Ball dropped while trying to score

[OB..]

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

I thought I already did.

(d) still says the consequence of a knock-on in in-gioal is a scrum. The question is whether the defenders can get the advantage of a drop out by grounding the ball. That action makes the ball dead. No advantage has been gained before the ball is made dead and law 8 says advantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

If they chose to pick it up and kick to touch, of course you can play advantage - they may prefer to give the opposition the throw in further up field rather than have the throw-in at a 5m scrum.

In the last case the ball is not dead until it goes into touch.

 

[L'irlandais]

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

No what I have quoted is the part of his post which refers to what actually happened when "the ball was dropped while trying to score."

 

[OB..]

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'm one of the older guys, as I was playing rugby when the changes were made.

When I looked back at them I was surprised to find that the IRB made a real mess of it, and the overall changes dribbled in over several years. At one time you could get a drop out if a knock-on went into in-goal but not if a throw-forward did. Similarly you could get a drop out if you knocked on in in-goal, but not if you knocked on into in-goal.

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).

The current approach is belt and braces. Are you trying by some convoluted logic to argue that this approach means a drop out must be a valid option under some conditions?

Something are covered twice in separate laws - 15.5 (g) and 22.4 (e) (and may even conflict - see 19.6 and 6.B 5 (d) Exception 1).

 

[The Fat]

12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward

(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.

(d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.



22.13 Attacking infringement with scrum sanction

If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, play is restarted with a 5-metre scrum. The scrum is formed in line with the place of the infringement and the defending team throws in the ball.


22.14 Defending infringement with scrum sanction

If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, play is restarted with a 5-metre scrum. The scrum is formed in line with the place of the infringement and the attacking team throws in the ball.


22.16 Infringements in in-goal

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.


Very few laws are as black & white as this.

 

[crossref]

12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward

(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.

(d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.



22.13 Attacking infringement with scrum sanction

If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, play is restarted with a 5-metre scrum. The scrum is formed in line with the place of the infringement and the defending team throws in the ball.


22.14 Defending infringement with scrum sanction

If a defending player infringes in in-goal, for which the sanction is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, play is restarted with a 5-metre scrum. The scrum is formed in line with the place of the infringement and the attacking team throws in the ball.


22.16 Infringements in in-goal

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.


Very few laws are as black & white as this.

I agree!

BUT
- can you play advantage after a knock on ? Yes in ALL cases.
- so, if you play advantage, and advantage accrues, no scrum will take place.

So for the knock on INSIDE the in goal, by the attackers, the question is whether advantage can be gained by making the ball dead for a DO. and it seems to me no reason why not.

 

[crossref]

I thought I already did.
In the last case the ball is not dead until it goes into touch.

so by this reasoning - if they kick it dead over the DBL, or TIG, it's not dead until goes over, so when they do it's 22m DO - right?

 

[Dickie E]

Blue knock on in Red in-goal. Red pick up ball and ref calls "advantage Red". Red pass it wide a couple of times - still in-goal. Ref calls "advantage over". Red dot it down. Restart?

 

[Dickie E]

Very few laws are as black & white as this.

[LAWS](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.

(d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.
[/LAWS]

The difference is the bit in red. The inference for (d) is that if it is not made dead then it is a scrum. But what if it is made dead? This law is silent on that scenario. So need to look for another law for direction.

 

[crossref]

Blue knock on in Red in-goal. Red pick up ball and ref calls "advantage Red". Red pass it wide a couple of times - still in-goal. Ref calls "advantage over". Red dot it down. Restart?

you need to know : who took the ball into the in goal ?

If blue did - drop out
If red did - 5m scrum blue (and the ref will feel rather silly at calling adv over... and may even have to back track, and go back to the knock on)

 

[Ian_Cook]

When I looked back at them I was surprised to find that the IRB made a real mess of it.

Really OB? You were surprised?

 

[The Fat]

[LAWS](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.

(d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.
[/LAWS]

The difference is the bit in red. The inference for (d) is that if it is not made dead then it is a scrum. But what if it is made dead? This law is silent on that scenario. So need to look for another law for direction.

Enter Law 22

 

[DocY]

The current approach is belt and braces. Are you trying by some convoluted logic to argue that this approach means a drop out must be a valid option under some conditions?

Something are covered twice in separate laws - 15.5 (g) and 22.4 (e) (and may even conflict - see 19.6 and 6.B 5 (d) Exception 1).

I don't think it's terribly convoluted logic - the wording of the two laws is different, which suggests to me that the application may be different.
To me, belt and braces would be if (d) stated "... knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal and the ball is made dead there...", but it doesn't.
It may be the intention that the result should be the same (and I can believe that it is, particularly having been appraised of the historical changes), in which case the law is poorly written.

 

[crossref]

for me the whole intention of the Law is to address the situation of the attacking side accidentally putting the ball into the in-goal (by a knock on) and stating that this doesn't end up with a 22m DO (the defenders don't merit so much luck)

if the attackers carry the ball over into the in goal -- then business as normal, ball eventually goes dead it's a 22m.

 

[DocY]

Enter Law 22

Right. Where you have 22.7 (a) saying it's a DO if the attacking team sent or carried the ball into in-goal and 22.7 (b) dealing with the knock-on into in-goal (and not applying in the case in question).

Law 8 does need to be considered though and it seems to me that that's the one muddying the waters.

