Advantage not gained or penalty?

[jboulet4648]

Two scenarios, very similar, however quite different. I am refraining from adding my opinion at first.

From a scrum at the halfway line, Red 9 passes to Red 10 who knocks it on. Red 7 is in front of Red 10, so he is offside, and plays the ball, preventing Blue 7 from playing the ball and playing the advantage. Decision?



From a scrum at the 5 M line, Red 9 passes to Red 10 who knocks it on in In Goal. Red 7 is in front of Red 10, so he is offside, and plays the ball, preventing Blue 7 from playing the ball and playing the advantage. Decision?

 

[Dixie]

OK Judah - I'll bite. I don't see these as different, except as regards severity of consequences due to the proximity of the goal line. Let's take the easy one first.

Situation on the half way line: PK to Blue, as Red 7 is offside and interfering with play by preventing Blue 7 from taking an advantage that should properly have accrued to him. Depending on circumstances, such as available thinking time for Red 7, pace of blue 7, position of FB in the attacking line possibly leaving no-one at home in defence, consider YC.

Situation in-goal: what has changed? The reason for the question, and Judah's implication that the situations are different, seems to depend on whether ior not advantage can legitimately be played in in-goal. Personally, I have no problem with allowing advantage in in-goal, so my thinking would go like this.

PT to Blue, as Red 7 is offside and interfering with play by preventing Blue 7 from taking an advantage (a try) that should have accrued to him. A try would probably have been scored but for Red 7's offside action. Mandatory YC or RC to Red 7, having prevented a try by foul play.

Attempting to get behind Judah's thinking in posting the question, I'm guessing that there may be an argument that the knock-on by red 10 should be pinged immediately, without the referee waiting to see whether an advantage accrues. This is not an argument I accept. If read in isolation, Law 22.15 para 2 "A knock on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place of infringement." might be read as negating the possibility of advantage. However, the first paragraph suggests not: "All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play."

 

[Davet]

Penalty in both cases.

The in-goal scenario may well result in a Penalty Try - might depend on how close opposition were.

By the wording of the question Blue was close enough so that the offside action prevented them from getting advantage - which would probably mean that a PT was justified - but I'd have to see it...

Law 22.15.2 is simply defining the position of any resultant scrum - which would happen if no advantage accrued, nor a penalty.

 

[OB..]

I agree – both cases are penalty offences, and the second sounds like a penalty try. However it may not be a yellow card if the referee thinks the action by 7 was instinctive.

Extract from Ruling 9 of 2004
If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.
Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:

• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.

(I think that should be "reactional" or simply "reaction", rather than "reactionary" – but perhaps that last is an adjective with which they are only too familiar!)

 

[Robert Burns]

Penalty in our game, scrum 100% everytime in games at high level (7+) as referee would just blow the scrum as soon as next red touched it.

11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team mate next plays the
ball, the offside player is liable to penalty if playing the ball
prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.​

Penalty:
Penalty Kick​

 

[beckett50]

I would say that it depends upon the level of the game. However, lets assume (as it was posted by Judah) that its L7 or above.

1st offence - early in the game - blow quickly and award a scrum for the 'accidental off-side and the knock-on' but make it clear that this is the only time such an offence will be considered accidental. The old adage of teach in the 10s and game management. Give time for skippers to warn their players before the scrum takes place.

2nd offence. PK or PT if the actions of Red 7 have prevented a try being scored. Whether or not the latter is the case YC for his troubles as well

 

[Robert Burns]

I doubt you'll get this twice in a game... would be unfortunate.

In 99% of cases player that knocked it on will be playing it first.

game is drawn 25-25, last minute of game this happens, player who played it as OB says did so through instinctive action (play ball until whislte).

You'd be unpopular, unless the player CLEARLY stopped the other team playing the ball (which could then be a number of offences), I'd say equity is quick blow scrum to attack, quiet word with offender/captain. Play on.

Attacking team probably won't even know that they could possibly have had a penalty. and will think themselves lucky at getting a scrum on the 5m line.

 

[OB..]

Robert - I fear your approach will not encourage players to learn that playing a knock-on can give away a penalty. They know that they must not play a ball kicked form behind. They should develop the same instinct for knock-ons.

Equity? Does that not apply to both teams - in particular in the second case where there was a chance to score?

 

[Dixie]

Attacking team probably won't even know that they could possibly have had a penalty. and will think themselves lucky at getting a scrum on the 5m line.

You'd be surprised. This came up when I was reffing a Level 12 mismatch (Old Cranleighans vs Lightwater) early this season, and I took the option of the quick peep, to the benefit of the side getting thrashed. The OC's skipper gently suggested to me after the game that I had been swayed by the score, and that at Level 12 the expectation from both sides in a closer game would have been the penalty.

If that is the case at Level 12, Level 7 should have no doubts.

