[In-goal] 2016 LAW TRIALS - 22.13 Infringements in-goal

[Ian_Cook]

Proposals
1. Change current Law to:
If an attacking player commits an infringement in the in-goal area which would have resulted in a scrum had it occurred within the Field of Play, and a defending player has made the ball dead or it has gone into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, play is restarted with either a 5 metre scrum and the defending team throws the ball in OR a 5 metre line drop out.

2. AMEND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH TO READ:
A knock on or a throw forward by the defending team in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum opposite the place of infringement and the attacking team throws the ball in
ADD A THIRD PARAGRAPH:
A knock on or a throw forward by the attacking team in the in-goal results in either a 5 metre scrum and the defending team throws the ball in or a 5 metre line drop out.
SEE CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES TO LAW 13 below

Justifications
1. To align the restart, after an opposition player infringed in the in-goal, with the other in-goal decisions when play restarts with a 22-metre drop out.
2. The current defending 5-metre scrum decision maintains the pressure on the defending team for an infringement by the opposition in the in-goal. This option will remain for teams with a dominant scrum.
3. The 5 metre Line drop out provides a fair opportunity for the defending team to clear the ball from their goal line area without added pressure unfairly created by the Law.
4. Under current Law the attacking team (which infringed) is given an opportunity to contest an opposition scrum in a very advantageous position on the field with nothing to lose and all to gain from it.
5. The 5 metre Line drop-out presents a restart which brings opportunities for creative play, innovative thinking and entertainment as opposed to a 5-metre defensive scrum restart.
6. The 5 metre Line drop-out will immediately involve all the players and will demand a variety of skills and awareness from both teams.

Law 13 – Consequential changes from addition of 5m drop out option

[LAWS]13.18 5 METRE LINE DROP-OUT: DEFINITIONS
A 5 metre line drop-out is a drop kick taken by the defending team. The 5 metre line drop-out may be taken anywhere on or behind the 5 metre line. A 5 metre line drop-out is used to restart play after an attacking player commits an infringement in the in-goal area, for which the sanction is a scrum, and a defending player has made the ball dead or it has gone into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]13.19 DELAY IN 5 METRE LINE DROP-OUT
The 5 metre line drop-out must be taken without delay.
Sanction: Free Kick in the centre of the goal post 5 metres from the goal line.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]13.20 5 METRE LINE DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN
If the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:
• To have another 5 metre line drop-out, or
• To have a scrum in the centre of the goal post 5 metres from the goal line. They throw in the ball.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]13.21 5 METRE LINE DROP-OUT MUST CROSS THE 5 METRE LINE
(a) If the ball does not cross the 5 metre line, the opposing team has two choices:
• To have another 5 metre line drop-out, or
• To have a scrum in the centre of the goal post 5 metres from the goal line. They throw in the ball.
(b) If the ball crosses the 5 metre line but is blown back, play continues.
(c) If the ball does not cross the 5 metre line, advantage may apply. An opponent who plays the ball can score a try.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]
13.22 5 METRE LINE DROP-OUT GOES DIRECTLY INTO TOUCH
The ball must land in the field of play. If it is kicked directly into touch, the opposing team has three choices:
• To have another 5 mettre line drop-out, or
• To have a scrum, in the centre of the goal post 5 metres from the goal line and they throw in the ball, or
• To accept the kick. If they accept the kick, the line out is formed 5 metres from the goal line, and they throw in the ball.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]13.23 5 METRE LINE DROP-OUT GOES INTO THE OPPONENTS’IN-GOAL
(a) If the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player, the opposing team has three choices:
• To ground the ball, or
• To make it dead, or
• To play on.
(b) If the opposing team grounds the ball, or makes it dead, or if the ball becomes dead by going into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, they have two choices:
• To have a scrum formed at the centre of the goal post 5 metres from the goal line and they throw in the ball, or
• To have the other team 5 metre line drop-out again.
(c) If they opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay. Any other action with the ball by a defending player means the player has elected to play on.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]13.24 THE KICKER’S TEAM
(a) All the kicker’s team must be behind the ball when it is kicked. If not, a scrum is formed at the centre of the goal post 5 metres from the goal line. The opposing team throws in the ball.
(b) However, if the kick is taken so quickly that players of the kicker’s team who are retiring are still in front of the ball, they will not be penalised. They must not stop retiring until they have been made onside by an action of a team-mate. They must not take part in the game until they have been made onside in this way.
Sanction: Scrum at the centre of the goal post 5 metres from the goal line. The opposing team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]
13.25 THE OPPOSING TEAM
(a) The opposing team must not charge over the goal line before the ball is kicked.
Sanction: Free Kick at the place of infringement 5 metres from the goal line.
(b) If an opponent is in the in goal and delays or obstructs the goal line drop-out, the player is guilty of misconduct.
Sanction: Penalty Kick at the place of infringement 5 metres from the goal line.[/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

