Ball dropped while trying to score

[Ian_Cook]

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.

Because you would be giving them 22m or more of territorial advantage just for kicking it dead. Its too big of a gain for simply kicking it into TiG for a knock on infringement and is the whole reason why the Law was changed in the first place.


In-goal knock on scenarios

A = Attacking team,
D = defending team
Assuming no advantage played
NOTE: The playing of advantage would only be material if the ball is carried, kicked or taken out of in-goal subsequent to a knock on by the attacking teram

Scenario 1 - Knocked on in the field of play by A. Ball goes directly into in-goal and is made dead by either team
Result - Scrum at the KO mark which can be no closer than 5m to the goal line. D to throw in - 12.1 (c) & 22.7 (b)

Scenario 2 - Knocked on in the field of play by A. Ball goes in-goal after deflecting off a D player and is made dead by either team
Result - D scrum at the KO mark which can be no closer than 5m to the goal line. D to throw in - 12.1 (c) & 22.7 (b)

Scenario 3 - A puts ball into in-goal where D knocks the ball on and ball is made dead by D
Result - 5m scrum on a line through where the ball was knocked on. A to throw in - 12.1 (d)

Scenario 4 - A puts ball into in goal where D knocks the ball on and ball is made dead by A (other than by grounding)
Result - 5m scrum on a line through where the ball was knocked on. A to throw in - - 12.1 (d)

Scenario 5 - A puts ball into in goal where A knocks the ball on and ball is made dead by either team
Result - 5m scrum on a line through where the ball was knocked on. D to throw in - 12.1 (d)



I see no possible outcome from a any scenario where the ball is either knocked forward in in-goal or into in goal, and being made dead by either team (other than Scenario 4 where a try would be scored if the ball was grounded by A) that would result in a 22DO.

Have I missed anything?

 

[crossref]

A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout


You might also like to consider A carrying over the line and losing the ball backwards (no knock on) and D making it dead for a dropout, and explain the reasoning that would lead you to think that A are in a better position when they knock on..

 

[thepercy]

A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout


You might also like to consider A carrying over the line and losing the ball backwards (no knock on) and D making it dead for a dropout, and explain the reasoning that would lead you to think that A are in a better position when they knock on..

For me the difference is there is no advantage when made dead in-goal, but when kicked ahead, advantage (territorial) is gained, then it goes dead.

 

[Dickie E]

I see no possible outcome from a any scenario where the ball is either knocked forward in in-goal or into in goal, and being made dead by either team (other than Scenario 4 where a try would be scored if the ball was grounded by A) that would result in a 22DO.

Have I missed anything?

Scenario 6 - A knock-on just short of D goal line and an onside A player toe pokes ball into in-goal where it is made dead by D. Restart?

 

[OB..]

A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

He had not gained an advantage before the ball went dead, so go back to the infringement.

If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout

He has gained ground.

You might also like to consider A carrying over the line and losing the ball backwards (no knock on) and D making it dead for a dropout

No infringement.

explain the reasoning that would lead you to think that A are in a better position when they knock on..

Why should the outcomes be the same? If an attacker grounds it first he scores a try, whereas if there was a knock-on, he can't. Open play is different situation from an infringement.

If you are arguing for a change in the law, I doubt if you will get anywhere. If you are trying to find a loophole to allow you to award a drop out following a knock-on or throw-forward, I think you have failed.

 

[crossref]

OB I am not finding a loophole, to me the law is clear, but you are trying to force an erroneous reading on it, based on how it was in 1989

 

[The Fat]

Scenario 6 - A knock-on just short of D goal line and an onside A player toe pokes ball into in-goal where it is made dead by D. Restart?

Defending team feed for scrum where KO occurred but not less than 5m from goal line

 

[Chris_j]

The fallacy here is the continued assertion that advantage cannot be gained in in goal by making the ball dead. The current law 8 is clear that advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead, but that is very different to it being gained in the act of making it dead. There is the potential for a clear tactical advantage gained in converting a 5m defending scrum into a 22m drop out when ending a phase of advantage after a knock on by making the ball dead in in goal. That to me is as clear as that there could be a territorial advantage gained by hoofing the ball to touch 50m up field.

If if someone can point out the law which rules out playing advantage with the ball in play after any knock on I would be interested to see it.

The scenarios posted to support a scrum being the only resolution to a knock on which terminates in in goal lead to the perverse outcome that the defenders are worse off if the ball is knocked on by the attackers into or in in goal and made dead by defenders, when compared to the ball being legally played into in goal by the attackers then made dead.

I cannot not think of any element of the laws which mandates that an error automatically benefits the infringing side. To my mind this scenario certainly does not.

 

[Ian_Cook]

A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

No

A take the ball in goal and knock on
D makes it dead
5m scrum, D to throw in

Advantage is utterly irrelevant if the ball ends up being made dead in goal.

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout

Yes, correct because the ball was not made dead in-goal, it was made dead in the field of play

 

[RobLev]

The fallacy here is the continued assertion that advantage cannot be gained in in goal by making the ball dead. The current law 8 is clear that advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead, but that is very different to it being gained in the act of making it dead. There is the potential for a clear tactical advantage gained in converting a 5m defending scrum into a 22m drop out when ending a phase of advantage after a knock on by making the ball dead in in goal. That to me is as clear as that there could be a territorial advantage gained by hoofing the ball to touch 50m up field.

