, the application of advantage stops once a tactical advantage has been gained - in this case, the defenders played the ball as they wished by grounding it.
8. Now the ball is grounded, how do we restart? If attackers put it in-goal, by a 22 DO (Law 22.7(a)).

No twisting of meanings required to get to a 22 DO and no ignoring - intentional or otherwise - of the Law.

Camquin
27-02-16, 10:02
But this is not how the law is interpreted by the majority of referees.
You could always try to get a law clarification.

If aliens found the law book and tried to play rugby, it would not look anything like the game we play - especially as they would presumably not get the memos. Probably after 100 years it would mutate into something like american football.

ChrisR
27-02-16, 11:02
Come off it! Nobody was talking about attackers getting a try from a defending knock-on. Do we really need to spell out that sort of detail every time?! It makes life mush simpler if we assume a common context within the thread, and only challenge it when it makes a difference to the points under discussion..

I thought the context was "Restart from a KO in goal". I'm merely pointing out that you are applying a double standard.

Ian_Cook
27-02-16, 12:02
As I understand the argument being made by others we have:

1. The knock-on (infringement) has happened - can the ref play advantage? Yes, Law 8 says she can.
Agree


2. If the defender retrieves the ball can they ground it? Yes - Law 8 says they have freedom to play the ball as they wish.
Agree


3. Can the referee accept that grounding counts as advantage gained (and thus now over)? Yes, Law 8 covers it explicitly under tactical advantage - they had freedom to play the ball as they wished.
Agree


4. Can the referee now ignore the knock-on infringement? Yes, Law 8 encourages application of advantage, with precedence over most other Laws, so that there are fewer stoppages for infringements.
Disagree.

The referee still has to be mindful that the ball was knocked-on in goal, because this is a special case, covered by some specific Laws that tell him how the game MUST be restarted in those circumstances.


5. Is grounding the ball contrary to the spirit of Law 8? No, the purpose of Law 8 is fewer stoppages for infringements. Grounding the ball is not an infringement.
No, but knocking the ball on is an infringement.


6. Is Law 22 (22.13) exempt from application of advantage? No, Law 8.3 lists when it cannot apply and knock-on in-goal is not one of those occasions.
Of course its not exempt, but your point is irrelevant since advantage can no longer be played past the point where the ball is grounded.


7. Is the referee playing advantage after the ball is made dead by grounding? No, the application of advantage stops once a tactical advantage has been gained - in this case, the defenders played the ball as they wished by grounding it.
Agree


8. Now the ball is grounded, how do we restart? If attackers put it in-goal, by a 22 DO (Law 22.7(a)).
Disagree.

Law 22.7 (a) does not apply because you cannot ignore the fact that the ball was knocked in goal, and that means 22.7 (a) is trumped by Law 22-13 or Law 22.14.

The only prescribed restart is a 5m scrum.


No twisting of meanings required to get to a 22 DO and no ignoring - intentional or otherwise - of the Law.

To paraphrase Rev Dr. Francis H. Wade, the former Rector of St Alban's Episcopal Church...

"The Lawbook is like a person; if you torture it long enough you can get it to say anything you want it to say"



ETA: Think of it this way.

When the ball is at the No.8's feet in a scrum, the other seven forwards are obstructing their opponents under Law 10. Why do we not apply this? Because this is a special case, covered by some specific Laws, Law 20.

Treadmore
27-02-16, 14:02
4. Can the referee now ignore the knock-on infringement? Yes, Law 8 encourages application of advantage, with precedence over most other Laws, so that there are fewer stoppages for infringements.

Disagree.

The referee still has to be mindful that the ball was knocked-on in goal, because this is a special case, covered by some specific Laws that tell him how the game MUST be restarted in those circumstances.

This is the nub, I think. For a knock-on into the in-goal, even accepting an argument that advantage law trumped Law 12.1(c), you end up at 22.7 in which 22.7(b) tells you the same as 12.1(c). But for a knock-on in-goal, 12.1(d) applies and has no similar support in 22.7 for being a special case.

I realise others have said similar earlier in the thread, I just found it instructive to go through it step-by-step.

crossref
27-02-16, 15:02
Treadmore you are spot on. Starting with the Law that's the only conclusion you can possibly reach. Others are starting with their pre-conceived outcome, and trying to work the Law to arrive at it.

Ian_Cook
27-02-16, 18:02
This is the nub, I think. For a knock-on into the in-goal, even accepting an argument that advantage law trumped Law 12.1(c), you end up at 22.7 in which 22.7(b) tells you the same as 12.1(c). But for a knock-on in-goal, 12.1(d) applies and has no similar support in 22.7 for being a special case.

I realise others have said similar earlier in the thread, I just found it instructive to go through it step-by-step.

12.1(d) 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 touchline.

22.13 ATTACKING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

22.14 DEFENDING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

I just cannot see how anyone can read that and decide a 22DO is in order. 22DO is NOT mentioned in this Law OR ANY LAW that mentions a knock on in-goal. No amount of fancy word play can make that knock-on or throw forward disappear.

If you award a 22DO after the ball has been knocked in-goal then you are wrong!

We are just going to have to differ.

Personally, I have never seen any referee at any level from grass roots to elite, award a 22DO when there is been a knock on in goal


Treadmore you are spot on. Starting with the Law that's the only conclusion you can possibly reach. Others are starting with their pre-conceived outcome, and trying to work the Law to arrive at it.

Those "others" include every other referee on the planet.

Treadmore
27-02-16, 19:02
12.1(d) 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 touchline.

22.13 ATTACKING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

22.14 DEFENDING INFRINGEMENT WITH SCRUM SANCTION
If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction 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.

I just cannot see how anyone can read that and decide a 22DO is in order. 22DO is NOT mentioned in this Law OR ANY LAW that mentions a knock on in-goal. No amount of fancy word play can make that knock-on or throw forward disappear.


you already agreed advantage was applied and gained (my earlier point 3) so 22.13 and 22.14 are irrelevant because we are not restarting from an infringement.

crossref
27-02-16, 20:02
Personally, I have never seen any referee at any level from grass roots to elite, award a 22DO when there is been a knock on in goal
....
Those "others" include every other referee on the planet.

Except that in the only video I have been able to find of this scenario (which I posted above) Steve Walsh follows my logic and awards a drop out! Have you found any videos?

RobLev
28-02-16, 00:02
Except that in the only video I have been able to find of this scenario (which I posted above) Steve Walsh follows my logic and awards a drop out! Have you found any videos?

Have you watched the videos illustrating Laws 22.13 and 22.14? In both cases, the ball goes/is made dead after the knock on, and a scrum5 is awarded.

Ian_Cook
28-02-16, 01:02
Except that in the only video I have been able to find of this scenario (which I posted above) Steve Walsh follows my logic and awards a drop out! Have you found any videos?

Roblev beat me to it

22.13 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2391-attacking-scrum

22.14 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2392-defending-scrum



you already agreed advantage was applied and gained (my earlier point 3) so 22.13 and 22.14 are irrelevant because we are not restarting from an infringement.

You are starting after a knock on in goal.

