I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)
I don't think we are - discussing more hypotheticals isn't helping
What would help me is understanding Ian's logic below (post #140)
I don't understand how the ref can accept advantage has been gained but then go back to the original infringement.
And to be clear again with my understanding (happy to have it improved!) if it was knocked-on into in-goal, I agree it is a scrum restart but not because of Law 12 (which covers the original infringement) but because of Law 22.7(b) i.e. we are not restarting from an infringement, we are restarting from a touch down (which is what 22.7 covers).
The fact that 22.7 (Restarting from a touch-down) has a special case for if the ball went into in-goal from a knock-on in the FoP, but no special case for a knock-on in-goal is a very significant and (it seems to me) intentional difference.
I think there is no way of getting to 22.7(b) without having played advantage after the original infringement; so that tells me advantage can be gained in this scenario (attacking knock-on into in-goal) by the defender grounding the ball. I therefore think we can call advantage gained in the scenario of defender grounding after attacking knock-on in-goal.
22.7. B applies to knock on Into the in goal. For a knock on INSIDE, take that away, and.....
You mean this one?
[LAWS]22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(b) If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into
the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on
or throw forward happened[/LAWS]
Well, its a tough question you have posed there Treadmore, but I think I would use it when "an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there".
By "made dead" I mean that the ball was grounded by either side or legally put into TiG or over the DBL. I would then order a scrum at the place of infringement, no closer than 5m to the goal line.
I might play advantage but, as in the scenarios governed by 12.1 (c) and (d) and 22.13, if the attackers knocked the ball on, the defenders can pass it around all they like; there is no way on God's green earth I am ever going to call advantage over until the defending team at least play the ball out of the in-goal!
Geez... that wasn't so difficult after all.
You are so rude, Ian. If you answered the question more straightforwardly you might grasp Treadmore point.
What decision would you give if that Law wasn't there?
If I have understood your strained explanation to a simple question you do not have a scenario leading to 22.7(b)?
Simply quoting the law back doesn't answer my question - nor help educate anyone - a simple decision tree covering the events that lead you to 22.7(b) with a law reference for each decision is all that is required: that would be educational for me.
Thank you. I note you have judged no advantage (8.2). As I understand it that means take play back to to 12.1(c); it is not a choice of that or 22.7. Have I understood correctly?IanRef: In my judgement, there has not been sufficient advantage (Law 8.2) so we go to the original infringement Law. 22.7 (b) or 12.1 (c), I don't care which... order a scrum 5m in line with the place of infringement
Thank you. I note you have judged no advantage (8.2). As I understand it that means take play back to to 12.1(c); it is not a choice of that or 22.7. Have I understood correctly?
Only in as much as the scrum is the outcome. But to get to 22.7(b) you are restarting play from the grounding; if you apply 8.2 you are not.
It can only ever be a scrum one way or another.