Ball dropped while trying to score

[crossref]

I think this makes it unequivocally clear that the aim was to change the law from awarding a drop-out to awarding a scrum. I don't see that there has been a significant change in the law since then.

but OB these both refer to knock-ons in the field of play, that go into the in-goal and are touched down.
That's definitely a scrum, I agree.
That's coverered by today's (c)

c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. 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.

but where the knock on takes place in goal, the Law is worded differently (d) and in that instance I see no reason why defenders shouldn't touch down for a DO

 

[OB..]

To me, the situation being described here sound more like they're referring to knock-ons into in goal, rather than knock-ons in goal.
I remember players waiting for a knocked-on ball to travel into in-goal then claiming the DO and that is what this was trying to stop (though it was a long time ago and my memory is a bit hazy).

It covered both, which is why I quoted both the knock-on law and the In-goal law.

 

[crossref]

It covered both, which is why I quoted both the knock-on law and the In-goal law.

No, your quotes from 1978 and 1981 all cover the scenario of the ball being knocked on INTO the in goal

1978
14 (3) Except where a try or goal is scored, if an attacking player kicks, carries, passes or knocks the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.

17 Note (3) If an attacking player knocks-on in the field of play and the ball travels into in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded by a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.


1981
14 (3) Except where the ball is knocked on or thrown forward or if an attacking player kicks, carries or passes the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line a drop out shall be awarded.

17 Note (iii) if an attacking player kicks, carries, passes or knocks the ball and it travels into his opponents' in-goal either directly or after having touched a defender who does not wilfully attempt to stop, catch, or kick it, and it is there grounded buy a player of either team, or goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, a scrummage should be awarded at the place of the knock-on or throw-forward.

 

[beckett50]

OBs earlier post crossref

 

[didds]

The point is - 12.1 c) and d) are clearly and explicitly different. When it's knocked from the field of play into the in-goal, the scrum is from the point of the infringement, not the 5m line.

except presumably when the knockon occured < 5m from the line in which case it is a 5m scrum surely?

didds

 

[OB..]

Sorry - I forgot to include the 1989 update:
[Laws]14 (3) Except where the ball is knocked on or thrown-forward in the field of play or in in-goal [...][/Laws]

 

[crossref]

well, let's have the whole 1989 Law then - what does it say ?

 

[OB..]

well, let's have the whole 1989 Law then - what does it say ?

It says the same as the previous version ie but for the exceptions the result would be a drop out. However the exceptions are therefore dealt with as a knock-on or throw-forward. Scrummage.

(I can't be bothered to type out the whole thing.)

 

[Chris_j]

My view is that current law is clear and unambiguous for a change!

12.1 a) through d) all provide the single option of a scrum from an accidental knock on. Nothing in the current law 8 prevents advantage being played from any knock on that does not go directly into touch or touch in goal (dead).

Advantage can be accrued by the act of making the ball dead, rather than after it. A defender recovering the ball in in-goal and touching it down is actively realising that advantage in the same way as if they recovered a knock on in the fop and immediately made it dead by a clearing kick to touch.

Similarly if an in goal defender was to kick or run a knock on into touch in goal it could be advantage gained.

12.1 c) and d) tell us what happens if no advantage accrues, such as when the knock on goes directly touch in goal.

The referee is then the sole judge as to advantage gained.

Why are we looking at words long removed from the laws to reinterpret what is very clearly expressed in the current law?

 

[crossref]

not quite - (c) (knocked INTO goal) is a special case : it tells you that when the ball is knock INTO goal, and touched down, you actually go back for the scrum. We all agree that's clear.

 

[OB..]

My view is that current law is clear and unambiguous for a change!

12.1 a) through d) all provide the single option of a scrum from an accidental knock on. Nothing in the current law 8 prevents advantage being played from any knock on that does not go directly into touch or touch in goal (dead).

Advantage can be accrued by the act of making the ball dead, rather than after it. A defender recovering the ball in in-goal and touching it down is actively realising that advantage in the same way as if they recovered a knock on in the fop and immediately made it dead by a clearing kick to touch.

Similarly if an in goal defender was to kick or run a knock on into touch in goal it could be advantage gained.

12.1 c) and d) tell us what happens if no advantage accrues, such as when the knock on goes directly touch in goal.

The referee is then the sole judge as to advantage gained.

Why are we looking at words long removed from the laws to reinterpret what is very clearly expressed in the current law?

I entirely agree, but some people think the current law is unfair and would like to return to the previous version. They believe they can do so using the advantage law. The historical perspective makes it clear that the current law was a deliberate change, and it was not just a case of the law makers overlooking a (possible?) use of the advantage law.

People are of course entitled to a different view on fairness, but referees must all take the same line on this even if they disagree with it.

 

[Chris_j]

not quite - (c) (knocked INTO goal) is a special case : it tells you that when the ball is knock INTO goal, and touched down, you actually go back for the scrum. We all agree that's clear.

No more special than a knock on from a line out, and we play advantage from that. I don't read any of 12.1a,b,c or d as being special in that regard. They all say "a scrum IS awarded" yet we all know that does not preclude advantage.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't read that as a disqualification - the ball's not been made dead at the time advantage is being played. Making it dead is an act that follows the advantage being given. No? Or does this law really mean that a ball cannot be made dead while advantage is being played?



