Ball dropped while trying to score

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,379
Post Likes
1,639
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Red v Blue. Red is leading by 1 point and full time siren has sounded. Blue are in attack and 10 metres from Red goal line. Very exciting. Blue player is tackled and illegally prevents a Red jackler from gaining possession. Ref calls "advantage Red" just as jackler secures ball and passes back to Red fullback.

Red fullback says "don't want any more advantage thanks ref" and toe pokes ball into touch.

Penalty to Red or blow full time?
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
This is a bug bear for me. I know it is common practice in NH to tell the ref you don't want any advantage but that, for me, flies in the face of the whole idea of the advantage law. Play on until ref decides advantage is either not forthcoming or is over.
No advantage to Red so go back for the PK. If they want to kick it out to end the game from the PK, fine.
I know there will be many here will disagree, but I'm just applying the Laws.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,637
Post Likes
1,702
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
But Ian, in neither of those cases did the defender ground the ball or make it dead, so there was no advantage to play. So in both those cases scrum 5 is the only option.

OK, so take the identical situation that crossref insists results in a 22DO, and that is, white knocks ball on in-goal blue player looks around, and nothing is on, so he grounds ball expecting 22DO

Now, instead of grounding the ball, he chooses to watch the ball over the DBL.

Are you still going to argue that because he chose to allow the ball over the DBL, that the blue player has played the ball as he choose and award a 22DO

Be careful how you answer; I have set a trap for you!

They did - it's 22.7(a)...

You have forgotten 12.1 (c) it seems

Knowing the Laws aren't perfectly written, I'm happy to accept the expert consensus and historical intent - I had no entrenched view before nor now. But I do reject the assertion by those saying it is taking smart-arsed weasel-word reading of the Laws to find that a 22m DO is supported in the specific case raised by crossref.

If you are coming up with, and using, a unique Law interpretation that is substantively different from the standard practice being used by your peers, then you are

1. nailed-on wrong

2. going to run afoul of your assesor

3. causing problems for your peers... they have to referee those teams next week.

Awarding a 22DO after the ball has been knocked on in-goal is Law error and could even be a red ink entry on your assessment. Continually doing it will affect your advancement.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
No, you cant dismiss the only two that really count simply because they don't support your argument. BOTH the Law examples on the WR Laws site say 5m scrum, so its 33% DO, 66% 5M scrum.... so far. But wait, there's more...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59L_YU0H7Rs

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829969/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njxemyyvLjA

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830586/

NOTE: In the second one, Steve Walsh is the AR on that side. He does not tell Roman Poite it should be a 22DO.

The score is now 80% scrum 5, 20% DO22

Ian NONE of the four videos you have found show the scenario being discussed (attacking knock on INSIDE the in goal, defenders gather ball, adv played, defenders make ball dead)
So citing those videos really is weasel words!
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
They did - it's 22.7(a)...
Trumped by 12.1 (c) which deals with the specific issue of knocking on into in-goal.
I think you (and Ian) mean to be telling me 12.1(d) - it's the knock-on in-goal scenario we are discussing

But sticking with the 12.1(c) scenario for now:
12.1(c) trumps nothing in the context of this discussion because 22.7(b) makes sure the ref gives the scrum 5: there has been the knock-on infringement but play has been allowed to continue (Law 8; if play not continuing 12.1(c) applies immediately) and the ball now grounded in-goal.

If you are of the mind set that no advantage accrued to the defenders you are straight back to 12.1(c) (you don't get to any part of 22.7, so there is nothing to trump); but if you accept advantage has accrued you have to restart the game under 22.7 and 22.7(b) gives you the special case (the ball was knocked-on into in-goal).

I can't think of any other reason for 22.7(b) to exist - can anyone else? It is clear, it is explicit and it ensures (by intention I am sure) the same outcome as 12.1(c).

But there is no similar special case for ensuring the same outcome as 12.1(d).

(BTW, for me this is an educational discussion about the Laws that would back up your decision - it's not about how I referee (or anyone else) - so let me say, I was surprised to find nothing in 22.7 to cover the knock-on in-goal scenario.)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
Ian I'll humour you with one

OK, so take the identical situation that crossref insists results in a 22DO, and that is, white knocks ball on in-goal blue player looks around, and nothing is on, so he grounds ball expecting 22DO
Now, instead of grounding the ball, he chooses to watch the ball over the DBL.
Are you still going to argue that because he chose to allow the ball over the DBL, that the blue player has played the ball as he choose and award a 22DO

no, we did that one above. knock on over the DBL, 5m scrum

Now you owe me one in return

The sanction for a defender's knock on in goal is also a scrum 5m out.

