[In-goal] 22 drop?

[bellnier]

Attacking White kicks ball and it bounces deep into the try zone. Black player elects to play the ball, panics, and kicks the ball forward. Charging White player, while in the try zone, contacts the ball with his hands and ball goes touch-in-goal. White originally put the ball into the try zone and the ball has been made dead, so is the result a drop-out to Black? Or does kicking the ball negate that (resulting in perhaps a 5m scrum to Black)?

 

[L'irlandais]

Depends. I think we need some more info.
Did the attacking player knock the ball on? Did it subsequently bounce in the in-goal area?
Did the ball simply go directly into touch in-goal from the contact?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

White originally put the ball into the try zone and the ball has been made dead, so is the result a drop-out to Black?

This is the bit that matters.

 

[Pegleg]

White put the ball into in-goal. The Kick from Black does not change anything. I'd go for the drop out 22. The opening post leads me to consider it not to be a knock on (if it was then it's a scrum 5 defenders [Black] ball).

One picky point. Avoid terms like "Try Zone" it's not a proper term and potentialy misleading.

 

[bellnier]

White put the ball into in-goal. The Kick from Black does not change anything.

Thanks so much. This answers it. The discussion was whether the kick by black negated white originally putting the ball in goal.

 

[Dickie E]

Did it subsequently bounce in the in-goal area?
Did the ball simply go directly into touch in-goal from the contact?

Why do you ask these 2 questions?

 

[FlipFlop]

There are only 2 options here.

22m drop out OR if White knocked on (rather than charged down) after the kick then it is a 5m scrum to Black.

 

[Taff]

Thanks so much. This answers it. The discussion was whether the kick by black negated white originally putting the ball in goal.

I would say no it doesn't negate anything, but does the ball go forward from white?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I would say no it doesn't negate anything, but does the ball go forward from white?

Would it matter? The inference in the original scenario is that White was charging down the attempted clearance kick, so there would be no case for a knock-on.

 

[Pegleg]

Good point!

 

[L'irlandais]

Why do you ask these 2 questions?

Dickie you of all people.
I was stalling for time, until some reinforcements got here. Also I think the OP is a little light on details, perhaps.

No that's not it. I think it's to do with first offense, if White knock-on in-goal, then it's scrum 5. Right?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Dickie you of all people.
I was stalling for time, until some reinforcements got here. Also I think the OP is a little light on details, perhaps.

No that's not it. I think it's to do with first offense, if White knock-on in-goal, then it's scrum 5. Right?

But a charge-down can't be a knock on, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Pegleg]

Dickie you of all people.
I was stalling for time, until some reinforcements got here. Also I think the OP is a little light on details, perhaps.

No that's not it. I think it's to do with first offense, if White knock-on in-goal, then it's scrum 5. Right?

Dikie's point still stands!

You asked three questions:

Did the attacking player knock the ball on? Well that is indeed valid. However as I and another sugguest the implication is that is is charge down. But YES it it was a knoch on rather than a charge down then the outcome changes.

Dickie wanted to know the relevance of the following to questions that you asked:-

Did it subsequently bounce in the in-goal area?

Did the ball simply go directly into touch in-goal from the contact?

He and I struggle to see the relevance of those two question.

 

[bellnier]

I apologize. It was indeed a charge down. No knock.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I apologize. It was indeed a charge down. No knock.

No apology necessary.

As I indicated in an earlier response, I had taken it from your wording that it was a charge down. As such the question of a knock-on doesn't enter the equation, so all that matters is which team was responsible for the ball being put into the in-goal area, regardless of which team then makes the ball dead.

If the attacking team was responsible for the ball going into the in-goal area prior to being made dead, then it would be a 22m drop out.

If the defending team was responsible for the ball going into the in-goal area prior to being made dead then it would be a 5m scrum with the attacking team putting the ball in.

 

[L'irlandais]

But a charge-down can't be a knock on, so it doesn't matter.

fair enough. (I was brought up not to assume.). My line of questioning was attempting to see if it was knocked on.
I agree now the OP has confirmed, with a charge down it's not an issue.
[laws]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/laws]Dickie if the ball had been knocked on, then touching the ground in the in-goal = knock on. going direct into touch in-goal would not have been a knock on.

 

[The Fat]

fair enough. (I was brought up not to assume.). My line of questioning was attempting to see if it was knocked on.
I agree now the OP has confirmed, with a charge down it's not an issue.
[laws]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/laws]Dickie if the ball had been knocked on, then touching the ground in the in-goal = knock on. going direct into touch in-goal would not have been a knock on.

Hhhhmmm......
So just to get this clear.
Let's say red 13 kicks ahead and is in a foot race with blue defender as the ball bounces into the in-goal area. The ball pops up and red 13 gets hands to it a metre or 2 before the DBL. As red 13 attempts to gather the ball he fumbles it and it goes forward and over the DBL.

Are you saying
(a) If red 13 touches the ball and it touches the ground in in-goal before crossing the DBL it is a knock-on?

and

(b) If red 13 touches the ball and it does not touch the ground in in-goal before crossing the DBL then it is NOT a knock-on?

 

[Dickie E]

(b) If red 13 touches the ball and it does not touch the ground in in-goal before crossing the DBL then it is NOT a knock-on?

I can smell a million post thread coming up

So player knocks the ball on the full over the DBL and it lands in a bucket. No knock on because it didn't hit the ground or another player??? So ref has to wait to see who takes the ball out of the bucket to determine if knock on?

Hey, what if player knocks the ball forward, it hits the post and bounces back into his hands. Knock-on?

I love this shit!

 

[Pegleg]

...Dickie if the ball had been knocked on, then touching the ground in the in-goal = knock on. going direct into touch in-goal would not have been a knock on.

Can you provide the law to support that argument?

 

[leaguerefaus]

That may be one of the more crazy law interpretations I've ever seen, L'irlandais. It's still a knock on, plain and simple.