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.
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.
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...
Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829969/
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
I think you (and Ian) mean to be telling me 12.1(d) - it's the knock-on in-goal scenario we are discussing
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
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?
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!
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?
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.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.
My view is that you are using a strained and unnecessary interpretation of the law.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.