22.15
You've answered your own question, McDuck (are you related to Scrooge of that ilk? Perhaps you are a nephew? )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.
Back to choppers point the first part of the law is important - you play advantage on the field of play - -why not in this case?
You've answered your own question, McDuck (are you related to Scrooge of that ilk? Perhaps you are a nephew? )
22.7(b) tells us that an attacking knock-on in the field of play which is subsequently grounded by a defender results in a scrum at the place of the knock-on, or at the 5m line if further away than the knock-on. This is a specific statement that advantage cannot be played in this situation - I'm prepared to accept Deeps's reasoning, though I have no knowledge of the actual rationale.
22.15 - knocks-on (just for you, Chopper:wink: ) in in-goal are treated as though they occurred in the field of play. Ergo, no advantage. QED. Over and out.
That's pasta, but the law is written so?my only response? durum hoc est sed ita lex scripta est.
If a player knocks on into touch, I give a scrum; the option of a line out doesn't even cross my mind.
Yes, in practice you sometimes need to treat the laws elastically in order to get a game, but it can be a trip wire.
Simon Smith "Is knocking on in goal or over the goal line such a heinous sin that you deserve to be on the receiving end of a 22m drop out"