The Law SPECIFICALLY states that the restart for that is a 5m scrum

This is laid down in Laws 22.13 and 22.14

It could not be any clearer than that

I am happy enough that my position on this issue is not only backed up 100% by the written Law, it is also accepted practice by virtually every referee at all levels of the game worldwide.

I will be following the lead of others here and not be posting in this thread any further; firstly, because the debate has reached a point of entrenched positions, and secondly, because it obviously a waste of time debating with intransigent people who seem bell bent on making up their own unique interpretations of the Law; ones that are at odds with the rest of the refereeing community.

This forum is supposed to be about educating referees, not looking for smart-arsed ways to circumvent Laws in pursuit of personal agendas. If you want to award a 22DO after a knock on in goal, that's between you and your assessor... good luck with that..

ETA
Another thing crossref and treadmore might want to consider.

Really good referees use good judgement as to when and how they apply advantage. The amount of advantage a referee would expect to see gained before calling "advantage over" can vary a lot with field position and the type of advantage being played (scrum or PK)

For example, there is a Blue knock on at a ruck left of centre-field, 10m outside the Blue's 22m. Red clears the ball and gets two passes wide right, with Blue back-pedalling rapidly. I am likely to call advantage over.

Now, move that ruck/knock-on scenario to a ruck 4m out from Red's goal-line, and am going to want to see a lot more tactical advantage or a considerable territorial advantage to red before calling advantage over.

The judgement used when referees play advantage often sorts out the really good referees from the also-rans.

Treadmore
28-02-16, 08:02
Roblev beat me to it

22.13 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2391-attacking-scrum

22.14 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2392-defending-scrum


The relevant one in that scenario is 22.13 (attacking infringement in-goal) and in that clip the defenders do not get the ball - no advantage can apply, so not the circumstances we are discussing.



You are starting after a knock on in goal.

Only if you have changed your mind and are deciding that no tactical advantage was gained when the defender had the freedom to play the ball as they wished (by grounding it).

You previously agreed on that but now are going back to infringement.



It could not be any clearer than that

crossref
28-02-16, 09:02
Have you watched the videos illustrating Laws 22.13 and 22.14? In both cases, the ball goes/is made dead after the knock on, and a scrum5 is awarded.

? of course, I have! but neither of those show the scenario in question .

The scenario is : attacking knock on in goal, defenders get the ball, advantage is played and the defenders then make it dead hoping for a 22m DO.

This isn't a question about Law 22 it's a question about Law 8 - Advantage - and when / how can advantage be gained.




This forum is supposed to be about educating referees,


I am educating you :)

RobLev
28-02-16, 10:02
? of course, I have! but neither of those show the scenario in question .

The scenario is : attacking knock on in goal, defenders get the ball, advantage is played and the defenders then make it dead hoping for a 22m DO.

This isn't a question about Law 22 it's a question about Law 8 - Advantage - and when / how can advantage be gained.

...

And we are pointing out that unless advantage is gained prior to the going dead of the ball the Law mandates the outcome. For the purposes of the 22DO it doesn't matter how the ball goes dead in in-goal, so it's irrelevant that in the attacking KO example it goes over the DBL, rather than being touched down by a defender.

crossref
28-02-16, 10:02
And we are pointing out that unless advantage is gained prior to the going dead of the ball the Law mandates the outcome. For the purposes of the 22DO it doesn't matter how the ball goes dead in in-goal, so it's irrelevant that in the attacking KO example it goes over the DBL, rather than being touched down by a defender.
Ok so now we are having the correct discussion, which is about how advantage is gained. Good.

Law 8 doesn't say that advantage has to be gained before the ball goes dead. What's your law reference for that?
It says that advantage can't be played after the ball is dead, which is a different statement altogether, as I am sure you will agree

In the other thread (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19557-advantage-and-freely-taken-kick) there is general agreement that for a scrum advatange, advantage is over when you freely kick the ball... so if you freely kick it into TIG ...

Pinky
28-02-16, 12:02
I am with Crossref, Treadmore et al on this. I always viewed 22.13 and 22.14 as defining the place of the scrum for a relevant in-goal infringement, rather than requiring such. The sanction for a knock-on in the fop is a scrum, but we frequently don't have one if the opposition gather and are able to play the ball.

RobLev
28-02-16, 13:02
Ok so now we are having the correct discussion, which is about how advantage is gained. Good.

Law 8 doesn't say that advantage has to be gained before the ball goes dead. What's your law reference for that?

Law 8.3(e):

Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.


It says that advantage can't be played after the ball is dead, which is a different statement altogether, as I am sure you will agree

I fundamentally disagree. If the ball is dead, there can be no further "play"; that is not a consequence of 8.3(e), but of the definition of "dead ball", which is that the ball is out of play. 8.3(e) goes further.


In the other thread (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19557-advantage-and-freely-taken-kick) there is general agreement that for a scrum advatange, advantage is over when you freely kick the ball... so if you freely kick it into TIG ...

We are also agreed that the advantage must be actual, not potential:

...A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough...

The opportunity to gain advantage by hoofing the ball 40m downfield is not taken by kicking it sideways into touch. In the FoP, such a kick would lead to the ref saying "no advantage" and going back to the scrum. It would be the equivalent of the SH knocking on, or saying "I want the scrum please"; or, if it were close to the touchline, the SH picking the ball up and running into touch.

Take a situation where the (isolated) attacking winger is tackled close to the line, loses the ball forward (but not into in-goal) and the defending #15 kicks the ball sideways into touch, or even picks it up and runs into touch. Are you really saying that you'd give the 5m lineout to the attacking team, rather than the scrum5 to the defenders, because the defender had freedom to play the ball as he wished?

You are praying in aid the *consequences* of the ball going dead; which by definition follow the making dead of the ball - and quite apart from the argument that a sideways kick doesn't confer an advantage, 8.3(e) says you can't do that.

Treadmore
28-02-16, 13:02
And we are pointing out that unless advantage is gained prior to the going dead of the ball the Law mandates the outcome.
We are pointing out the same thing too!

In post #140 Ian agreed that the defender had gained tactical advantage as defined in Law. That being the case, how do we restart? Look at Law 22.7: if we got in-goal due to a knock-on into in-goal then scrum - that is the special case and we all agree. Otherwise it is down to who put the ball in-goal.

If you don't like the outcome or the fact that the Law treats it explicitly differently than the knock-on into in-goal then you have to say there was no tactical advantage gained. If you do that, you have to say that the defender didn't have the freedom to play the ball as they wished.

I have no idea if in the mists of time this is what the Law makers intended but it is what they wrote and they wrote it differently in each case. The only relevant video clip presented so far shows Steve Walsh checking for this distinction and then going with the 22m DO.

RobLev
28-02-16, 13:02
We are pointing out the same thing too!

In post #140 Ian agreed that the defender had gained tactical advantage as defined in Law. That being the case, how do we restart? Look at Law 22.7: if we got in-goal due to a knock-on into in-goal then scrum - that is the special case and we all agree. Otherwise it is down to who put the ball in-goal.

If you don't like the outcome or the fact that the Law treats it explicitly differently than the knock-on into in-goal then you have to say there was no tactical advantage gained. If you do that, you have to say that the defender didn't have the freedom to play the ball as they wished.

