[Law] 22 or 5m attacking scrum ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

Just doing my weekly revision of the law book and came across this oddity.
Never seen this happen but I wonder how many refs would get the right decision here ?

Red attacking blue's goal line. Blue 9 passes back to his 10 ( who is standing in-goal). 10 is obviously going to attempt a clearance kick. He's too slow and red attackers ( who are onside ) charge him. Blue 10 side-steps the first red attacker and then is contacted by the 2nd red attacker. The red attacker rips the ball from the 10's arms and then dives towards the ground to score a try. Unfortunately for him, at the exact same time he grounds the ball, his left foot touches the touch-in-goal white line.

So, no try awarded. Touch in goal. Taken over by blue. How do you restart ?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

5m attacking scrum.

And for viewers in Switzerland what if his right foot touches the TiG line?:swiss:

 

[didds]

Just doing my weekly revision of the law book and came across this oddity.
Never seen this happen but I wonder how many refs would get the right decision here ?

Red attacking blue's goal line. Blue 9 passes back to his 10 ( who is standing in-goal). 10 is obviously going to attempt a clearance kick. He's too slow and red attackers ( who are onside ) charge him. Blue 10 side-steps the first red attacker and then is contacted by the 2nd red attacker. The red attacker rips the ball from the 10's arms and then dives towards the ground to score a try. Unfortunately for him, at the exact same time he grounds the ball, his left foot touches the touch-in-goal white line.

So, no try awarded. Touch in goal. Taken over by blue. How do you restart ?

red scrum 5m out. easy. Its all about who took it in, not who took it out.

didds

 

[DocY]

From the title I had a horrible feeling this would be another "attacking team knock on while in goal" question!

But in this case it's quite clear: scrum 5 attacking ball - and I have seen it happen!

 

[Taff]

Attacking 5m scrum.

I've had something similar happen. Red passed the ball back from a 5m scrum to a No 10 standing deep in-goal. By the time he got round to kicking the ball, the opposition Flanker was nearly on him and managed to charge the kick down (still in-goal) and the ball ricocheted off him over the DBL.

I gave an attacking 5m scrum - taken in by Blue and made dead - by who is irrelevant. Defending coach gets the right hump, as he thought it should have been a 22m DO.

 

[didds]

Defending coach gets the right hump, as he thought it should have been a 22m DO.

Cue Mandy Rice-Davies.

didds

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

I set a trap. All wrong so far.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Let me highlight the key point.
The attacking player had gained possession of the ball.
He grounded the ball in-goal and simultaneously contacted the touch-in-goal line.
Does that give a clue ?

 

[ianh5979]

I set a trap. All wrong so far.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Let me highlight the key point.
The attacking player had gained possession of the ball.
He grounded the ball in-goal and simultaneously contacted the touch-in-goal line.
Does that give a clue ?

I think you are wrong, everything depends on who put the ball in goal area which was the defenders even if the attacker gained the ball

 

[Christy]

Just doing my weekly revision of the law book and came across this oddity.
Never seen this happen but I wonder how many refs would get the right decision here ?

Red attacking blue's goal line. Blue 9 passes back to his 10 ( who is standing in-goal). 10 is obviously going to attempt a clearance kick. He's too slow and red attackers ( who are onside ) charge him. Blue 10 side-steps the first red attacker and then is contacted by the 2nd red attacker. The red attacker rips the ball from the 10's arms and then dives towards the ground to score a try. Unfortunately for him, at the exact same time he grounds the ball, his left foot touches the touch-in-goal white line.

So, no try awarded. Touch in goal. Taken over by blue. How do you restart ?

22 drop out .
if blue would of made dead or touched down in goal .. then it would be scrum red ball.
if charge down would of been successful ..then it would be scrum red ball.

it doesnt matter who took ball into in goal ,,if ball is made dead by red , as its them who made ball dead .

these are my understanding of law

 

[didds]

As a friend that's a referee uses to remind himself....



Defender
In
Dead
Scrum.

a.k.a. "DIDS"

Fame at last.

Did(d)s.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

OK. I have to admit, that in a game, I would have gone for a 5m scrum.
However, I'm deliberately contriving a situation to satisfy the oddity that I spotted in law 22.3(b). ( Sorry ! )
Which I will now quote :
When an attacking player who has possession of the ball, grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously contacts the touch-in goal line or dead-ball-line ( or anywhere beyond ), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.

I was surprised too that there was no mention of "who took it into in-goal".

 

[DocY]

I set a trap. All wrong so far.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Let me highlight the key point.
The attacking player had gained possession of the ball.
He grounded the ball in-goal and simultaneously contacted the touch-in-goal line.
Does that give a clue ?

Are you suggesting it should be a try?

If he'd gained possession before touching down/touching TiG then no, it's still a scrum 5. Possession is irrelevant.

If he'd not been in possession and touched the ball down while in TiG then (assuming no other infringement) it would be a try.

 

[DocY]

OK. I have to admit, that in a game, I would have gone for a 5m scrum.
However, I'm deliberately contriving a situation to satisfy the oddity that I spotted in law 22.3(b). ( Sorry ! )
Which I will now quote :
When an attacking player who has possession of the ball, grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously contacts the touch-in goal line or dead-ball-line ( or anywhere beyond ), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.

I was surprised too that there was no mention of "who took it into in-goal".

I see what' you're saying, but I think this is a(nother) case of the law book being wrong - as per the backs having to be 5m from the back foot of a 5m scrum. It's a situation not properly thought through when they were being written.

 

[Christy]

Attacking 5m scrum.

I've had something similar happen. Red passed the ball back from a 5m scrum to a No 10 standing deep in-goal. By the time he got round to kicking the ball, the opposition Flanker was nearly on him and managed to charge the kick down (still in-goal) and the ball ricocheted off him over the DBL.

I gave an attacking 5m scrum - taken in by Blue and made dead - by who is irrelevant. Defending coach gets the right hump, as he thought it should have been a 22m DO.

hi taff .
for me your scenario is different from crouch engage post .
and for me your scenario is covered in law also
of which you did restart game correctly .

however .
if an attacking player makes ball dead in goal { except by charge down }
it makes no difference who took it in goal .
an attacking player has made ball dead in goal .. = 22 drop out .

 

[didds]

however .
if an attacking player makes ball dead in goal { except by charge down }
it makes no difference who took it in goal .
an attacking player has made ball dead in goal .. = 22 drop out .

nope. totally disagree.

Its all about who took it in, not who made it dead.

WADR to you all, if you guys can't get this simplest of things right, how can you ever complain about players and coaches who get far more esoteric parts of law confused?


didds

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Christy,

My (new) interpretation of law 22.3(b) makes me think the correct answer to my OP is 22 m D.O.
However I dont follow your reasoning at all. Normally it DOES matter who took the ball into the in-goal.
That's why I thought I;d post this little oddity as it confounds intuition.

 

[DocY]

hi taff .
for me your scenario is different from crouch engage post .
and for me your scenario is covered in law also
of which you did restart game correctly .

however .
if an attacking player makes ball dead in goal { except by charge down }
it makes no difference who took it in goal .
an attacking player has made ball dead in goal .. = 22 drop out .

See 22.11:
[LAWS]
(a)
When the ball touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was played into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.12
(b)
When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.12
(c)
When a player scores a try or makes a touch down, the ball becomes dead.[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

I'm with Docy.

didds

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Actually. 22.11(b) seems to contradict almost exactly 22.3(b).
i.e. it would indicate that it DOES indeed depend upon who "played" or "carried" the ball into in-goal.
Oh dear. I'm confusing everyone including myself now.

So either a 5m scrum or a 22 do is supported by the laws.
Does the law book ever get proof-read before publication ?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

however .
if an attacking player makes ball dead in goal { except by charge down }
it makes no difference who took it in goal .
an attacking player has made ball dead in goal .. = 22 drop out .

Are you sure? How or why would an attacking player make the ball dead in goal?

Assuming blue defender(s) took it in-goal here's a few hows:-

Red charge down = 5m scrum red.

Red knock on and it goes dead = 5m scrum blue (I think)

Red kick it or it hits red and goes dead or TiG = 5m scrum red.

Other than those it seems easier to just score a try!:biggrin:

It does matter who put it in goal - just when I thought I knew what I was on about.

Am I missing something?