Ball dropped while trying to score

[crossref]

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.

OB's argument is different from Ian's.

OB argues that knock-on INSIDE the in-goal must be treated the same as knock-on INTO the in goal, because he believes that is the intention of the Law-writers, evidenced by how the Law was 1987

Ian accepts that knock-on INSIDE the in goal is treated in Law differently from knock-on INTO the in-goal, but attempts to uses the advantage law to arrive at the same result anyway (amusingly : if he is right then it would make the Law on INTO - which is OB starting point - actually redundant)


I am not sure which camp you are in as you haven't really said.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

No, I'm saying is if A knock-on and ball finds its way into in goal, and the ball is made dead there, the only restart outcome that can happen is a scrum. That is unambiguous in Law

[LAWS]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[/LAWS]

OK.
Scenario7(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?

Scrum at the mark where A knocked the ball on, but no closer to the goal-line that 5m. D to throw in

Scenario 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?

5m scrum on a line opposite the place where the ball was knocked on in-goal. D to throw on

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

Advantage is never realistically going to accrue unless D has gained a tactical or territorial advantage.

A kick from in-goal after the ball has been knocked on is merely an opportunity to gain advantage

[LAWS]8.2 WHEN ADVANTAGE DOES NOT ARISE
The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough.
If the non-offending team does not gain an advantage, the referee blows the whistle and
brings play back to the place of infringement.[/LAWS]

I would never call advantage over in such a situation until or unless I see that the kick has clearly gone downfield some distance...rule of thumb IMO

► at least to the 22m if it went into touch
► somewhere near the 10m line if it stays in the FoP

 

[DocY]

And the OP started the thread with the words "Quick one"

It is curious that, as crossref has pointed out, the attacking team are in a better position having infringed than not infringed.

It's also curious that ending advantage would (unambiguously) advantage the defending team - I'm sure there's no other situation where this would apply!

I'm still struggling to see, in law, why the act of making the ball dead wouldn't be considered advantageous* (I think everyone accepts that it would be an advantage**). I accept that it is not the intention of the advantage law and that the lawmakers might have intended that a scrum be the outcome, but I don't see that it's prescribed by the current laws.

It would all be so much more simple if 12.1 (d) included the words "and is made dead there", but where would be the fun in that!

*referring to law 8
**as used in common parlance

 

[crossref]

It would all be so much more simple if 12.1 (d) included the words "and is made dead there", but where would be the fun in that!

IF that's what the Law-makers wanted to achieve.
My view is that
knock-on INTO goal - the Law Makers deliberately wanted to make a special case (and did so, clearly)
knock-on INSIDE the in-goal - Law Makers intended to be just covered by the general advantage Law of Advantage.

 

[DocY]

IF that's what the Law-makers wanted to achieve.

Indeed.

I'd be interested to know how anyone would change the laws to clarify the situation if this is not what the law makers wanted to achieve.

 

[DocY]

knock-on INSIDE the in-goal - Law Makers intended to be just covered by the general advantage Law of Advantage.

With this in mind, would you see these two situations differently:

a) attacking player puts the ball into in-goal, knocks-on, then makes it dead himself (over DB/TIG line or touching down)
b) as above, but a defender deliberately makes the ball dead?

 

[crossref]

With this in mind, would you see these two situations differently:

a) attacking player puts the ball into in-goal, then makes it dead himself (over DB/TIG line or touching down)
b) as above, but a defender deliberately makes the ball dead?

not sure what you mean - is there a knock on involved?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't get why people are finding this scenario of an attacking player knocking the ball forward into in-goal so difficult to understand.

With the exception of a knock on that goes into touch (where the non-infringing team has options), a knock-on ANYWHERE in the field of play is a scrum at the mark if no advantage accrues; the opposing team to throw in. All that happens when the ball gets made dead in-goal is that advantage cannot accrue... scrum at the mark, and as is the case with all scrums, it cannot be set closer than 5m to any boundary line outside the field of play.

 

[DocY]

not sure what you mean - is there a knock on involved?

Sorry, yes - edited now.

 

[OB..]

here's the advantage Law, it makes no reference to in goal,

Why should it? The law is not restricted to the field of play and therefore applies to the whole playing area.

I don't think there is any support for your assertion
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=8

8.3 (f) Unless advantage was gained before the ball was made dead, Law 8 cannot apply.

 

[crossref]

I don't get why people are finding this scenario of an attacking player knocking the ball forward into in-goal so difficult to understand.

With the exception of a knock on that goes into touch (where the non-infringing team has options), a knock-on ANYWHERE in the field of play is a scrum at the mark if no advantage accrues; the opposing team to throw in. All that happens when the ball gets made dead in-goal is that advantage cannot accrue... scrum at the mark, and as is the case with all scrums, it cannot be set closer than 5m to any boundary line outside the field of play.

sigh

the scenario of an attacking player knocking the ball INTO the in goal isn't under discussion. the Law covers that precisely.
it's the knock on INSIDE the in goal that is causing discussion.