I have no idea if in the mists of time this is what the Law makers intended but it is what they wrote and they wrote it differently in each case. The only relevant video clip presented so far shows Steve Walsh checking for this distinction and then going with the 22m DO.

So you would give the lineout in this situation:

Take a situation where the (isolated) attacking winger is tackled close to the line, loses the ball forward (but not into in-goal) and the defending #15 kicks the ball sideways into touch, or even picks it up and runs into touch. Are you really saying that you'd give the 5m lineout to the attacking team, rather than the scrum5 to the defenders, because the defender had freedom to play the ball as he wished?

crossref
28-02-16, 13:02
Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.

until very recently the example people gave to show what this meant was the knock on into touch --- you couldn't play advatage and let them take a QTI, because the ball had been made dead. (now, of course, you can do this).

this is different from playing advatage, and they then kick it dead -- and once it's dead--- Adv over, lineout. (or DO)

Treadmore
28-02-16, 13:02
So you would give the lineout in this situation:

Take a situation where the (isolated) attacking winger is tackled close to the line, loses the ball forward (but not into in-goal) and the defending #15 kicks the ball sideways into touch, or even picks it up and runs into touch. Are you really saying that you'd give the 5m lineout to the attacking team, rather than the scrum5 to the defenders, because the defender had freedom to play the ball as he wished?

Why do you think I would do that?

The way you describe it sounds like the defender is under pressure, so I wouldn't call a tactical advantage.

RobLev
28-02-16, 13:02
Why do you think I would do that?

The way you describe it sounds like the defender is under pressure, so I wouldn't call a tactical advantage.

The winger was isolated.

ChrisR
28-02-16, 17:02
Roblev, the situation that you describe in your post #155 is not apples to apples to the KO in goal where the defender grounds the ball or otherwise makes it dead. In that situation the restart from putting the ball into touch is clearly inferior to the scrum.

A more similar situation would be the attacker KO near mid-field and the defender hoofing it into touch 3m from the opponent's goal. Then there would be a clear tactical/territorial advantage although loss of possession.

On a side note, as a player I'd like the choice to be mine. Has anyone ever offered the choice to the players or would you assume that to be the referee's call?

RobLev
28-02-16, 18:02
Roblev, the situation that you describe in your post #155 is not apples to apples to the KO in goal where the defender grounds the ball or otherwise makes it dead. In that situation the restart from putting the ball into touch is clearly inferior to the scrum.

...

Which is the nub of the issue. CR is arguing that because a 22DO is clearly more advantageous than a scrum5, the defender putting the ball dead is entitled to receive the 22DO by virtue of the advantage rule; notwithstanding the wording of 22.13 and 22.14.

It is only if the restart after the defender putting the ball dead (after an attacking KO in-goal) is a 22DO that the restart from putting the ball into TiG is advantageous. CR is assuming that which has to be proved.

Look at it from another angle. CR says that the freedom to play the ball as the defender wishes, by kicking to TiG, is a sufficient tactical advantage that advantage is over and the Law 22.13-mandated scrum5 restart is no longer effective. When the ball thereby goes dead, so his argument runs, we then simply look at the restart mandated in the absence of law 22.13.

Bear in mind that advantage is considered over when the ball is freely kicked, not when it lands. If after an attacking KO in-goal the defender freely kicks the ball towards TiG (so advantage is over), but it is then caught by an attacker who dots the ball down, CR's logic requires you to award the try, doesn't it?

crossref
28-02-16, 18:02
Yes, I would say it does, in the other thread, there was widespread agreement that when the ball is freely kicked advantage is over, even if the outcome of the kick was bad for the kicker. I am happy to go with that principle. Ball freely kicked, advantage over. So
If it goes into touch.. Lineout
opposition catch it and score.. Bad luck try
Ball goes into touch in goal.. Drop out

I think the logic is unassailable

RobLev
28-02-16, 19:02
Yes, I would say it does, in the other thread, there was widespread agreement that when the ball is freely kicked advantage is over, even if the outcome of the kick was bad for the kicker. I am happy to go with that principle. Ball freely kicked, advantage over. So
If it goes into touch.. Lineout
opposition catch it and score.. Bad luck try
Ball goes into touch in goal.. Drop out

I think the logic is unassailable

Bear with me; we're nearly there. If the defender goes for the kick but completely misses the ball, losing it forward, and an attacker gets there first - still a try?

Pinky
28-02-16, 20:02
Or what if an attacker runs into in-goal, but is being bundled into tig and cannot ground the ball. He throws it infield in the hope it is caught by a team mate. In fact it is caught and grounded by a defender. 22do, no doubt about it. Now what if the pass by the original bc was marginally forward? Would you now be saying scrum 5?

crossref
28-02-16, 20:02
Roblev if I am following your scenario, that sounds like no advantage gained, back to the knock on, scrum.
The position of the scrum being 5m out as per the law

Treadmore
28-02-16, 20:02
Bear with me; we're nearly there.

I don't think we are - discussing more hypotheticals isn't helping

What would help me is understanding Ian's logic below (post #140 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19552-Ball-dropped-while-trying-to-score&p=312586&viewfull=1#post312586))








3. Can the referee accept that grounding counts as advantage gained (and thus now over)? Yes, Law 8 covers it explicitly under tactical advantage - they had freedom to play the ball as they wished.
Agree


4. Can the referee now ignore the knock-on infringement? Yes, Law 8 encourages application of advantage, with precedence over most other Laws, so that there are fewer stoppages for infringements.

Disagree.

I don't understand how the ref can accept advantage has been gained but then go back to the original infringement.

And to be clear again with my understanding (happy to have it improved!) if it was knocked-on into in-goal, I agree it is a scrum restart but not because of Law 12 (which covers the original infringement) but because of Law 22.7(b) i.e. we are not restarting from an infringement, we are restarting from a touch down (which is what 22.7 covers).

The fact that 22.7 (Restarting from a touch-down) has a special case for if the ball went into in-goal from a knock-on in the FoP, but no special case for a knock-on in-goal is a very significant and (it seems to me) intentional difference.

I think there is no way of getting to 22.7(b) without having played advantage after the original infringement; so that tells me advantage can be gained in this scenario (attacking knock-on into in-goal) by the defender grounding the ball. I therefore think we can call advantage gained in the scenario of defender grounding after attacking knock-on in-goal.

crossref
29-02-16, 07:02
The fact that 22.7 (Restarting from a touch-down) has a special case for if the ball went into in-goal from a knock-on in the FoP, but no special case for a knock-on in-goal is a very significant and (it seems to me) intentional difference.
l.

This is where we came in. Way back up the thread OB could see the significance but argued that it was unintentional, because 1987, and that the Law should not be applied as written, but in line with what the Law makers must have really meant to say, as per 1987 before they somehow accidentally changed it

. It was a very different argument from Ian, and an argument that basically concedes that my and your understanding of the Law *as written* is accurate.

OB..
29-02-16, 12:02
This is where we came in. Way back up the thread OB could see the significance but argued that it was unintentional, because 1987, and that the Law should not be applied as written, but in line with what the Law makers must have really meant to say, as per 1987 before they somehow accidentally changed it They did not accidentally change it. During the 1980s they made several changes to cover points that they had overlooked earlier (mainly to do with making sure it covers a throw forward as well as a knock-on). I see it as undeniable that they wished to change the law in all such cases from awarding a dropout to awarding a defending scrum. I seem to recall that most people approved the changes at the time.