The 5m drop out is perhaps a better option than the 5m scrum but it is still inconsistent with the idea that the defenders get a 22 if the attackers put the ball into goal and fail to ground it for the try.

 

[chbg]

The 5m drop out is perhaps a better option than the 5m scrum but it is still inconsistent with the idea that the defenders get a 22 if the attackers put the ball into goal and fail to ground it for the try.

Correct ... as that 'idea' is not the current situation.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm surprised that this trial has produced zero comments from this forum. It is such a half-assed solution when a simple law amendment would have worked. Take the proposed law change:

1. Change current Law to:
If an attacking player commits an infringement in the in-goal area which would have resulted in a scrum had it occurred within the Field of Play, and a defending player has made the ball dead or it has gone into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, play is restarted with either a 5 metre scrum and the defending team throws the ball in OR a 5 metre line drop out.

In other words if the attacking team commits an infringement in goal but fail to make the ball dead by grounding it then the opponents get the option. If the infringing team ground the ball in goal then the opponents don't get the option and are awarded the 5m scrum.

I agree with the concept. Exception: What if the infringement occurs in the FOP but the ball goes into goal (and goes dead or is made dead by the opponents)? Is this scenario not included in the law change? Is that an oversight or by intent?

Who thought up the 5m drop-out? The best result would be the ball rebounding off a player (marking the kick on the 5m) back into goal where it is grounded by the kicker's team and thus getting them a 22 drop-out.

What a pathetic sales job the justifications are:

Justifications
1. To align the restart, after an opposition player infringed in the in-goal, with the other in-goal decisions when play restarts with a 22-metre drop out.
2. The current defending 5-metre scrum decision maintains the pressure on the defending team for an infringement by the opposition in the in-goal. This option will remain for teams with a dominant scrum.
3. The 5 metre Line drop out provides a fair opportunity for the defending team to clear the ball from their goal line area without added pressure unfairly created by the Law.
4. Under current Law the attacking team (which infringed) is given an opportunity to contest an opposition scrum in a very advantageous position on the field with nothing to lose and all to gain from it.
5. The 5 metre Line drop-out presents a restart which brings opportunities for creative play, innovative thinking and entertainment as opposed to a 5-metre defensive scrum restart.
6. The 5 metre Line drop-out will immediately involve all the players and will demand a variety of skills and awareness from both teams.

1.They are not "aligning" the restart to the 22 drop out which is awarded every other time that an attacking puts the ball into the opponents in-goal but fails to ground it for the score. They are inventing a whole new process.

2. Having a "dominant scrum" only means that you are most likely get clean ball. It doesn't relieve the pressure.

3 & 4. The law makers recognize that the current law is unfair but a 5m drop-out doesn't alleviate this.

5 & 6. What a sales job. Exactly what does a 5m drop-out offer over that of a 22m drop-out? Only the risk.

