[In-goal] Advantage from knock on into in goal

[crossref]

Sigh from me as well ...

Yes, of course the sanction from a KO is a scrum. But if advantage is gained we play on and the scrum never happens

 

[The Fat]

Sigh from me as well ...

Yes, of course the sanction from a KO is a scrum. But if advantage is gained we play on and the scrum never happens

Now you're getting the hang of it

 

[crossref]

So let's try a scenario applying that principle

Red carry the ball into the blue in goal, and lose possession. Blue gather and
a) kick for touch
b) kick for TIG

Restart ?

 

[ChrisR]

TF, by your logic (no advantage after ball is dead) then no advantage could be claimed following a kick to touch. But this angle on the debate doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Consider this real event:

A couple of years ago in a women's 7s match an Irish player made a long run into the Oz goal. Not realizing that she was being chased by an Oz player she slowed down and strolled toward the DB line. The Oz player makes a terrific tackle from behind and drives the Irish player over the DBL. The impact of the tackle jars the ball loose for a knock-on. A 5m scrum, Oz feed, is ordered. If the Irish player had not lost the ball forward a 22DO would result.

Here is a similar but hypothetical scenario: Red attacking player carries the ball into Blue goal, turns to center the ball and is tackled by Blue. Red loses possession and Blue ground the ball. If the ball is deemed to have gone forward from Red a Blue 5m would be ordered, If the ball is deemed to have gone backwards then Blue get the 22DO.

In both cases the offending team benefits (gets a better result) from offending (that is by knocking-on). This is consistent but is it fair?

The complete removal of the direct references to knock-on in/into goal in the 2018 Laws allows us to bring some sense and consistency to the issue. We simply need to rule as follows:

If the attacking team knock-on or throws forward in or into the opponent’s goal then the following restarts should be ordered:

If the attacking side ground the ball then a defending 5m (or at the place of the knock-on) scrum is ordered.
Reason: No advantage could be gained, prevented by the actions of the attacking side.

If the defending side makes the ball dead, or it goes dead*, or the attacking side make it dead other than by
grounding in goal then a 22 drop-out is ordered. As required by Law 12.11 .

If the defending side knock-on then a defending 5m scrum is ordered. Reason: Return to first knock-on.

If the ball is held up by either side then a defending 5m scrum is ordered. Ball made dead by referee’s whistle.

Then we have consistency in Law, then you have a basis for consistency between referees, societies and unions.

 

[thepercy]

So let's try a scenario applying that principle

Red carry the ball into the blue in goal, and lose possession. Blue gather and
a) kick for touch
b) kick for TIG

Restart ?

The restart depends on if an advantage has been gained or not. For a scrum advantage we look for either a territorial or tactical gain. In a kicking situation, tactical gain is dependent on whether they were free to play as they wished or were they under pressure from their opponents.

 

[The Fat]

The complete removal of the direct references to knock-on in/into goal in the 2018 Laws allows us to bring some sense and consistency to the issue. We simply need to rule as follows:

If the attacking team knock-on or throws forward in or into the opponent’s goal then the following restarts should be ordered:



If the defending side knock-on then a defending 5m scrum is ordered. Reason: Return to first knock-on.

.

So now you're happy to have the attacking team knock-on in-goal, have the ball made dead there (ref's whistle as no advantage gained by defending team) and go back for the 5m scrum?

We've been round this bush so many times now I can't believe I'm still getting into a debate over it. The last comment I will make is that I don't understand how you guys can accept all of the other LoTG but cannot bring yourselves to accept that a knock-on is a knock-on. Sanction: Scrum
Been a pleasure gents

 

[crossref]

Yes, In both scenarios it's a kick , let's assume it was freely kicked and not fluffed or miskicked

 

[Marc Wakeham]

No conspiracy, I think the changes in this area were accidental and as I said in the post above , in the scenario outlined in post #1 , I would pragmatically follow the 2017 Laws and give a scrum

So you admit there are no intended changes.


Logically, any "accedintal" ones can also be ignored (since they were not intended to be there!) and we are in the realms of intepret the 2018 in the contest that the laws have not changed! And since there are no changes referee exactly as you did on December 31st.

