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!