Now look at the restrictions for the opposing team:

13.25 THE OPPOSING TEAM
(a) The opposing team must not charge over the goal line before the ball is kicked.
Sanction: Free Kick at the place of infringement 5 metres from the goal line.
(b) If an opponent is in the in goal and delays or obstructs the goal line drop-out, the player is guilty of misconduct.
Sanction: Penalty Kick at the place of infringement 5 metres from the goal line.

Hello, I thought this was a 5m drop out?

All this crap when a simple law amendment that would award a 22 DO instead of a 5m scrum.

I thought that one of the objectives of the trials was to simplify the Laws. AAAAAAAAAGH!

 

[ChrisR]

There is a belief among some that awarding a 22 drop out to the defenders should the attackers knock-on in/into goal is too great a penalty. That is, the 22 meters gained for just a knock-on is too much. I think that this thinking shortchanges the efforts of the defenders who often have a hand in it.

Take a look at this video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MS97LJWzZo

and see if you think, as I do, that the defender has earned a 22 instead of the 5m.

 

[4eyesbetter]

It sounds to me like someone's looked at the other code and gone "oh look, a goal-line drop-out, that might be an interesting idea", but failed to realise that we award a line drop to reward the attackers, not the defenders. What an odd idea.

 

[didds]

There is a belief among some that awarding a 22 drop out to the defenders should the attackers knock-on in/into goal is too great a penalty. That is, the 22 meters gained for just a knock-on is too much. I think that this thinking shortchanges the efforts of the defenders who often have a hand in it.

Take a look at this video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MS97LJWzZo

and see if you think, as I do, that the defender has earned a 22 instead of the 5m.

... and following the argument used in these situations what would the Nicole Beck's reward have been if she had done this 5m before the goal line? It wouldn't have been a 22m loss in territory.

FWIW I'm not as a gut feeling content with the current viewpoint, although I can;t explain why. But I can't equally fault the logic of the explanation wrt loss in ground etc.

I bet Amy Lee dives to ground EVERY time now.

As Will Carling probably did!

(albeit that IS a 22m drop out!)

didds

 

[crossref]

Carling had a bit of pace! my memories of him in a Quins shirt are clouded by his final, awful, fat, season-too-far.

can't ever get bored of that clip though.

 

[ChrisR]

didds,

my dial-up connect speed won't let me see the clip but I expect that it's this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=03gpzFZadcQ

If Carling had "lost" the ball forward before he gets over the dead ball line he would have "earned" his team a defending 5m. So, by knocking-on he gets a better result. That makes no sense to me.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm also curious as to how many RR members would consider this 'held up' and award an attacking 5m instead of a 22?

This question is not 'trolling'.

This is a great illustration of why 'held up' should only be considered when all other options have ended.

 

[OB..]

If Carling had "lost" the ball forward before he gets over the dead ball line he would have "earned" his team a defending 5m. So, by knocking-on he gets a better result.

That could only happen if the referee judged that the knock-on was accidental.

The more usual case is a knock-on in attempting to gather the ball as it bounces. In that case I think a 22 drop would be wrong.

 

[DocY]

There is a belief among some that awarding a 22 drop out to the defenders should the attackers knock-on in/into goal is too great a penalty.

I've heard this said a few times regarding a knock on in in goal (there's no question about knocking on into in goal being a scrum). I can accept that it's a convention that we don't play advantage in this case, but I really hate the "too much advantage" reasoning.

 

[OB..]

I've heard this said a few times regarding a knock on in in goal (there's no question about knocking on into in goal being a scrum). I can accept that it's a convention that we don't play advantage in this case, but I really hate the "too much advantage" reasoning.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]its purpose is to make play more continuous[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] with fewer stoppages for infringements.[/FONT][/LAWS]Grounding the ball is negative in that it stops play and is thus the antithesis of the ethos of advantage. If a team wants advantage, they have to do something positive.

 

[ChrisR]

Grounding the ball is negative in that it stops play and is thus the antithesis of the ethos of advantage. If a team wants advantage, they have to do something positive.

You could say that about kicking to touch.