 

[crossref]

No, as I have often said some of the differences are clearly deliberate, others clearly accidental ... and for some it's hard to tell.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Let’s compare

A:
Knock on by red into Blue in-goal
1: Blue make the ball dead by touching down Result Scrum 5 out in line with the knock on (let’s ignore the “5 out from touch” and stuff we are looking at the principle here.
2: Blue Player kicks to touch 20 metres from his team’s goal line. Line out 20 metre from Blues goal line Red throw in. Advantage over.
3; Blue Run the ball out and make 15 Meters where the is a ruck and Blue recycle play on advantage over

B:
Knock on by red into Blue NOT into in goal
1: Blue make the ball dead by “deliberate Knock on” Result Scrum 5 at the place of infringement NO ADVANTAGE played
2: Blue Player kicks to touch 20 metres from the “mark”. Line out 20 metre from the” mark” Red throw in. Advantage over.
3; Blue Run the ball out and make 15 Meters where the is a ruck and Blue recycle play on advantage over

A1 & B1 are the same as are A2 & B2 and A3 & B3

Consistent!

Do we play advantage After a Kick to touch? As ChrisR suggests? No we do not! In the above scenarios BBlues advantage is the gain in ground fro ma kick. The fact that the ball goes int otouch is secondary. Infact Blue returns possession to red! The ball going dead following gain of ground if evidence of the advatagre gained BEFORE the ball went dead not after it!


IF ChrisR is talking about the QTI , the is a acceptable "restart" not playing advantage. A different animal.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

No, as I have often said some of the differences are clearly deliberate, others clearly accidental ... and for some it's hard to tell.

In that case are you saying WR lied when they said there are no law changes in the 2018 book?

 

[ChrisR]

Let’s compare

A:
Knock on by red into Blue in-goal
1: Blue make the ball dead by touching down Result Scrum 5 out in line with the knock on (let’s ignore the “5 out from touch” and stuff we are looking at the principle here.
2: Blue Player kicks to touch 20 metres from his team’s goal line. Line out 20 metre from Blues goal line Red throw in. Advantage over.
3; Blue Run the ball out and make 15 Meters where the is a ruck and Blue recycle play on advantage over

B:
Knock on by red into Blue NOT into in goal
1: Blue make the ball dead by “deliberate Knock on” Result Scrum 5 at the place of infringement NO ADVANTAGE played
2: Blue Player kicks to touch 20 metres from the “mark”. Line out 20 metre from the” mark” Red throw in. Advantage over.
3; Blue Run the ball out and make 15 Meters where the is a ruck and Blue recycle play on advantage over

A1 & B1 are the same as are A2 & B2 and A3 & B3

Consistent!

Do we play advantage After a Kick to touch? As ChrisR suggests? No we do not! In the above scenarios BBlues advantage is the gain in ground fro ma kick. The fact that the ball goes int otouch is secondary. Infact Blue returns possession to red! The ball going dead following gain of ground if evidence of the advatagre gained BEFORE the ball went dead not after it!


IF ChrisR is talking about the QTI , the is a acceptable "restart" not playing advantage. A different animal.

Mark, I'm not sure if you're getting my meaning of that first statement in post #44. How ver, that wasn't the gist of the post anyway.

The gist is that although a KO is a KO is a KO the restart (or not) should be dependent on what happens next. It's all in post #44.

 

[crossref]

In that case are you saying WR lied when they said there are no law changes in the 2018 book?

Of course not , that statement was made as part of a press release, by people who didn't really think it
through .. and far too much importance has subsequntly been attached to it.

Another example of the same carelessness is in the announcement that all the GLT were adopted in full .. but when you look closely that wasn't quite correct either , the one man ruck was changed into a tackle with offside lines.

Back to the 2018 Law book I think it's a shame that a lot of the very good work done by the authors has gone unnoticed .. or even been outright rejected .. by people following the notion that nothing changed. The same notion has slowed up the discovery and correction of some accidental errors

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Right Kriss, Let's go back to the basics.

Knock on by red

Blue dlclines the change to play advantage by killing the ball (deliberatly throwing the ball to the ground / knocking on WHATEVER) we go back the the sanction for the offence.
If the knock on happend on the ½ way line that is what you would expect. So why not when the knock on is into in-goal? So let's look at the kick to touch. Such a kick pay produce an advantage A chasing player (teammate of the kicker) regathers and scores or a gain in ground is adjudged. So advantage is gained and now over. That is not the same as minoring the ball. The kick to touch MIGHT result in an advantage the minoring is a guaranteed outcome. so the two are not treated the same.

I used to agree with you but I see why the 22 meters given (with no effort needed to earn it) is considered too much.