But let's say
- defenders knock on in goal
- ref plays advantage
- attacker picks up the ball, runs 20m and touches the ball down under the posts.

All your logic from above would suggest you can't get an advantage by touching the ball down dead etc etc... so would go back for a scrum...

but in reality, of course, you going to award a try, right?

(and I don't think you are going to argue that a try would be 'too much advantage' from a simple knock on, either)
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,637
Post Likes
1,702
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Ian I'll humour you with one



no, we did that one above. knock on over the DBL, 5m scrum

Now you owe me one in return

The sanction for a defender's knock on in goal is also a scrum 5m out.

But let's say
- defenders knock on in goal
- ref plays advantage
- attacker picks up the ball, runs 20m and touches the ball down under the posts.

All your logic from above would suggest you can't get an advantage by touching the ball down dead etc etc... so would go back for a scrum...

but in reality, of course, you going to award a try, right?

The try is awarded, the play ends because the ball is dead.

I really don't see why you are persisting with this drive to subvert the Laws and challenge accepted practice, Frankly, I think you are just being intentionally obtuse.. only you will know what your motivation is for what you are doing.

If you want to go off and be a loner, refereeing rugby from your own made up interpretations, ones that are at complete odds with the accepted practices of your peers, then that is your look out; you won't advance much as a referee if you persist with it. I feel most sorry for the poor bloody referees who come after you and have to deal with the mess that referees like you leave behind when you put players and coaches wrong about the Laws. Every referee that does what you are doing makes it so much harder for the rest of us.

I suggest you go put your ideas to your Society's Training Officer or Grading Officer and see what they think.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
I would certainly concede that it is a widely accepted practice to give the 5m scrum. I don't think anyone could argue that.

It's one of those situations where the Laws say one thing and yet refs are told to do something else, which gets repeated and repeated without reference to the Laws. When I suggest we go back and look at the Laws, you get very steamed up!

In another thread it was said that some years ago it LSRFUR decided that #8 couldn't pick up at an uncontested scrum, and that advice was handed out and enforced in all London games. I don't know if that's the case, but if so it's a similar sort of thing and had I been reffing in London at the time, even though I knew it was wrong, I would have followed the instructions rather than the Law, for the reasons you say.

In this case, next Saturday I might even give the 5m scrum for the same reasons. Sometimes, sadly, convention trumps Law.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,765
Post Likes
1,186
Red v Blue. Red is leading by 1 point and full time siren has sounded. Blue are in attack and 10 metres from Red goal line. Very exciting. Blue player is tackled and illegally prevents a Red jackler from gaining possession. Ref calls "advantage Red" just as jackler secures ball and passes back to Red fullback.

Red fullback says "don't want any more advantage thanks ref" and toe pokes ball into touch.

Penalty to Red or blow full time?

TBH the PK thing isn;t really an issue. Worst case scenario is FB tow pokes it dead, ref goes back to PK, kicker kicks it dead.

The problem arises with a KO advantage, and red in order to kill the game may inadvertently end up with advantage over. Toe poke dead? Well, that was exercising their right under no pressure to do what they want. Though you'd hope in that circumstance the ref would blow for full time as adv over, ball dead!

didds
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
TBH the PK thing isn;t really an issue. Worst case scenario is FB tow pokes it dead, ref goes back to PK, kicker kicks it dead.

The problem arises with a KO advantage, and red in order to kill the game may inadvertently end up with advantage over. Toe poke dead? Well, that was exercising their right under no pressure to do what they want. Though you'd hope in that circumstance the ref would blow for full time as adv over, ball dead!

didds

it doesn't really bite, that scenario, Didds.

If the ref decides advantage over >> time expired full time whistle
If the ref decides advantage not over, go back to the knock on >> time expired so full time whistle
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,637
Post Likes
1,702
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
crossref.

You maintain that when the referee says "advantage over", that is tantamount to ignoring the offence, such that the offence effectively never happened.

Using this logic, you say that when the attacking player knocks-on and the referee plays advantage, when he says "advantage over" and the defender grounds the ball, the knock-on effectively never happened, so there was no knock-on in goal, so the provisions of Law 22.13 no longer apply, and you justify awarding a 22DO using Law 22.7 (a)?

Do I understand this correctly?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
crossref.
You maintain that when the referee says "advantage over", that is tantamount to ignoring the offence, such that the offence effectively never happened.