 

[didds]

Blue knock on in Red in-goal. Red pick up ball and ref calls "advantage Red". Red pass it wide a couple of times - still in-goal. Ref calls "advantage over". Red dot it down. Restart?

why would the ref call advantage over if the ball is still in-goal being passed? what tactical or territorial advantage has been gained? e.g. A 4 man overlap is not a tactical advantage until actually used - the promise of its use is insufficient.

I suppose if its a 25m deep in goal and the handling move started just inside the DBL and the ball has almost reached the try line there could be territorial advantage but its use is still pretty limited!



didds

 

[OB..]

if the attackers carry the ball over into the in goal -- then business as normal, ball eventually goes dead it's a 22m.

It depends why it goes dead. If that is caused by the attackers, then it is a dropout. If the defenders choose to make it dead from a knock-on, they have chosen not to seek to play advantage, so the outcome is a 5m defending scrum. If the ball was kicked into the in-goal by an attacker and the ball is made dead "without delay", then the outcome is NOT a 5m scrum, but the options as prescribed by law. The aim in that case is to deter attackers from benefitting too much by kicking dead.

 

[crossref]

If the defenders choose to make it dead from a knock-on, they have chosen not to seek to play advantage, so the outcome is a 5m defending scrum.

OK, I'll drop it now - but this is the nub of where I disagree with you :

You allow them them kick it dead into touch, to get the advantage of territory, but you don't allow them to kick it dead into TIG to get the advantage of a dropout. I don't see any basis for that in the current Law.

 

[OB..]

OK, I'll drop it now - but this is the nub of where I disagree with you :

You allow them them kick it dead into touch, to get the advantage of territory, but you don't allow them to kick it dead into TIG to get the advantage of a dropout. I don't see any basis for that in the current Law.

They gained no advantage before the ball went dead. Once it was dead, advantage could not apply.

Another way of putting it is that the advantage you would like them to have is one that would be given to them only by your preferred version of the law, but not by any positive rugby action, such as kicking to gain ground, or picking up and running.

The fact that the law once did award a drop out, and was deliberately changed is surely evidence enough of what the law makers want.

 

[ChrisR]

They gained no advantage before the ball went dead. Once it was dead, advantage could not apply.

No, they did not gain an advantage before the ball went dead. They had the opportunity to gain an advantage. The advantage is realized by making it dead if 22.7 (a) is applied and a 22DO is awarded.

Another way of putting it is that the advantage you would like them to have is one that would be given to them only by your preferred version of the law, but not by any positive rugby action, such as kicking to gain ground, or picking up and running.

OB, you are falling into the trap of judging the legal actions of players by your vision of how the game should be played.
How would you judge this: Red kick the ball into Blue's goal. Blue get there first and ground the ball. Is that 'negative play'? Would you deny them the 22DO? How is that different from Red knocking on in/into goal and Blue grounding it?

The fact that the law once did award a drop out, and was deliberately changed is surely evidence enough of what the law makers want.

Then they should have thought it through before the three martinis and not let the 12 yrs old ESL student write it up. You have applied the chronological introduction of the laws to arrive at your preferred interpretation. You will also claim that specificity overrides generality. I could agree with you on the latter if the knock-on was written as an exception, but it is not and it is written in a more general form without regard to how the ball is made dead.

 

[OB..]

They gained no advantage before the ball went dead. Once it was dead, advantage could not apply.

No, they did not gain an advantage before the ball went dead. They had the opportunity to gain an advantage. The advantage is realized by making it dead if 22.7 (a) is applied and a 22DO is awarded.

You are arguing that 22.7 (a) trumps other laws. However they are specific to a knock-on or throw-forward, so they trump 22.7 (a).

Another way of putting it is that the advantage you would like them to have is one that would be given to them only by your preferred version of the law, but not by any positive rugby action, such as kicking to gain ground, or picking up and running.

OB, you are falling into the trap of judging the legal actions of players by your vision of how the game should be played.

I am following the law in that advantage is supposed to "make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements." Grounding the ball stops play.

How would you judge this: Red kick the ball into Blue's goal. Blue get there first and ground the ball. Is that 'negative play'? Would you deny them the 22DO? How is that different from Red knocking on in/into goal and Blue grounding it?

The situations are covered by different parts of the laws. Knock-on into in-goal is an unintentional act. Kick into in-goal is a deliberate act (even though it may be misjudged).
The law on kicking the ball into in-goal was introduced to discourage that tactic. The law on the outcome of a knock-on was deliberately changed from awarding a drop out.

The fact that the law once did award a drop out, and was deliberately changed is surely evidence enough of what the law makers want.

You have applied the chronological introduction of the laws to arrive at your preferred interpretation.

They made a series of changes all aimed at ensuring that a knock-on is treated as an infringement with a scrum sanction instead of a drop out. Somehow you think they wanted to leave the door open for a drop out. You have no chance of convincing me of that.

You will also claim that specificity overrides generality.

It would be nonsense to have it the other way round.

I could agree with you on the latter if the knock-on was written as an exception, but it is not and it is written in a more general form without regard to how the ball is made dead.

22.7 (a) is generic. How do you justify ignoring 22.7 (b)? By arguing that it does not count because it is not phrased as an exception? It counts because it is part of the law, and the only sensible way of making both paragraphs mean something is to recognise that it is in practice an exception even if not specifically written as such..