 

[crossref]

With this in mind, would you see these two situations differently:

a) attacking player puts the ball into in-goal, knocks-on, then makes it dead himself (over DB/TIG line or touching down)
b) as above, but a defender deliberately makes the ball dead?

a) is not uncommon - attacker kicks into the in goal, chases, and trying to gather a bouncing ball, fumbles and knocks on over the DBL

Drop out.

Ian, OB would you give a scrum? If so you have granted the attacker a benefit from his knock on

 

[crossref]

a) is not uncommon - attacker kicks into the in goal, chases, and trying to gather a bouncing ball, fumbles and knocks on over the DBL
Drop out.

actually I think that's wrong, it is 5m scrum.

 

[Phil E]

actually I think that's wrong, it is 5m scrum.

Yep, first offence.

 

[ChrisR]

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?

As I understand the scenario the ball falls short of in-goal from the KO but is then subsequently kicked through goal by an attacking player.

Surely we must consider the two possible restarts to determine if advantage is appropriate.

1. For the KO a defending scrum at place of KO no closer than 5m to the goal line.

2. For the attacker's kick through goal a 22DO. (or scrum back at point of kick)

You can't award 2 unless playing advantage for 1. Since there isn't a second 'offense' I can't see any reason for not applying advantage and awarding the 22DO.

 

[DocY]

As I understand the scenario the ball falls short of in-goal from the KO but is then subsequently kicked through goal by an attacking player.

Surely we must consider the two possible restarts to determine if advantage is appropriate.

1. For the KO a defending scrum at place of KO no closer than 5m to the goal line.

2. For the attacker's kick through goal a 22DO. (or scrum back at point of kick)

You can't award 2 unless playing advantage for 1. Since there isn't a second 'offense' I can't see any reason for not applying advantage and awarding the 22DO.

In this case, I'd be in favour of the scrum - I'd say defending team have to actually do something to gain an advantage (ability to play the ball as they wish) and they don't in this situation.

 

[crossref]

Yep, first offence.

well there's only one offence in that scenario

but what came to mind is a knock-on into touch.

until recently the Law was clear : a knock on into touch was a scrum. Just recently they added an option : scrum of lineout, but they didn't add the same option for a knock on over the DBL, so I think scrum.

 

[Ian_Cook]

a) is not uncommon - attacker kicks into the in goal, chases, and trying to gather a bouncing ball, fumbles and knocks on over the DBL

Drop out.

Ian, OB would you give a scrum? If so you have granted the attacker a benefit from his knock on

I would give a 5m scrum, defending ball.

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

This Law is clear and unequivocal. If you award a DO in those circumstances, you have made a Law error.

No, I have not granted the attacking team the benefit from his knock on. Technically, were it not for the fact that a scrum cannot be set in goal, the defender has gained at least 5m of ground and the advantage of possession.

NOTE: IIRC, at the time these changes were made in the late 1980s, a scrum could be set anywhere in the FoP, including right on the goal-line.

 

[The Fat]

As I understand the scenario the ball falls short of in-goal from the KO but is then subsequently kicked through goal by an attacking player.

Surely we must consider the two possible restarts to determine if advantage is appropriate.

1. For the KO a defending scrum at place of KO no closer than 5m to the goal line.

2. For the attacker's kick through goal a 22DO. (or scrum back at point of kick)

You can't award 2 unless playing advantage for 1. Since there isn't a second 'offense' I can't see any reason for not applying advantage and awarding the 22DO.

If blue player knocked-on on halfway and before red had a chance to gather the ball and play on under the call of advantage, a blue player toe pokes the ball, you would blow for a scrum to red. Why would you change that decision because it happens 1m from the red goal line?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yep, first offence.

... and that is the nub of this whole discussion.

If the knock on is the first infringement, THAT is what you come back to if no advantage is gained by the non-infringing side. Whether the ball goes into in-goal or not, is made dead or not, this doesn't change. The Laws in these "in-goal" situations simply tell you where the scrum is set and who throws in. The only exceptions to this are

1. Knock on into touch (which has options)
2. A subsequent more serious infringement such as offside by the infringing team or foul play by either team, which supersedes the knock on infringement

As soon as the ball is knocked-on by either team, you have an infringement... the 22DO is off the table.

Also, to reiterate for those trying to apply advantage here to get around the Law so that they can award a 22DO, when a knock-on is made, and the defending team kicks the ball, that is NOT advantage over unless the kick is successful AND gains territorial or tactical advantage..

Territorial: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and kicks it 50m downfield - advantage over

Territorial: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and kicks it but shanks it off the side of his foot into touch - no advantage, scrum at the mark

Tactical: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and throws a wide pass to a team-mate with a 3-1 overlap - advantage over

Tactical: The team in possession knock on, an opponent picks up the ball and throws a wide pass to a team-mate who gets hammered by a defender -no advantage, scrum at the mark

Most referees would apply judgements like these anywhere else in the field of play, why on earth would they not do so merely because the ball goes into in-goal.