It was a very different argument from Ian, and an argument that basically concedes that my and your understanding of the Law *as written* is accurate.I reject that inference. I think the attempts to get round the clear intentions of the law by a strained applications of the advantage law are unrealistic and conflict strongly with my views that the laws should be interpreted sensibly in the context of the game, not by some legalistic-cum-semantic arguments over the actual words used. The Laws are simply not written with that in mind. (Moreover NONE OF US operate to the letter of the law in other contexts.)

I only argued the verbal points raised because IMHO (agreeing with Ian) they were invalid, so worth disproving on their own terms.

crossref
29-02-16, 12:02
well, yes, I imagine they did deliberately change it after 1987, to distinguish knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE as different events, with different Laws applying.

But then - if you go with Ian's understanding of the advantage Law then the meaning of the phrases in Law 12 and 22 don't matter anyway (other than specifying the location of a scrum, if there is one)

Ian_Cook
29-02-16, 19:02
I wasn't going to post again in this thread, but I am becoming very annoyed with treadmore and crossref inferring that things I have posted support their view. They do not, and if those comments have been interpreted that way, they have been misrepresented or misunderstood. So, for the avoidance of doubt, I am going to be absolutely clear now on what my opinion is.

As OB has pointed out, both here, and many times previously, those who have over the years written, rewritten, amended and clarified the Laws of the Our Game have done so in order to create a framework for players to play the game, for spectators to follow the game, and for referees to adjudicate the game. They did not write the Laws so that a few smart-arses could use weasel-words and clever language to come up with unique interpretations that fly in face of expected practice by the rest of the refereeing community.

Admittedly, the Law writers have sometimes not made a very good job of making themselves clear, but that does not mean that we should be trying to come up with interpretations to subvert the clear intent of the Laws, and this is one of those cases where the Law is clear and unequivocal.

In the 1980's the Law writers intentionally changed the Laws regarding infringements in-goal. They did so in order to remove the 22DO as an outcome of a scrum infringement in-goal. The posters here who try to use clever wordplay to subvert the Law writers' intent, and to contrive the 22DO back into the game as an option, are doing the Game, this forum, other referees, and themselves a disservice.

IMO, there are only two possible results from a knock-on in goal...

► A 5m scrum, the mark being determined by a line through where the knock-on occurred; the opponents of the team that knocked the ball on will throw in

► Play on. Advantage can be played, in which case, I would not expect any referee worthy of holding a whistle, to call "advantage over" while the defending team still has possession of the ball in the in-goal. They are under pressure the whole time they remain there.

A 22DO is NOT an option! There is no way that a 22DO should be awarded after the ball has been knocked on in-goal by any player, and any referee who does so is committing a Law error. Period!

crossref
29-02-16, 19:02
Ian - on this forum, especially as you are a mod, you really need to stop using words like smart-arse, weasel words. it's very ad hominem! It's not the atmosphere we are after is it?

I just don't agree with your view of the intenttion of the Law makers, or the meaning of the Laws.

But I accept you are arguing in good faith, and I know I won't change your mind.

You last post didn't have anything new, so I won't respond with another rehearsal of what I said before.

BTW - It still tickles me that the only video anyone has been able to find of the scenario has the referee (aided by his AR in fact) pausing to determine if the knock on was INTO or INSIDE the in goal, and when he decides its INSIDE he awards the 22m DO

Let's enjoy it again :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-kV3kw8X4

OB..
29-02-16, 20:02
well, yes, I imagine they did deliberately change it after 1987, to distinguish knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE as different events, with different Laws applying. From reading the laws, I think the aim was to cover both situations separately but similarly to make sure they were not treated differently. I am certain there was one single aim: to ditch the drop out in favour of a scrum. I see nothing in the laws to suggest they intended there to be exceptions or loopholes. To adopt you logic, if they wanted to keep the drop out in some circumstances, they could have said so.

Ian_Cook
29-02-16, 20:02
BTW - It still tickles me that the only video anyone has been able to find of the scenario has the referee (aided by his AR in fact) pausing to determine if the knock on was INTO or INSIDE the in goal, and when he decides its INSIDE he awards the 22m DO

Let's enjoy it again :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-kV3kw8X4

Actually Steve Walsh had it right to start with, and was undone by his AR who got it wrong. SA Referees actually pointed this out, its why the clip was posted in the fist place.

However, the two videos published on the WR website, are more definitive and they are the last word since WR actually make the Laws and cite these as examples.

As a referee, if you are interpreting the Laws differently from the way every other referee around you, its a bang on certainty that your interpretation is wrong!

crossref
29-02-16, 21:02
However, the two videos published on the WR website, are more definitive and they are the last word since WR actually make the Laws and cite these as examples.


but neither of those videos show the scenario in question! (attacking knock on, followed by defenders touching down)



As a referee, if you are interpreting the Laws differently from the way every other referee around you, its a bang on certainty that your interpretation is wrong!

Yes, that is actually the very strongest argument for giving a scrum - just because it seems like that's what other refs would do (I'm serious, convention and consistency are important).

The Fat
29-02-16, 21:02
I like watching games Steve Walsh referees. Usually open and fast affairs. However, just because he made a particular decision in a particular game doesn't guarantee he got it right. I remember another Waratahs game, not long before he hung up his whistle, where a kick off went straight into the Waratahs' in-goal where Beale dotted it down and started running towards the halfway only to be pulled up by SW who said it would restart with a 22 DO.

crossref
29-02-16, 21:02
I like watching games Steve Walsh referees. Usually open and fast affairs. However, just because he made a particular decision in a particular game doesn't guarantee he got it right..

I know, and I am not claimng SW as the ultimate arbiter, of course - but still -- it make me laugh, because Ian said



Personally, I have never seen any referee at any level from grass roots to elite, award a 22DO when there is been a knock on in goal


and so far looking at all the videos found it's 100% drop out :biggrin:

The Fat
29-02-16, 21:02
I HAVE seen referees at grassroots level do it. I posted about it in March or April 2014 or 2015 I think.
It was from that post that I followed it up with those in high places at the ARU to confirm my understanding of the law. It has been a pet hate of mine since as we have a couple of "serial offenders" in my association who still award DOs for Knock-ons, both into and within in-goal, that are made dead

crossref
29-02-16, 21:02
I have been doing some more googling, and found this great thread from 2009.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-8015.html?

the formatting has gone, so you need to do some thinking to work out where the quote marks should be, but it's interesting : quite few expressions of opinion..

I think the posts from Donal1998 are quite interesting - he is quite clear that he has been told that he should award a 5m scrum, even though the Laws of the game would dictate a dropout.



Donal1988
03-08-09, 12:08
Dickie there is no law reference. I say that earlier. I assumed before I started refereeing that it was another urban myth but the fact is an assessor will ping you for awarding a 22m instead of a scrum 5.

A 22m advantage is both clear and real. It is the best possible advantage that can be awarded to the non offending side. While I accept this scenario it seems in conflict with Laws of the Game.