If the opponents put the ball into goal then the defenders can ground it to gain the restart at the 22. A gain in ground and a restart.

The exception to this is if the attacking team knock-on in/into goal. There are usually two arguments that I hear in support of this:

1. The knock-on should be treated as it would if in the field of play. Except it's not in the field of play and the laws change in goal. If a player steps on the touch in goal then the defenders get a 22 DO. By the logic above we should award the defenders a line-out at the 5m.

2. A restart at the 22 is too much of an advantage to the defenders. This the "poor attackers, all they did was a little knock-on" viewpoint. My viewpoint is "you took the ball into goal and you ****ed it up." Let's acknowledge that if the attackers knocked on with no help from the defenders then shame on them. If the defenders had a hand in it (see previously posted videos) then surely the defenders have earned the right to the 22 DO.

A simple change in the law (instead of the convoluted 5m DO proposed for the trials) would make a significant difference.

If the attacking team commit a knock on in/into goal and subsequently ground the ball in goal to make it dead then the defending team has a 5m scrum. If the attacking team is unable to ground the ball then either play on or, if the ball is made dead in any other way, a 22 DO is awarded.

This way, if the attacking team knock on but are first to ground the ball then they are denied a try but they maintain pressure on the defenders with a defenders scrum at 5m.

If the attacking side knock on in/into goal and the ball goes touch in goal or over the dead ball line then they have lost the chance to score a try and the defenders get the 22 DO. Similarly, if the attackers knock on but the defenders ground the ball the defenders have denied the attackers the try and get the 22 DO.

A simple law change and a semblance of fairness is restored.

 

[OB..]

A simple law change and a semblance of fairness is restored.

I strongly disagree with that point of view.

In your example of kicking to touch, the team has used a standard rugby technique to give themselves a territorial advantage. It is not something given to them by an over-generous law-maker. If it's a knock-on, the sanction is a scrum. That law does not change in in-goal.

I'm afraid that we are never going to agree on this one.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm afraid that we are never going to agree on this one.

Too true, OB. I think we've been debating this very point for several years!

 

[Dickie E]

If the attacking team commit a knock on in/into goal and subsequently ground the ball in goal to make it dead then the defending team has a 5m scrum. If the attacking team is unable to ground the ball then either play on or, if the ball is made dead in any other way, a 22 DO is awarded.

I like this idea.

It certainly seems incongruous that:

1. attacking team team make a minor mistake and drop ball backwards in opponents' in goal where it is grounded by opponents = drop out
2. attacking team team make a major mistake and drop ball forwards in opponents' in goal where it is grounded by opponents = 5 m scrum

 

[OB..]

I like this idea.

It certainly seems incongruous that:

1. attacking team team make a minor mistake and drop ball backwards in opponents' in goal where it is grounded by opponents = drop out
2. attacking team team make a major mistake and drop ball forwards in opponents' in goal where it is grounded by opponents = 5 m scrum

That is the closest I have seen to a decent argument in favour of the 22 drop out, but I still think it fails.

A knock-on is an infringement with a scrum as the sanction. Losing the ball backwards is just an error and play continues. There is no guarantee that a defender will ground it first, whereas after a knock-on no attacker can save the situation. Chalk and cheese.

 

[didds]

didds,

my dial-up connect speed won't let me see the clip but I expect that it's this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=03gpzFZadcQ

If Carling had "lost" the ball forward before he gets over the dead ball line he would have "earned" his team a defending 5m. So, by knocking-on he gets a better result. That makes no sense to me.

That is indeed the one.

That is the BEST argument against the "loss of territory" argument i've heard - top effort Marauder!

I guess the point is that whatever way the laws "work" an argument can be made to make it look daft. So how do we square that circle?

didds

 

[didds]

I'm also curious as to how many RR members would consider this 'held up' and award an attacking 5m instead of a 22?

This question is not 'trolling'.

This is a great illustration of why 'held up' should only be considered when all other options have ended.

If it had stayed in-goal for some coniderable time I guess so.

didds