[In-goal] Another ball going into in-goal question

[DocY]

Bit of a different twist and more of a "why the decision?" than "what's the decision?"

I happened to catch a bit of the Brive Racing game on Saturday and a particular incident caught my eye:

There's a maul (I didn't see who took it in) near Brive's goal line, the ball squirts out into in-goal and a Brive player minors it.

The referee awards a drop out.

Why?

I have a couple of ideas - 1. just a law error, or 2. he couldn't tell who it came off - neither is terribly satisfying.

 

[crossref]

perhaps he felt the maul went over the goal line before the ball popped out

 

[DocY]

perhaps he felt the maul went over the goal line before the ball popped out

No, it was definitely in the FoP - round about the 5m line. And it definitely wasn't kicked.

 

[Phil E]

That decision makes no sense. It smacks of let's get away from the goal line and relieve the pressure on me.

If it came off a defender then its a 5m attacking scrum.
If it came of an attacker it must have been forward so its a 5m defending scrum.
If there was doubt over grounding it would be a scrum.
anyway you look at it, its a scrum.

The only scenario I can think of where it would be a 22 dropout from that situation would be if an attacker kicked it into in goal?
Did the ball make it to ground in the maul and then get kicked through?

 

[Rich_NL]

Could it have come forward off a Racing player's foot, body or head?

 

[DocY]

That decision makes no sense. It smacks of let's get away from the goal line and relieve the pressure on me.

The only scenario I can think of where it would be a 22 dropout from that situation would be if an attacker kicked it into in goal?
Did the ball make it to ground in the maul and then get kicked through?

I suspect you're right - the only question should have been whose put in to the scrum

No chance it was kicked. Came out of the top of the top part of the maul where everyone was on their feet.

 

[DocY]

Could it have come forward off a Racing player's foot, body or head?

Could have been a head, I guess. Though I didn't see such. To me, it looked like a Brive player ripping it, though it was the other side of the pub so my view wasn't great.

 

[Christy]

That decision makes no sense. It smacks of let's get away from the goal line and relieve the pressure on me.

If it came off a defender then its a 5m attacking scrum.
If it came of an attacker it must have been forward so its a 5m defending scrum.
If there was doubt over grounding it would be a scrum.
anyway you look at it, its a scrum.

The only scenario I can think of where it would be a 22 dropout from that situation would be if an attacker kicked it into in goal?
Did the ball make it to ground in the maul and then get kicked through?

Hi phil.
How about if attacking team had ball in hand,
Theyve knocked ball on & its gone in in goal ,,,,& deffending team touch down.
As docy was drinking top shelf & doing a round of pole dancing , he has advised his view of tv in pub was difficult ,,maybe he couldnt here ref say ..
Advantage to deffending team ,,and if this is the case & they decided to touch down .
Would it be wrong for ref to of offered 22 or scrum , defending ball.

 

[OB..]

Hi phil.
How about if attacking team had ball in hand,
Theyve knocked ball on & its gone in in goal ,,,,& deffending team touch down.
As docy was drinking top shelf & doing a round of pole dancing , he has advised his view of tv in pub was difficult ,,maybe he couldnt here ref say ..
Advantage to deffending team ,,and if this is the case & they decided to touch down .
Would it be wrong for ref to of offered 22 or scrum , defending ball.

There has been a long thread on this. At one time it would have been a drop out, but the law was deliberately changed so that the result is a 5m scrum, defending throw-in.

Various people wanted to get round this and award the 22. I for one was not convinced.

 

[crossref]

OB The long thread was about a knock on INSIDE the in goal.
A knock on INTO the in goal is covered explicitly by the Laws and leads to a 5m scrum, there is no room for discussion about that

 

[The Fat]

OB The long thread was about a knock on INSIDE the in goal.
A knock on INTO the in goal is covered explicitly by the Laws and leads to a 5m scrum, there is no room for discussion about that

Both scenarios, i.e. A knock-on IN-GOAL and a knock-on INTO IN-GOAL, are explicitly covered by the Laws

 

[crossref]

Both scenarios, i.e. A knock-on IN-GOAL and a knock-on INTO IN-GOAL, are explicitly covered by the Laws

To be more precise, the scenario is a knock on that is made dead.

The scenario of a knock on INTO the in goal, which is made dead, is 12.1.c

The scenario of a knock on INSIDE the in goal which is made dead is NOT explicitly covered.
Our long thread was about the advantage law, if advantage was played from the knock on, and when/how is advantage over. (for instance is advantage over when they kick it)

 

[DocY]

Thanks for the suggestions - as nobody's come out and given an explanation I'll just put this down to cock up!

 

[The Fat]

To be more precise, the scenario is a knock on that is made dead.

The scenario of a knock on INTO the in goal, which is made dead, is 12.1.c

The scenario of a knock on INSIDE the in goal which is made dead is NOT explicitly covered.
Our long thread was about the advantage law, if advantage was played from the knock on, and when/how is advantage over. (for instance is advantage over when they kick it)

You know that statement is simply not true ( and yes, I have read the long thread you referred to).

There are 5 references in the LoTG to knock-ons where the ball either ends up in in-goal or is in the in-goal area when it is knocked on, 12.1(d), 22.7(b), 22.13, 22.14 and 22.16.

There are not many other scenarios that have 5 Law references to make it clear what happens following a particular infringement. A knock-on either into in-goal or within the in-goal area is comprehensively covered even if some people still believe a 22 DO would be a more fair restart to the defending team.

22.16 sums it up quite clearly,

All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.
A knock-on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place of infringement.

 

[The Fat]

Thanks for the suggestions - as nobody's come out and given an explanation I'll just put this down to cock up!

Phil E's explanation gives the only really likely possible reason for a 22 DO restart.
If, as you say, the ball came out of the top of the maul the only possible explanation is that the ball was knocked/passed back by a defender and it hit an attacker (but not his hand or arm) on its way into the in-goal where it was made dead by a defender.

If it wasn't either Phil E's or my suggestion, then it must have been a brain fart by the referee.

 

[Taff]

.. The referee awards a drop out. Why?
I have a couple of ideas
1. just a law error.

If it wasn't either Phil E's or my suggestion, then it must have been a brain fart by the referee.

I'd go with that one. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

22.16 sums it up quite clearly,

All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.
A knock-on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place of infringement.

.. Unless advantage is played from the knock on, and then if advantage is duly accrued the scrum never happens and we play on.
I am sure you agree with that, right

 

[The Fat]

.. Unless advantage is played from the knock on, and then if advantage is duly accrued the scrum never happens and we play on.
I am sure you agree with that, right

Absolutely

 

[Phil E]

.. Unless advantage is played from the knock on, and then if advantage is duly accrued the scrum never happens and we play on.
I am sure you agree with that, right

:deadhorse:

 

[crossref]

.. Unless advantage is played from the knock on, and then if advantage is duly accrued the scrum never happens and we play on.
I am sure you agree with that, right

Absolutely

So
red knock on INSIDE the in-goal,
blue gather the ball
you call 'advantage'
blue (freely and cleanly) kick the ball

for a knock on advantage, a freely taken kick normally means advantage is over, right?
- so you call 'adv over' and we play on

correct?