But the best quote, perhaps is this one - rather like Donal, Simon is saying it's not really in the Laws, but convention is to award the 5m scrum - but I like the bit in bold (my bold)



Simon Thomas
03-08-09, 12:08
We have had this debate a number of times at Group & Federation meetings.

My understanding is that of course one should always apply advantage in open play in such circumstances (Dickie E is quite right, but so is Phil as he was just talking about the knock on I believe), but that once the ball is made dead (touch in goal, past dead ball line, defensive grounding) you cannot use advantage to justify awarding a 22m drop. You must use the the first offence of attacking knock-on (either made in-goal itself, or resulting in the ball going in-goal after the knock on).
Donal - there is an IRB Law Ruling on this - and I did see a level 5 Group Referee get it wrong last season. Much to her (ooops, what a giveaway) coach's annoyance.

Dickie's subsidiary question is an interesting one - my advice to the referee would be never call 'advantage' over whilst they are still in goal, wait for them to get into the field of play ! But if you did call it over, I wouldn't criticise a referee who awarded 22m drop out, as we have had some play and effort to be positive by the defenders (see assessor's do have heart sometimes).
.

Some of the posters from 2009 are still with us... I thnk Dickie E was arguing for the 22m, but it's not clear.

A lot of the posts really are saying 'don't read the law book, do this because we tell you'

Ian_Cook
29-02-16, 22:02
I know, and I am not claimng SW as the ultimate arbiter, of course - but still -- it make me laugh, because Ian said



and so far looking at all the videos found it's 100% drop out :biggrin:

No, you cant dismiss the only two that really count simply because they don't support your argument. BOTH the Law examples on the WR Laws site say 5m scrum, so its 33% DO, 66% 5M scrum.... so far. But wait, there's more...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59L_YU0H7Rs

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829969/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njxemyyvLjA

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830586/

NOTE: In the second one, Steve Walsh is the AR on that side. He does not tell Roman Poite it should be a 22DO.

The score is now 80% scrum 5, 20% DO22

Pinky
29-02-16, 23:02
No, you cant dismiss the only two that really count simply because they don't support your argument. BOTH the Law examples on the WR Laws site say 5m scrum, so its 33% DO, 66% 5M scrum.... so far. But wait, there's more...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59L_YU0H7Rs

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829969/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njxemyyvLjA

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830586/

NOTE: In the second one, Steve Walsh is the AR on that side. He does not tell Roman Poite it should be a 22DO.

The score is now 80% scrum 5, 20% DO22

But Ian, in neither of those cases did the defender ground the ball or make it dead, so there was no advantage to play. So in both those cases scrum 5 is the only option.

Treadmore
01-03-16, 00:03
To adopt you logic, if they wanted to keep the drop out in some circumstances, they could have said so.
They did - it's 22.7(a)...

Knowing the Laws aren't perfectly written, I'm happy to accept the expert consensus and historical intent - I had no entrenched view before nor now. But I do reject the assertion by those saying it is taking smart-arsed weasel-word reading of the Laws to find that a 22m DO is supported in the specific case raised by crossref.

OB..
01-03-16, 00:03
They did - it's 22.7(a)...Trumped by 12.1 (c) which deals with the specific issue of knocking on into in-goal.

OB..
01-03-16, 00:03
They did - it's 22.7(a)...Trumped by 12.1 (c) which deals with this specific issue.

Dickie E
01-03-16, 01:03
Red v Blue. Red is leading by 1 point and full time siren has sounded. Blue are in attack and 10 metres from Red goal line. Very exciting. Blue player is tackled and illegally prevents a Red jackler from gaining possession. Ref calls "advantage Red" just as jackler secures ball and passes back to Red fullback.

Red fullback says "don't want any more advantage thanks ref" and toe pokes ball into touch.

Penalty to Red or blow full time?

The Fat
01-03-16, 01:03
This is a bug bear for me. I know it is common practice in NH to tell the ref you don't want any advantage but that, for me, flies in the face of the whole idea of the advantage law. Play on until ref decides advantage is either not forthcoming or is over.
No advantage to Red so go back for the PK. If they want to kick it out to end the game from the PK, fine.
I know there will be many here will disagree, but I'm just applying the Laws.

Ian_Cook
01-03-16, 03:03
But Ian, in neither of those cases did the defender ground the ball or make it dead, so there was no advantage to play. So in both those cases scrum 5 is the only option.

OK, so take the identical situation that crossref insists results in a 22DO, and that is, white knocks ball on in-goal blue player looks around, and nothing is on, so he grounds ball expecting 22DO

Now, instead of grounding the ball, he chooses to watch the ball over the DBL.

Are you still going to argue that because he chose to allow the ball over the DBL, that the blue player has played the ball as he choose and award a 22DO

Be careful how you answer; I have set a trap for you!


They did - it's 22.7(a)...

You have forgotten 12.1 (c) it seems


Knowing the Laws aren't perfectly written, I'm happy to accept the expert consensus and historical intent - I had no entrenched view before nor now. But I do reject the assertion by those saying it is taking smart-arsed weasel-word reading of the Laws to find that a 22m DO is supported in the specific case raised by crossref.

If you are coming up with, and using, a unique Law interpretation that is substantively different from the standard practice being used by your peers, then you are

1. nailed-on wrong

2. going to run afoul of your assesor

3. causing problems for your peers... they have to referee those teams next week.

Awarding a 22DO after the ball has been knocked on in-goal is Law error and could even be a red ink entry on your assessment. Continually doing it will affect your advancement.

crossref
01-03-16, 06:03
No, you cant dismiss the only two that really count simply because they don't support your argument. BOTH the Law examples on the WR Laws site say 5m scrum, so its 33% DO, 66% 5M scrum.... so far. But wait, there's more...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59L_YU0H7Rs

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829969/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njxemyyvLjA

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830586/

NOTE: In the second one, Steve Walsh is the AR on that side. He does not tell Roman Poite it should be a 22DO.

The score is now 80% scrum 5, 20% DO22

Ian NONE of the four videos you have found show the scenario being discussed (attacking knock on INSIDE the in goal, defenders gather ball, adv played, defenders make ball dead)
So citing those videos really is weasel words!

Treadmore
01-03-16, 07:03
They did - it's 22.7(a)...
Trumped by 12.1 (c) which deals with the specific issue of knocking on into in-goal.
I think you (and Ian) mean to be telling me 12.1(d) - it's the knock-on in-goal scenario we are discussing

But sticking with the 12.1(c) scenario for now:
12.1(c) trumps nothing in the context of this discussion because 22.7(b) makes sure the ref gives the scrum 5: there has been the knock-on infringement but play has been allowed to continue (Law 8; if play not continuing 12.1(c) applies immediately) and the ball now grounded in-goal.

If you are of the mind set that no advantage accrued to the defenders you are straight back to 12.1(c) (you don't get to any part of 22.7, so there is nothing to trump); but if you accept advantage has accrued you have to restart the game under 22.7 and 22.7(b) gives you the special case (the ball was knocked-on into in-goal).

I can't think of any other reason for 22.7(b) to exist - can anyone else? It is clear, it is explicit and it ensures (by intention I am sure) the same outcome as 12.1(c).

But there is no similar special case for ensuring the same outcome as 12.1(d).

(BTW, for me this is an educational discussion about the Laws that would back up your decision - it's not about how I referee (or anyone else) - so let me say, I was surprised to find nothing in 22.7 to cover the knock-on in-goal scenario.)

crossref
01-03-16, 09:03
Ian I'll humour you with one


OK, so take the identical situation that crossref insists results in a 22DO, and that is, white knocks ball on in-goal blue player looks around, and nothing is on, so he grounds ball expecting 22DO
Now, instead of grounding the ball, he chooses to watch the ball over the DBL.
Are you still going to argue that because he chose to allow the ball over the DBL, that the blue player has played the ball as he choose and award a 22DO


no, we did that one above. knock on over the DBL, 5m scrum

Now you owe me one in return

The sanction for a defender's knock on in goal is also a scrum 5m out.

But let's say
- defenders knock on in goal
- ref plays advantage
- attacker picks up the ball, runs 20m and touches the ball down under the posts.

All your logic from above would suggest you can't get an advantage by touching the ball down dead etc etc... so would go back for a scrum...

but in reality, of course, you going to award a try, right?

(and I don't think you are going to argue that a try would be 'too much advantage' from a simple knock on, either)

Ian_Cook
01-03-16, 09:03
Ian I'll humour you with one



no, we did that one above. knock on over the DBL, 5m scrum

Now you owe me one in return

The sanction for a defender's knock on in goal is also a scrum 5m out.

But let's say
- defenders knock on in goal
- ref plays advantage
- attacker picks up the ball, runs 20m and touches the ball down under the posts.

All your logic from above would suggest you can't get an advantage by touching the ball down dead etc etc... so would go back for a scrum...

but in reality, of course, you going to award a try, right?

The try is awarded, the play ends because the ball is dead.

I really don't see why you are persisting with this drive to subvert the Laws and challenge accepted practice, Frankly, I think you are just being intentionally obtuse.. only you will know what your motivation is for what you are doing.

If you want to go off and be a loner, refereeing rugby from your own made up interpretations, ones that are at complete odds with the accepted practices of your peers, then that is your look out; you won't advance much as a referee if you persist with it. I feel most sorry for the poor bloody referees who come after you and have to deal with the mess that referees like you leave behind when you put players and coaches wrong about the Laws. Every referee that does what you are doing makes it so much harder for the rest of us.

I suggest you go put your ideas to your Society's Training Officer or Grading Officer and see what they think.

crossref
01-03-16, 09:03
I would certainly concede that it is a widely accepted practice to give the 5m scrum. I don't think anyone could argue that.

It's one of those situations where the Laws say one thing and yet refs are told to do something else, which gets repeated and repeated without reference to the Laws. When I suggest we go back and look at the Laws, you get very steamed up!

In another thread it was said that some years ago it LSRFUR decided that #8 couldn't pick up at an uncontested scrum, and that advice was handed out and enforced in all London games. I don't know if that's the case, but if so it's a similar sort of thing and had I been reffing in London at the time, even though I knew it was wrong, I would have followed the instructions rather than the Law, for the reasons you say.

In this case, next Saturday I might even give the 5m scrum for the same reasons. Sometimes, sadly, convention trumps Law.

didds
01-03-16, 10:03
Red v Blue. Red is leading by 1 point and full time siren has sounded. Blue are in attack and 10 metres from Red goal line. Very exciting. Blue player is tackled and illegally prevents a Red jackler from gaining possession. Ref calls "advantage Red" just as jackler secures ball and passes back to Red fullback.

Red fullback says "don't want any more advantage thanks ref" and toe pokes ball into touch.

Penalty to Red or blow full time?

TBH the PK thing isn;t really an issue. Worst case scenario is FB tow pokes it dead, ref goes back to PK, kicker kicks it dead.

The problem arises with a KO advantage, and red in order to kill the game may inadvertently end up with advantage over. Toe poke dead? Well, that was exercising their right under no pressure to do what they want. Though you'd hope in that circumstance the ref would blow for full time as adv over, ball dead!

didds

crossref
01-03-16, 11:03
TBH the PK thing isn;t really an issue. Worst case scenario is FB tow pokes it dead, ref goes back to PK, kicker kicks it dead.

The problem arises with a KO advantage, and red in order to kill the game may inadvertently end up with advantage over. Toe poke dead? Well, that was exercising their right under no pressure to do what they want. Though you'd hope in that circumstance the ref would blow for full time as adv over, ball dead!

didds

it doesn't really bite, that scenario, Didds.

If the ref decides advantage over >> time expired full time whistle
If the ref decides advantage not over, go back to the knock on >> time expired so full time whistle

Ian_Cook
01-03-16, 11:03
crossref.

You maintain that when the referee says "advantage over", that is tantamount to ignoring the offence, such that the offence effectively never happened.

Using this logic, you say that when the attacking player knocks-on and the referee plays advantage, when he says "advantage over" and the defender grounds the ball, the knock-on effectively never happened, so there was no knock-on in goal, so the provisions of Law 22.13 no longer apply, and you justify awarding a 22DO using Law 22.7 (a)?

Do I understand this correctly?

crossref
01-03-16, 11:03
crossref.
You maintain that when the referee says "advantage over", that is tantamount to ignoring the offence, such that the offence effectively never happened.


Of course.
That's not contentious it happens every game : there is a knock on, and a player from the other team picks up the ball and plays on, at some point the referee may say 'advantage over' and at that point it's as if the knock on never happened... This is totally normal and happens all the time after a knock on. Once the ref says Adv over, we're not going back for the scrum.


crossref.
Using this logic, you say that when the attacking player knocks-on and the referee plays advantage, when he says "advantage over" and the defender grounds the ball, the knock-on effectively never happened, so there was no knock-on in goal, so the provisions of Law 22.13 no longer apply, and you justify awarding a 22DO using Law 22.7 (a)?

Do I understand this correctly?

the attacking player knocks on, INSIDE the in goal and a defender picks up the ball. The referee will call advantage.

If the defender freely kicks the ball 40m upfield the referee will call advantage over. it's as if there was no knock on. If the ball is now in touch we'll have a lineout , if not play on. whatever happens we won't be coming back for the scrum as adv was gained.

If the defender runs upfield, at some point the referee will call adv over, it's as if the knock on never happened. Play on, whatever happens we won't be coming back for the scrum as adv was gained.

If the defender freely kicks the ball over the DBL, what happens
- if the referee calls "adv over", same as above : it's as if there was no knock on, we'll have the 22m.
- if the referee calls "no adv gained", then we'll come back to the knock on for the scrum (Law 22 tells us the location of the scrum)


This question is all about Law 8 - Advantage. Can you gain advantage by making the ball dead? We know you can gain adv by kicking the ball into touch, or by touching down for a try, why not for a 22m DO ? Law 8 prohibits none of those.

[obviously I am assuming the attackers carried the ball into the in goal in the first place]

crossref
01-03-16, 11:03
actually, unless something really new comes up, I'm going to give up on the thread now.