 

[Robert Burns]

Barnsy once spoke about his first major international (Scotland v Babas) and an incident he spoke about was where scotland knocked on 5m from the babas try line, babas run it (as they always do) and one pass later barnsy calls advantage over (after all it was only a knock on) just after he called it baba knocked it on and Scotland player picks it up and takes it over for a try.

Now, Barnsy has done nothing wrong, the players made the errors, however both teams said aftarwards about that incident (which became the main talking point) that it wasn't equitable as the Babas didn't get enough advantage to move it more out of danger.

I believe in a good tempered game (perfect rugby) that good management could see you with a better result here than gun ho penalty try. Same way we manage other sittuations the same way.

It does 100% rely on how the games is going, your report with the players, they trype of game etc... but I would go with the quick scrum in the scenario above being more equitable for an instinctive mistake, than a penalty try and possible yellow card.

 

[Robert Burns]

We'll all agree though that L12 generally don't want management they want punishment for offences, where as the higher you go the less they want to hear the whistle.

 

[Davet]

The PT would depend on the exact circumstance, but its a clear penalty. It happens regularly enough that a player in front of a knock on plays the ball, they do get penalised - it would only be a scrum if it was close call. By which I mean that the offside player was only marginally in front, that he reacted instantly and may not have seen the knock-on. I have given benefit of doubt, and will do so where its reasonable.

In a situation where the offside player was a yard offside, had seen the knock-on and dived onto the ball to prevent an opponent grounding it then a PT and a YC would be in order at whatever level.

higher you go the less they want to hear the whistle

True, but the higher you go the more the assumption would be that the act was a deliberate one.

 

[SimonSmith]

Let me channel my inner OB.....

Equitability means fairness to both sides. I think I would have serious consideration for a PT.
Whilst I understand that the defender's actions may well be instinctive, you have to say that his actions may have deprived the attack of a score. How fair is that to the attackers? They are entitled to play the ball without illegal acts by the opposition...

I could make an argument that the penalty should be much more seriously considered near goal than, for example, at halfway. That said, you need to apply consistency and management in the situation.

For my money, at the levels I usually referee, penalties both times. The lower level, scrum first one and penalty the second time.

 

[OB..]

I would go with the quick scrum in the scenario above being more equitable for an instinctive mistake, than a penalty try and possible yellow card.

In the extract I quoted from the IRB Ruling, the penalty try is not cancelled for an instinctive offence - just the mandatory card.

I do not see it as equitable for the non-offending side to be deprived of a try. If the ball was knocked on straight into the player's arms, I would find it hard to fault him for catching it, but movement on his part to play the ball a la Davet is inequitable to the attackers.

 

[jboulet4648]

For me, with US players, at the upper level of match, I would penalize the first, and penalize the second with a potential PT if warranted.

Now at our lower university levels where players are just starting playing rugby, the mentality is see ball jump on it, without understanding their actions....I may not be as harsh to penalize at half way, may award a scrum, and in in-goal may award the penalty, but not the PT.

 

[Davet]

OK i understand see a ball, jump on it.

But by not penalising in a case where there is a clear disadvantage to the innocent parties, who are deprived of probable try, are you providing the appropriate lesson?

 

[SimonSmith]

Hah!

Can I just say that I totally called OB's reaction!!

 

[OB..]

That indicates a measure of consistency!

 

[Emmet Murphy]

The PT would depend on the exact circumstance, but its a clear penalty. It happens regularly enough that a player in front of a knock on plays the ball, they do get penalised - it would only be a scrum if it was close call. By which I mean that the offside player was only marginally in front, that he reacted instantly and may not have seen the knock-on. I have given benefit of doubt, and will do so where its reasonable.

In a situation where the offside player was a yard offside, had seen the knock-on and dived onto the ball to prevent an opponent grounding it then a PT and a YC would be in order at whatever level.

This post pretty much sums up my stance perfectly ... in the first scenario I think your decision is scrum or penalty depending on how close the off-side player is to the ball, does he move towards the ball or does the ball move towards him, and your general gut feeling - was it instinctive or was he being negative trying to cheat. In the second scenario you would have to be very very sure it was instinctive not to award a penalty try. If your gut feeling was that the off-side player was trying to cheat and it was not instinctive then YC and PT.

 

[SimonSmith]

Not sure around the "instinctive" piece here and wonder if we're heading into dangeorus waters.

Accidental offside is where the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball. (11.6.a) Award is a scrum.
That isn't what we're describing. If the ball had been knocked forwards into the flnaker, then I agree, it's a scrum. Nonetheless, in falling on the ball he is taking a positive action, albeit an instinctive one.

You penalize instinctive high tackles where someone got wrong footed and just flung out an arm; why wouldn't you penalize here? Remember that if this act of foul play doesn't occur, then the attackers would have scored a try; why would you do them out of the points?