[In-goal] Knock-on into in-goal
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
That is the law makers desire.
Knock on = lose the try scoring chance and possession etc.
Fail to score with the ball in your possession? hard luck.
Not for me / us to make the call on the "corectness" of the law. Ours to apply the law.
Well, I know already that I am going to be quoting that one back at ya !
Pablo
Referees in England
Thanks all. My justification also hinged on 7.3 (f) along the lines of:
-Green has knocked on into in-goal
-Black has regathered, advantage is applied
-Black touches down, gaining no advantage
-Advantage cannot be applied now the ball is dead (7.3f)
-We return to the last offence, Green's knock-on, which requires a scrum
-The scrum must be located in the scrum zone (19.1), i.e., 5m out from the goal-line
So much for the simplified re-write "clarifying" the law here - the 2017 law book was much clearer!
-Green has knocked on into in-goal
-Black has regathered, advantage is applied
-Black touches down, gaining no advantage
-Advantage cannot be applied now the ball is dead (7.3f)
-We return to the last offence, Green's knock-on, which requires a scrum
-The scrum must be located in the scrum zone (19.1), i.e., 5m out from the goal-line
So much for the simplified re-write "clarifying" the law here - the 2017 law book was much clearer!
But at least the law has not changed!
That last statement is the nub of it
On the face of it , it's a 22m DO
You think they have gained no advantage, but that's only because you have decided not to give them the 22mDO
Other posters (even on this thread) argue that far from gaining no advantage, they have somehow gained TOO MUCH advantage , and that is why they should be denied the drop out
Last edited:
Pablo
Referees in England
Not sure what you're getting at here. I haven't decided not to give them the 22 on a whim - I've applied the logic of the law. They had a chance to play the ball out, didn't, advantage isn't applied to a dead ball, so I returned to the offence that triggered advantage.
And I would be inclined to agree. It certainly seems from the 2017 edition of the laws that this was the law makers' intention.
Which is an odd conclusion as the rewrite actually removed the exception relating to knock ons that cross the goal line, making them the same as all other knock-ons.
Last edited:
Pablo
Referees in England
The intention of the 2017 law book was clear. The intention of the rewrite, we were repeatedly told, was to simplify without making changes, except where law experiments were explicitly called out).
Since no such specific call out has ever been published regarding the status of a knock-on in/into in-goal, it's not that odd a conclusion to arrive at.
well, that's a different topic - but thy made a number of changes in 2019 Book, some highlighted, some not.
thepercy
Referees in America
Its too much because it is after the ball is dead that the advantage would accrue. If they scoop the ball up and run 105 m to score, the advantage is gain after 10-15 m and we don't have to blow our whistle and we play on.
Ciaran Trainor
Referees in England
If a team is getting mullered in the scrums, to give them a 5M scrum defending scrum is not advantage. I would normally look for advantage in these scenarios and if defending team was getting hammered and the result didn't matter, I'd be inclined to give a 22 drop out. Empathy!
Here's a scenario Red attacking but knock the ball forward into in goal. Blue pick it up and pass to another player and I call advantage over. Second blue player then dots it down before crossing out of in goal.
I can now legally and morally call a 22 with no arguments from anyone as blue has gained tactical advantage. Simples!
Here's a scenario Red attacking but knock the ball forward into in goal. Blue pick it up and pass to another player and I call advantage over. Second blue player then dots it down before crossing out of in goal.
I can now legally and morally call a 22 with no arguments from anyone as blue has gained tactical advantage. Simples!
Good scenario.. I usually make it a kick that is the trigger for advantage over but a pass is a good alternative...
Your supporting argument that the blue team has gained a real advantage just because they have completed a single pass is misguided and, in this case, simply wrong.
This whole argument that has now entered (probably) its second year is perpetrated by members on this forum who simply do not understand how the concept of advantage works.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
Of course, the flip side is that the defenders are rewarded more for stopping a competent, valid attack, than for making the ball dead when they had advantage anyway.
A pass isn't the crux of my argument ,that's just one scenario
I like a kick scenario as we all agree that advantage is over when it is freely kicked away ..
But a touchdown works as well .
If cast aside all preconceptions, and simply follow the Law Book you will find my argument
The 'mullered in the scrum' post brings to mind a recent thread about teams asking to play, or not play, advantage.
If a captain came up to you during the game and said "ref, we're getting mullered in the scrums. If they infringe, can you call advantage over if we've got any possession so we don't have to scrummage?" would you still go for the 5m scrum in this case, or call AO as soon as the defending player in in goal collected the ball?
And if you wouldn't call AO in this case, would you also no call it if the same thing happened on half way (i.e. the non-infringing team took possession 10m back from the infringement)?
If a captain came up to you during the game and said "ref, we're getting mullered in the scrums. If they infringe, can you call advantage over if we've got any possession so we don't have to scrummage?" would you still go for the 5m scrum in this case, or call AO as soon as the defending player in in goal collected the ball?
And if you wouldn't call AO in this case, would you also no call it if the same thing happened on half way (i.e. the non-infringing team took possession 10m back from the infringement)?