The "no change" re-write of the book does not change that.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

TF, by your logic (no advantage after ball is dead) then no advantage could be claimed following a kick to touch. But this angle on the debate doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Consider this real event:

A couple of years ago in a women's 7s match an Irish player made a long run into the Oz goal. Not realizing that she was being chased by an Oz player she slowed down and strolled toward the DB line. The Oz player makes a terrific tackle from behind and drives the Irish player over the DBL. The impact of the tackle jars the ball loose for a knock-on. A 5m scrum, Oz feed, is ordered. If the Irish player had not lost the ball forward a 22DO would result.

Here is a similar but hypothetical scenario: Red attacking player carries the ball into Blue goal, turns to center the ball and is tackled by Blue. Red loses possession and Blue ground the ball. If the ball is deemed to have gone forward from Red a Blue 5m would be ordered, If the ball is deemed to have gone backwards then Blue get the 22DO.

In both cases the offending team benefits (gets a better result) from offending (that is by knocking-on). This is consistent but is it fair?

Maybr. But life is not fair

The complete removal of the direct references to knock-on in/into goal in the 2018 Laws allows us to bring some sense and consistency to the issue....

But the law has not changed (WR 's word) so "sense" is not relevent.

If the attacking team knock-on or throws forward in or into the opponent’s goal then the following restarts should be ordered:

If the attacking side ground the ball then a defending 5m (or at the place of the knock-on) scrum is ordered.
Reason: No advantage could be gained, prevented by the actions of the attacking side.

If the defending side makes the ball dead, or it goes dead*, or the attacking side make it dead other than by
grounding in goal then a 22 drop-out is ordered. As required by Law 12.11 .

If the defending side knock-on then a defending 5m scrum is ordered. Reason: Return to first knock-on.

If the ball is held up by either side then a defending 5m scrum is ordered. Ball made dead by referee’s whistle.

Then we have consistency in Law, then you have a basis for consistency between referees, societies and unions.

What "should happen" is neither here nor there. If you think that, then argue for a change in law. What "must" happen is we must apply the law as directed whether or not we agree it is fair.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Of course not , that statement was made as part of a press release, by people who didn't really think it
through .. and far too much importance has subsequntly been attached to it.

Another example of the same carelessness is in the announcement that all the GLT were adopted in full .. but when you look closely that wasn't quite correct either , the one man ruck was changed into a tackle with offside lines.

Back to the 2018 Law book I think it's a shame that a lot of the very good work done by the authors has gone unnoticed .. or even been outright rejected .. by people following the notion that nothing changed. The same notion has slowed up the discovery and correction of some accidental errors

I'd say the opposite. You have looked at the "differences" and "far too much importance has subsequntly been attached to them". I also think that by diverting attention from the errors in the new book, YOU and any others like you are the ones slowing up the discovery and correction of those errors.

By the way it was not one press release but throughout the process WR have stressed the same point "NO LAW CHANGES".

 

[thepercy]

Yes, In both scenarios it's a kick , let's assume it was freely kicked and not fluffed or miskicked

In the unlikely and rare scenario where advantage is gained while still in-goal, or the defense is under no pressure and still in-goal, and they still want to kick the ball dead, or touch down, instead of keeping possession then I think you can be justified in awarding a 22DO. I don't think many players would choose this option though, making it even more unlikely and rare.

The kick for touch is much easier, because the territorial gain realizes the advantage before the ball becomes dead.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'd say the opposite. You have looked at the "differences" and "far too much importance has subsequntly been attached to them". I also think that by diverting attention from the errors in the new book, YOU and any others like you are the ones slowing up the discovery and correction of those errors.

By the way it was not one press release but throughout the process WR have stressed the same point "NO LAW CHANGES".

Not dialed all the way to where you are.

WR have said no changes. OK.
The document they released has contradictions and lacunae.
Crossref has done a great job of highlighting them.

I think these are issues that have to be cleared up. If they want a law book to have precedence, they have to tell us which one trumps the other, and then clear up the gaps.

That, they have signally failed to do.

Christ. That's twice in two weeks I've ridden to the side of Crossref!

 

[Dickie E]

Christ. That's twice in two weeks I've ridden to the side of Crossref!

can I have Courbet?

 

[crossref]

In the unlikely and rare scenario where advantage is gained while still in-goal, or the defense is under no pressure and still in-goal, and they still want to kick the ball dead, or touch down, instead of keeping possession then I think you can be justified in awarding a 22DO. I don't think many players would choose this option though, making it even more unlikely and rare.

Gosh, I seem to have persuaded someone!

I feel like Andy Dufresne when he got his first load of books .. from now on I will post on the subject every day ! :wink: