[Law] 22 or 5m attacking scrum ?

[didds]

Am I missing something?

I think the only thing you are missing LLP is the scenario in the OP whereby an attacker CARRYING the ball manages to stick a hoof on or over Ti-G or DBL." probably when the ball is bouncing rather than laid on the ground cos for the latter then surely you'd just fall on it from the waist upwards! (as indeed I did manage to do once in my less than illustrious playing career... well aside form the first ever englishman to score a 5 point try but that was a flopper!)

didds

didds

 

[Christy]

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.

hi crouch .
it only matters who took it into in goal
if a DEFENDER touches down in goal . or makes ball dead by kicking out / simillar .

this is why the only exception to a scrum
is if a charge down goes out if kicked in goal only ,,if taken back by defending team .

 

[didds]

this is why the only exception to a scrum
is if a charge down goes out if kicked in goal only ,,if taken back by defending team .

??

If you mean defense take it in-goal, kick and its charged down IN GOAL by an attacker and the ball goes dead, its still a 5m attacking scrum

didds

 

[Christy]

??

If you mean defense take it in-goal, kick and its charged down IN GOAL by an attacker and the ball goes dead, its still a 5m attacking scrum

didds

hi didds
yes you explained it better than me .

some are not reading , the original #1 post correctly .
clearly states , the attacking player him self has made ball dead as his foot went out of play in touch in goal .
whilst trying to score a try .
that is why for me , its a 22 drop out . { for that scenario }

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

hi didds
yes you explained it better than me .

some are not reading , the original #1 post correctly .
clearly states , the attacking player him self has made ball dead as his foot went out of play in touch in goal .
whilst trying to score a try .
that is why for me , its a 22 drop out . { for that scenario }

Christy,
Just wondering. How do you reason that from law 22.11(b). Are you simply saying this law doesnt apply ?

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.

and case of "carrying" being "played", law 22.11(a) states

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

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]22.3
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](a)Try. When an attacking player who is onside is first to ground the ball in the opponents’ in-goal, the player scores a try. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]This applies whether an attacking or a defending player is responsible for the ball being in the in-goal.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](b)[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]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 the dead-ball-line (or anywhere beyond), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.[/FONT][/LAWS]

(a) specifies that if an attacker scores (legally) it does not matter who put the ball into in-goal. I'm sure we all thought that was obvious, but it probably does need stating somewhere.

The point of (b) seems to me to be that if the attacker simultaneously puts himself out of play, he cannot score. Adding the final phrase is unnecessary since the situation is then covered by 22.11 Adding something that conflicts with 22.11 is daft.

If the provision was sensible, I would argue that the specific over-rides the general. But it doesn't make sense.

 

[didds]

hi didds
yes you explained it better than me .

some are not reading , the original #1 post correctly .
clearly states , the attacking player him self has made ball dead as his foot went out of play in touch in goal .
whilst trying to score a try .
that is why for me , its a 22 drop out . { for that scenario }

except its not.

blue put it in-goal. the ball has been made dead. 5m attacking scrum

didds

 

[Rawling]

except its not.

blue put it in-goal. the ball has been made dead. 5m attacking scrum

didds

Well, apart from the quoted law that says it's a 22... however contradictory.

 

[Taff]

... If you mean defense take it in-goal, kick and its charged down IN GOAL by an attacker and the ball goes dead, its still a 5m attacking scrum.

That's exactly what happened in my case; the ball was passed back into in-goal and didn't make it out. Ie it was charged down (and went dead) while in-goal.

 

[Christy]

Ok . Heres my views ,,
In original post , the attacking player whilst grounding ball in goal , has put a foot in touch in goal .
For me still a 22 re start .

But i must be honest same scenario that deffender played ball into in goal , i was also offering a 22 if for example attacker who ripped ball is still on his feet , in side in goal , and lets say he was now grabbed & manouvered by deffending player over dead ball line .
I would of offered a 22 only .

Im being persuaded here by others through law guidance .
That this is also a 5 meter scrum attacking ball .

Although i cant back up 22 in law , it seems not right .
But im prepaired to learn & move on .

 

[Pinky]

Chhristy, 22.3(b) was, if I remember correctly, added as clarification to the question about what happens if there is simultaneous contact with the TIG or DB lines and the ball carrier grounding the ball. (It is clear elsewhere that if not ball carrier then it doesn't matter if the attacker is in TIG or over the DBL he can touch down for a try) For me that was never intended to overcome 22.11 which is clear it is dependent on who played the ball into in-goal that determines the restart. I know you think you have found a loophole, but this is one of the things that has (I feel) escaped the notice of the editors, and I would not recommend that you apply that ruling in a game a the expectation amongst most referees is that the restart will be scrum 5 attacking where it was taken or played into in goal by the defence.

 

[Camquin]

What editors?

 

[cccref]

Law 22.3 (b) is meant to clarify what happens if an attacking player enters the try area and touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line.
They did not write "enters the try area" i know, but if law is not clear, let's all think about "good ref beahviour".
Would you punish an attacking team because the defence brought the ball inside its own try area, lost it, and let the attacking team to pick it up?
After all of that, giving a 22, would be a real poor choice ihmo

 

[Pinky]

Law 22.3 (b) is meant to clarify what happens if an attacking player enters the try area and touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line.
They did not write "enters the try area" i know, but if law is not clear, let's all think about "good ref beahviour".
Would you punish an attacking team because the defence brought the ball inside its own try area, lost it, and let the attacking team to pick it up?
After all of that, giving a 22, would be a real poor choice ihmo

CCCREF, whilst that is true, it also covered the situation where an attacking player was not the ball carrier taking the ball into in-goal but became the ball carrier (perhaps by catching it) and grounded the ball at the same time as contacting the TIG line or DBL. However I still think it does not trump the basic consideration in 22.11 about who took the ball in deciding the restart.

 

[ChrisR]

Unfortunately 22.3(b) is assuming that the ball has been carried into goal by the attacking side. It should simply say "The try is not awarded".

 

[ChuckieB]

All ties in with the confusion that reigns over he laws clarification on the amendment trials for Touch an Lineout, ball moving vs not moving being irrelevant, etc.

No confusion in my mind if you ignore the WR clarification, something in itself I seriously call into question:

"https://youtu.be/Qh2ABCXf1Z8 = New decision - 22m drop out as kicking team took ball into in goal instead of scrum back to where ball originally kicked from"


Crazeeeey!