I'm (finally!) as bored with it as everyone else must be :)

Ian_Cook
01-03-16, 13:03
OK then

Red 12, an attacking ball carrier, kicks the ball ahead, and as Blue 15 tries to field the ball, he is hammered by an early, no-arms, high tackle by an onside chaser, Red 13.

You call "advantage Blue - dangerous tackle". The ball pops free, Blue 13 scoops the ball up, fires a bullet pass to Blue 14 who runs clear of any opponents. Blue have gained both tactical and territorial advantage, so you call "advantage over" and the Blue player runs the length of the field to score under the poles.

You award the try and call over Red 13. You are going to YC him for the dangerous tackle.... oh, but hang on a moment...You said "advantage over". If you are to maintain consistency with your earlier assertion, then you can't YC him because you have deemed that the original offence for which you played advantage, never happened.

Oops!

crossref
01-03-16, 13:03
that's silly.
because advantage was played, and gained, we won't be going back for the PK, which is the prescribed sanction for a high tackle. that PK will never happen - but I can still YC him if he deserved it.

OB..
01-03-16, 13:03
It's one of those situations where the Laws say one thing and yet refs are told to do something else, which gets repeated and repeated without reference to the Laws. When I suggest we go back and look at the Laws, you get very steamed up!
Like everybody else,you condone a scrum half picking up the ball in a ruck. You cannot do that and also argue that some literal interpretation of the law MUST be followed.

I reject your arguments on two grounds:
(1) the history of this bit of law and the whole current approach to the situation are against you;
(2) the laws do not HAVE to be interpreted in the way you propose.

(1) is more important than (2) because the laws are simply not written to withstand forensic examination, but are aimed at being understood by ordinary players.

I remember a children's word game from the first time I went to France:
J'en ai marre (I'm bored)
Marabout (Muslim holy man)
Bout de ficelle (piece of string)
Selle de cheval (saddle on a horse)
....
Naufragé (shipwrecked)
J'ai fini (I've finished - at least I hope so)

crossref
01-03-16, 14:03
Like everybody else,you condone a scrum half picking up the ball in a ruck. You cannot do that and also argue that some literal interpretation of the law MUST be followed.

I reject your arguments on two grounds:
(1) the history of this bit of law and the whole current approach to the situation are against you;
(2) the laws do not HAVE to be interpreted in the way you propose.

(1) is more important than (2) because the laws are simply not written to withstand forensic examination, but are aimed at being understood by ordinary players.



if we are arriving at a conclusion that the Laws dictate a 22mDO, but at the moment common practice amongst refs is to give a 5m Scrum, then we can shake hands and agree, I'll pack up my tent, declare victory and leave the battlefield.

OB..
01-03-16, 15:03
if we are arriving at a conclusion that the Laws dictate a 22mDO, but at the moment common practice amongst refs is to give a 5m Scrum, then we can shake hands and agree, I'll pack up my tent, declare victory and leave the battlefield.My view is that you are using a strained and unnecessary interpretation of the law.

crossref
01-03-16, 15:03
wrong interpretation of Law 8 Advantage?

Phil E
01-03-16, 16:03
actually, unless something really new comes up, I'm going to give up on the thread now.

I'm (finally!) as bored with it as everyone else must be :)

Fibber!

I'm off to buy some leggings.

:shrug:

Treadmore
01-03-16, 18:03
My view is that you are using a strained and unnecessary interpretation of the law.

I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)

OB..
02-03-16, 01:03
I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)
If there is a knock-on in mid-field, at what point do you call a scrum?

Ian_Cook
02-03-16, 04:03
I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)

You mean this one?

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(b) 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

Well, its a tough question you have posed there Treadmore, but I think I would use it when "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".

By "made dead" I mean that the ball was grounded by either side or legally put into TiG or over the DBL. I would then order a scrum at the place of infringement, no closer than 5m to the goal line.

I might play advantage but, as in the scenarios governed by 12.1 (c) and (d) and 22.13, if the attackers knocked the ball on, the defenders can pass it around all they like; there is no way on God's green earth I am ever going to call advantage over until the defending team at least play the ball out of the in-goal!


Geez... that wasn't so difficult after all.

crossref
02-03-16, 06:03
You are so rude, Ian. If you answered the question more straightforwardly you might grasp Treadmore point.

What decision would you give if that Law wasn't there?

RobLev
02-03-16, 06:03
Roblev if I am following your scenario, that sounds like no advantage gained, back to the knock on, scrum.
The position of the scrum being 5m out as per the law

So advantage doesn't end when the defender has the freedom to play the ball as he wishes and does so?

RobLev
02-03-16, 06:03
I don't think we are - discussing more hypotheticals isn't helping

What would help me is understanding Ian's logic below (post #140 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19552-Ball-dropped-while-trying-to-score&p=312586&viewfull=1#post312586))





I don't understand how the ref can accept advantage has been gained but then go back to the original infringement.

And to be clear again with my understanding (happy to have it improved!) if it was knocked-on into in-goal, I agree it is a scrum restart but not because of Law 12 (which covers the original infringement) but because of Law 22.7(b) i.e. we are not restarting from an infringement, we are restarting from a touch down (which is what 22.7 covers).

The fact that 22.7 (Restarting from a touch-down) has a special case for if the ball went into in-goal from a knock-on in the FoP, but no special case for a knock-on in-goal is a very significant and (it seems to me) intentional difference.

I think there is no way of getting to 22.7(b) without having played advantage after the original infringement; so that tells me advantage can be gained in this scenario (attacking knock-on into in-goal) by the defender grounding the ball. I therefore think we can call advantage gained in the scenario of defender grounding after attacking knock-on in-goal.

No; 22.7(b) says precisely the opposite. The defender is not allowed to gain advantage by grounding the ball. The ref plays advantage, but if the ball is made dead in in-goal, we go back to the KO.

crossref
02-03-16, 07:03
22.7. B applies to knock on Into the in goal. For a knock on INSIDE, take that away, and.....

Ian_Cook
02-03-16, 07:03
22.7. B applies to knock on Into the in goal. For a knock on INSIDE, take that away, and.....


... the same, except that the scrum is always a 5m one

Regardless of whether the ball is knocked on by an attacker INTO the in goal, or knocked on by an attacker INSIDE the in-goal, I might play advantage but there is no way I would ever call advantage over until the defending team at least play the ball out of the in-goal!

Treadmore
02-03-16, 08:03
You mean this one?

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(b) 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

Well, its a tough question you have posed there Treadmore, but I think I would use it when "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".

By "made dead" I mean that the ball was grounded by either side or legally put into TiG or over the DBL. I would then order a scrum at the place of infringement, no closer than 5m to the goal line.

I might play advantage but, as in the scenarios governed by 12.1 (c) and (d) and 22.13, if the attackers knocked the ball on, the defenders can pass it around all they like; there is no way on God's green earth I am ever going to call advantage over until the defending team at least play the ball out of the in-goal!


Geez... that wasn't so difficult after all.

If I have understood your strained explanation to a simple question you do not have a scenario leading to 22.7(b)?

Simply quoting the law back doesn't answer my question - nor help educate anyone - a simple decision tree covering the events that lead you to 22.7(b) with a law reference for each decision is all that is required: that would be educational for me.

crossref
02-03-16, 08:03
So in your view 22.7.B (and the equivalent point in Law 12) is redundant.