If if someone can point out the law which rules out playing advantage with the ball in play after any knock on I would be interested to see it.

The scenarios posted to support a scrum being the only resolution to a knock on which terminates in in goal lead to the perverse outcome that the defenders are worse off if the ball is knocked on by the attackers into or in in goal and made dead by defenders, when compared to the ball being legally played into in goal by the attackers then made dead.

I cannot not think of any element of the laws which mandates that an error automatically benefits the infringing side. To my mind this scenario certainly does not.

I for one don't understand your argument. Law 22.7(b) says that if the attacking side knocks on into the in-goal, and the defending side makes it dead there, the result is a scrum 5, defending put in. How can application of the advantage rule contradict the clear Law?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Scenario 6 - A knock-on just short of D goal line and an onside A player toe pokes ball into in-goal where it is made dead by D. Restart?

If D knocked it on, scrum no closer than 5m from goal-line, line in line with knock on. A to throw in

If A knocked it on 5m scrum line in line with knock on. D to throw in

 

[Dickie E]

If A knocked it on 5m scrum line in line with knock on. D to throw in

That's interesting. So what you are saying is if A knock-on and ball finds its way into in goal the only restart outcome that can happen is a scrum.

OK.
Sceanrio 7(a).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in FoP and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

Sceanrio 7(b).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in in-goal and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

PS: "advantage over after the kick" is not an option. Kicker was under pressure and makes a poor kick

 

[The Fat]

That's interesting. So what you are saying is if A knock-on and ball finds its way into in goal the only restart outcome that can happen is a scrum.

OK.
Sceanrio 7(a).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in FoP and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

Sceanrio 7(b).
Attacking team knock into in goal and defender picks up ball. Defender attempts to kick ball clear but it is charged down by an attacker who is in in-goal and ball travels over dead ball line. Restart?

PS: "advantage over after the kick" is not an option. Kicker was under pressure and makes a poor kick[/QUOTE

In both cases we simply go back for the original KO and set a scrum on the 5m line

 

[crossref]

I for one don't understand your argument. Law 22.7(b) says that if the attacking side knocks on into the in-goal, and the defending side makes it dead there, the result is a scrum 5, defending put in. How can application of the advantage rule contradict the clear Law?

Roblev, the argument is what happens after a knock on INSIDE the in goal (not INTO) keep up!

 

[crossref]

No

A take the ball in goal and knock on
D makes it dead
5m scrum, D to throw in

Advantage is utterly irrelevant if the ball ends up being made dead in goal.

Ian - the bit in bold is the crucial part of your argument : what's your Law reference for that?

here's the advantage Law, it makes no reference to in goal, I don't think there is any support for your assertion
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=8

 

[The Fat]

I refer back to my post where I provided 4 or 5 law references that make it absolutely clear what WR say is the result of such incidents. The defending team have the option of picking up the ball and running/passing/kicking. If no advantage is gained (which is what IS required under the advantage law), we simply come back to the first infringement i.e. the knock-on, and form a scrum. Simple, isn't it?

 

[crossref]

I refer back to my post where I provided 4 or 5 law references that make it absolutely clear what WR say is the result of such incidents.

Post 44 ? You don't address the application of the advantage Law in that
For knock on INSIDE the in goal it's the Advantage Law that's crucial here, you haven't addressed it with references

The defending team have the option of picking up the ball and running/passing/kicking.

yes - and lets say they kick

If no advantage is gained (which is what IS required under the advantage law), we simply come back to the first infringement i.e. the knock-on, and form a scrum. Simple, isn't it?

absolutely simple,
so - if the defending team believe a lineout is better than a 5m scrum they kick it out, advantage gained. lineout
if f the defending team believe a dropout is better than a 5m scrum they kick it out, advantage gained. drop out

If not - same as Ian what's your Law reference?

 

[didds]

A carry the ball into in goal, swallow dive and lose the ball forwards, D picks up the ball
Ref : "knock on advantage, D"

D assesses the situation and kicks the ball over DBL.
Ref Advantage over, DO

If you have a different decision, also consider
D assesses the situation and kicks the ball, finding touch 40m upfield

Ref Advantage over, lineout

what if the ball only clears into touch 1m in the FoP? Is that "advantage"

didds

 

[crossref]

that's a completely different general question about kicks taken when advantage is being played, and whether it's the action of kicking that means 'adv over' or the outcome of the kick that achieves the adv over.
Its a great topic, but needs a thread of its own, and doesn't derserve to be buried at the bottom of this thread that (I imagine) many people are no longer reading!

 

[The Fat]

what if the ball only clears into touch 1m in the FoP? Is that "advantage"

didds

Ball goes into touch 1m from goal line = no advantage gained. What is better for the defending team as the result of the kick? A 5m LO with the attacking team to throw in or a 5m scrum with their feed? I would certainly hope the ref would not call advantage over until he could see where the ball was going to land.

Crossref,
I have read all of the exchanges between yourself and OB. I am firmly in OB's court so not much to be gained by me re-posting much of what he has already said.

I have previously had this conversation with those in higher places within NSWRU and the ARU and my interpretation of the laws is consistent with what they are telling me.