It doesn't require a scrum in goal, although it may require some scrummagers in-goal. The point is - 12.1 c) and d) are clearly and explicitly different. When it's knocked from the field of play into the in-goal, the scrum is from the point of the infringement, not the 5m line.

But a scrum cannot be set within 5m of the goal line...

[LAWS]20.1 FORMING A SCRUM
(b) If this is less than 5 metres from a touchline, the place for the scrum is 5 metres from that
touchline. A scrum can take place only in the field of play. The middle line of a scrum must
not be within 5 metres of the goal line when it is formed.[/LAWS]


...so if the ball is knocked on less than 5m from the goal-line and goes into in-goal, the resulting scrum is going to be a 5m scrum whether the ball is grounded or not.

 

[Pegleg]

I'm not convinced that I like the law but that's my tough! I can't officiate based on what I like or do not like in the law.

It's clear, to me, that WR feels that a 22 is, if you like, "too much" of an advantage. So I have to man up and accept that and get on with refereeing the laws.

I guess one comparrison is this.

A PK is awarded and the SH trying to gain an advantage runs using advantage. We allow this, coming back for the PK if no advantage accrues.

A PK is awarded and the SH drops the ball so that the ref does not play advantage to, perrish the thought, win an extra 10m and / or a card) takes a quick tap. We do not allow this. You must take a "formal" / "proper" PK.

Move this to the KO into or in goal. You can try to take the advantage by playing on, again knowing that you can come back fir the scrum if no such advantage accrues. OR you take the "formal" scrum instead.

So the law makers are not preventing you playing advantage but by tappi9ng down advantage is not an option.

So, we are then back th the sanction. In both the cases we are discussing the sanction is a Scrum. So that is where we return.

 

[Rich_NL]

Thanks for clearing that up, guys. Every day's a school day

 

[crossref]

I am not convinced by OB..'s argument.

We have two scenarios (some posts above seem to think there is only one)

1 - ball is knocked in INTO to the in-goal, you play a moment of advantage and the defenders make the ball dead
2 - ball is knocked on INSIDE the in-goal, you play a moment of advantage and the defenders make the ball dead

the Law deals with these scenarios separately, (c) and (d), and the two Laws are worded differently, and the outcomes are different

1 - is completely covered by (c), it's a 5m scrum. the Law makers consider that knocking on into the in-goal is not the same as deliberately taking the ball into the in goal, so a 22 DO is not merited.

2 - is covered by (d), it would depend who had taken the ball in goal. I'd contend that

• if the defenders took the ball in goal then we are looking at an attacking 5m scrum, so no advantage gained we'll go back to the knock on, and scrum to defenders

• 
  if the attackers took the ball into the in goal then advantage gained - 22m drop out

If you say that they can't gain advatage by making it dead for a DO, you'd have to explain how they can gain advantage by kicking it dead upfield for a lineout

 

[L'irlandais]

Quick one this...

If attacker realises and tries to jump on it after he's dropped it, then knock-on and scrum 5 to defenders?

Nobody does anything though - so then it's a knock on, and scrum 5 with defenders put-in...?


Happened the other day. Everyone stopped and looked at the ball, then me. They all thought "oh, that's it, he's dropped it, it's a restart ..." And I gave a 22DO. But I guess I could've shouted 'still in play..?' And waited for someone to do something with it?

in the original post, Steve70 was looking for a quick reply to Attacking player knocks on in goal, nobody touches down the ball. What should the referee do?

The question was resolved. For me personally that RRF members start nit picking over the poorly written LOTG is not helpful to the discussion. Ifs and buts... It was not a defender who dropped the ball over the goal line, and if one had it would not have been a knock-on, since the ball has not gone toward the opponent's DBL. Surely, end of!

 

[crossref]

in the original post, Steve70 was looking for a quick reply to Attacking player knocks on in goal, nobody touches down the ball. What should the referee do?

The question was resolved. For me personally that RRF members start nit picking over the poorly written LOTG is not helpful to the discussion. Ifs and buts... It was not a defender who dropped the ball over the goal line, and if one had it would not have been a knock-on, since the ball has not gone toward the opponent's DBL. Surely, end of!

in your quote , you have disingenuously removed the other three scenarios Steve70 brought up in the original post!

Steve70 also asked

If defenders make it dead, it's a 22 DO.

If defenders pick it up and try and play on, then advantage to them...?

If attacker realises and tries to jump on it after he's dropped it, then knock-on and scrum 5 to defenders?

It's the first one on that list that has led to the discussion.

 

[DocY]

OB's historical perspective might explain the divide when this came up in a society meeting last year - there was a split in age with older guys saying a scrum and younger saying a DO was an option.

I still agree with crossref though (based on current laws) - if the two situations should be treated in the same way I don't see why there'd be two separate laws and if you could never get a DO as advantage for making the ball dead there'd be no need for (c).

 

[crossref]

if you could never get a DO as advantage for making the ball dead there'd be no need for (c).

indeed. a good point