Of course.
That's not contentious it happens every game : there is a knock on, and a player from the other team picks up the ball and plays on, at some point the referee may say 'advantage over' and at that point it's as if the knock on never happened... This is totally normal and happens all the time after a knock on. Once the ref says Adv over, we're not going back for the scrum.

crossref.
Using this logic, you say that when the attacking player knocks-on and the referee plays advantage, when he says "advantage over" and the defender grounds the ball, the knock-on effectively never happened, so there was no knock-on in goal, so the provisions of Law 22.13 no longer apply, and you justify awarding a 22DO using Law 22.7 (a)?

Do I understand this correctly?

the attacking player knocks on, INSIDE the in goal and a defender picks up the ball. The referee will call advantage.

If the defender freely kicks the ball 40m upfield the referee will call advantage over. it's as if there was no knock on. If the ball is now in touch we'll have a lineout , if not play on. whatever happens we won't be coming back for the scrum as adv was gained.

If the defender runs upfield, at some point the referee will call adv over, it's as if the knock on never happened. Play on, whatever happens we won't be coming back for the scrum as adv was gained.

If the defender freely kicks the ball over the DBL, what happens
- if the referee calls "adv over", same as above : it's as if there was no knock on, we'll have the 22m.
- if the referee calls "no adv gained", then we'll come back to the knock on for the scrum (Law 22 tells us the location of the scrum)


This question is all about Law 8 - Advantage. Can you gain advantage by making the ball dead? We know you can gain adv by kicking the ball into touch, or by touching down for a try, why not for a 22m DO ? Law 8 prohibits none of those.

[obviously I am assuming the attackers carried the ball into the in goal in the first place]
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
actually, unless something really new comes up, I'm going to give up on the thread now.

I'm (finally!) as bored with it as everyone else must be :)
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,637
Post Likes
1,702
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
OK then

Red 12, an attacking ball carrier, kicks the ball ahead, and as Blue 15 tries to field the ball, he is hammered by an early, no-arms, high tackle by an onside chaser, Red 13.

You call "advantage Blue - dangerous tackle". The ball pops free, Blue 13 scoops the ball up, fires a bullet pass to Blue 14 who runs clear of any opponents. Blue have gained both tactical and territorial advantage, so you call "advantage over" and the Blue player runs the length of the field to score under the poles.

You award the try and call over Red 13. You are going to YC him for the dangerous tackle.... oh, but hang on a moment...You said "advantage over". If you are to maintain consistency with your earlier assertion, then you can't YC him because you have deemed that the original offence for which you played advantage, never happened.

Oops!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
that's silly.
because advantage was played, and gained, we won't be going back for the PK, which is the prescribed sanction for a high tackle. that PK will never happen - but I can still YC him if he deserved it.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,943
Post Likes
1,807
It's one of those situations where the Laws say one thing and yet refs are told to do something else, which gets repeated and repeated without reference to the Laws. When I suggest we go back and look at the Laws, you get very steamed up!
Like everybody else,you condone a scrum half picking up the ball in a ruck. You cannot do that and also argue that some literal interpretation of the law MUST be followed.

I reject your arguments on two grounds:
(1) the history of this bit of law and the whole current approach to the situation are against you;
(2) the laws do not HAVE to be interpreted in the way you propose.

(1) is more important than (2) because the laws are simply not written to withstand forensic examination, but are aimed at being understood by ordinary players.

I remember a children's word game from the first time I went to France:
J'en ai marre (I'm bored)
Marabout (Muslim holy man)
Bout de ficelle (piece of string)
Selle de cheval (saddle on a horse)
....
Naufragé (shipwrecked)
J'ai fini (I've finished - at least I hope so)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,660
Post Likes
2,221
Like everybody else,you condone a scrum half picking up the ball in a ruck. You cannot do that and also argue that some literal interpretation of the law MUST be followed.

I reject your arguments on two grounds:
(1) the history of this bit of law and the whole current approach to the situation are against you;
(2) the laws do not HAVE to be interpreted in the way you propose.

(1) is more important than (2) because the laws are simply not written to withstand forensic examination, but are aimed at being understood by ordinary players.

if we are arriving at a conclusion that the Laws dictate a 22mDO, but at the moment common practice amongst refs is to give a 5m Scrum, then we can shake hands and agree, I'll pack up my tent, declare victory and leave the battlefield.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,943
Post Likes
1,807
if we are arriving at a conclusion that the Laws dictate a 22mDO, but at the moment common practice amongst refs is to give a 5m Scrum, then we can shake hands and agree, I'll pack up my tent, declare victory and leave the battlefield.
My view is that you are using a strained and unnecessary interpretation of the law.
 
Top