Ian_Cook
02-03-16, 08:03
You are so rude, Ian. If you answered the question more straightforwardly you might grasp Treadmore point.

What was rude about my post? There was not a single rude word in it... I answered the bloody question. I might have taken the Mickey, but the question deserved it.

Also, I am NOT STUPID! I fully understand what you and Treadmore are trying to have us believe; its simply that I completely and utterly disagree with it. In fact, I don't think you even have the beginnings of a valid argument.


What decision would you give if that Law wasn't there?

That wasn't what Treadmore asked. He asked

"I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)"

I think it is irrelevant speculate about what referees would do in the absence of certain Laws, but in this case, I'll humour you and answer

In the absence of 22.7 (b), I would go back to Law 12.1 (d) and award a scrum at the place of infringement, not closer than 5m from the goal-line.

Ian_Cook
02-03-16, 08:03
If I have understood your strained explanation to a simple question you do not have a scenario leading to 22.7(b)?

Yes, I do. I posted it in #205.


Simply quoting the law back doesn't answer my question - nor help educate anyone - a simple decision tree covering the events that lead you to 22.7(b) with a law reference for each decision is all that is required: that would be educational for me.

This has just become stupid.

Attacking Player: Knocks the ball on 2m short of the goal line

IanRef: "Oh damn, he's knocked it on, Law 12 applies"

Ball: Rolls into in-goal

IanRef: "Right, we're in-goal now, so Law 22 could apply as well; I'll have to be careful"

Defender: Picks up the ball and passes to a team-mate

IanRef: Calls - "Advantage knock-on attackers!!" Law 8

Defender: Decides discretion is the order of the day, and grounds the ball

IanRef: In my judgement, there has not been sufficient advantage (Law 8.2) so we go to the original infringement Law. 22.7 (b) or 12.1 (c), I don't care which... order a scrum 5m in line with the place of infringement


And that, Treadmore, is how we do that!

Treadmore
02-03-16, 09:03
IanRef: In my judgement, there has not been sufficient advantage (Law 8.2) so we go to the original infringement Law. 22.7 (b) or 12.1 (c), I don't care which... order a scrum 5m in line with the place of infringement


Thank you. I note you have judged no advantage (8.2). As I understand it that means take play back to to 12.1(c); it is not a choice of that or 22.7. Have I understood correctly?

Ian_Cook
02-03-16, 10:03
Thank you. I note you have judged no advantage (8.2). As I understand it that means take play back to to 12.1(c); it is not a choice of that or 22.7. Have I understood correctly?

It actually does not matter which, they both say the same thing.

You will find that it is not uncommon for laws to be repeated and circumstances inferred in more than one place or Law in the Law book; for example

9.A.1
Penalty Goal. A player scores a penalty goal by kicking a goal from a penalty kick.
is repeated in
21.5 (a) A penalty goal can be scored from a penalty kick.


12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(e) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward
with hand or arm, nor throw forward.
Sanction: Penalty kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that
would probably otherwise have been scored.
is inferred in...
10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Parts of this Law...
10.4 (k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. The front row of a scrum must not rush against its opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Front row players must not intentionally lift opponents off their feet or force them upwards
out of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or
maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

are repeated as applicable in...

20.1 (i)
20.8 (i)
20.9 (a)
16.3 (c)
17.2 (e)

Treadmore
02-03-16, 17:03
It actually does not matter which, they both say the same thing.

Only in as much as the scrum is the outcome. But to get to 22.7(b) you are restarting play from the grounding; if you apply 8.2 you are not.

Ian_Cook
02-03-16, 18:03
Only in as much as the scrum is the outcome. But to get to 22.7(b) you are restarting play from the grounding; if you apply 8.2 you are not.


Utter bilge....

12.1 (c) Knock-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.

22.7 (b) 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.

The relevant wording in both Laws is identical. There is no possible way to torture this into a different meaning for each Law. The application of advantage is identical for both; grounding the ball is not advantage over, its the end of play and a restart is required.

You restart with a scrum because that is what both laws tell you to do!

OB..
08-03-16, 21:03
I passed this up the chain of authority and it reached Laws@rfu.com (Dave Broadwell)

It can only ever be a scrum one way or another.

Obviously this does not necessarily apply outside England, but I will now have a clear conscience in classifying it as a law error if I come across any errant referees.

crossref
08-03-16, 22:03
I passed this up the chain of authority and it reached Laws@rfu.com (Dave Broadwell)


Obviously this does not necessarily apply outside England, but I will now have a clear conscience in classifying it as a law error if I come across any errant referees.

so what was the question that you asked him? Unless we know that the answer is menaingless.

and did he provide any Law reference or other argument, or is that the whole answer?

OB..
09-03-16, 10:03
My email

Steve,

(Not sure if this is your job any more?)

There is a lot of argument on the referees website about knock-ons into or inside the in-goal. Up to the 1970s, the laws said a defender could ground the ball and get a drop-out. Then they (gradually) changed the laws to say it was a scrum, just like any other knock-on.

Some referees argue that you can "play advantage" and give the drop out. The standard reply is that the defenders can only play advantage before the ball is made dead. Thereafter the advantage law does not apply.

Now there is the ingenious idea that if a defender picks up the ball and runs around the in-goal before making it dead, he has gained a tactical advantage by using up time and making the opponents use energy chasing him. When advantage is over, he can then make the ball dead for a drop out. I think that is an unreal view of tactical advantage, which should ultimately mean putting the team in a better position to score.

However there is one twist: if he runs around long enough for time to expire, no scrum has yet been awarded, so he avoids having one.

Thoughts?!

Steve's reply

Interesting discussion but would apply commonsense!! It would always come back to a scrum 5 in my opinion.

May be you should run it by the Dave Broadwell as the Law guru at Laws@rfu.com<mailto:Laws@rfu.com>

Cheers
Steve

I forwarded my original to Dave Broadwell

Hi
Steve always favoured the hospital pass. Ha Ha things must be pretty desperate in good old Glos if this is a debate. It can only ever be a scrum one way or another. The referee cannot blow time until the ball is dead so someone will force the issue by grounding the ball or kicking it out of play.
Regards
Dave Broadwell

crossref
09-03-16, 10:03
Well, I am not sure that really advances the argument much, everyone will agree that if advantage is played and gained, then the scrum never happens, so it's not 'always' a scrum.
I submitted a similar question to SA Referees Duty Ref, perhaps they will address it.


If the argument is "Ref it that way because the RFU, and other senior people tell you to" then I cheerfully ref the way the RFU tells me. I totally agree with the importance of consistency, and that's more important than whether I think it's right or wrong. Similarly if I was in the USA next week I would follow the USA Game Mgmt Guidelines, for same reason.

If the argument is "ref it that way, because the Law book says so" then we need to have a look at the text of the Laws, it would have been interesting to see Steve/Dave's analysis.

Dickie E
09-03-16, 10:03
things must be pretty desperate in good old Glos if this is a debate.

LOL ..

Phil E
09-03-16, 11:03
Interesting discussion but would apply commonsense!!

Which some people are not doing in this thread!!

crossref
09-03-16, 11:03
well, common sense varies. that's why we have written down Laws.