Ball dropped while trying to score

[Dickie E]

why on earth would they not do so merely because the ball goes into in-goal.

You're using a rehetorical question as a figure of speech, right? Or do you really not understand the argument and need it explained again?

Note: I am not an advocate of crossref's view, but certainly understand it.

 

[OB..]

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 law said a scrum could only be formed in the field of play,but it was not until 1996 that it was specified that all the players in the scrum must have heir feet in the field of play. I certainly remember it only being applied to the front row at one time, but that may have been an intepretation, since I can't find anything speciifc.

 

[crossref]

Ian_Cook - you never answered my post #75 -- I was actually interested to know your reasoning..

 

[Chris_j]

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?

Advantage doesn't contradict other laws but does always offer alternative consequences. For example 12.1 (a) states unequivocally that the outcome of any knock on or throw forward is a scrum at the place of infringement, yet we don't see arguments that advantage cannot be allowed after any knock on. The syntax of law 22.7 is identical to that of law 12.1.

I currently referee to the common understanding of 22.7 but have started to think that is wrong in law, despite the learned opinion of OB, Ian et al. We should be prepared to apply advantage to the consequence of every law where advantage is not expressly prohibited. I also think that turning a 5m scrum into a drop out is almost always of clear tactical advantage to the defending team.

 

[RobLev]

Advantage doesn't contradict other laws but does always offer alternative consequences. For example 12.1 (a) states unequivocally that the outcome of any knock on or throw forward is a scrum at the place of infringement, yet we don't see arguments that advantage cannot be allowed after any knock on. The syntax of law 22.7 is identical to that of law 12.1.

I currently referee to the common understanding of 22.7 but have started to think that is wrong in law, despite the learned opinion of OB, Ian et al. We should be prepared to apply advantage to the consequence of every law where advantage is not expressly prohibited. I also think that turning a 5m scrum into a drop out is almost always of clear tactical advantage to the defending team.

But what advantage does the defender gain by making the ball dead after a KO into the in-goal? Advantage in all other cases involves the non-offending side continuing to play to the extent that they are in a better position than taking the scrum/PK only offer. You seem to be saying that because a 22DO is more advantageous than a scrum5, you'll award that instead of the scrum5 the law mandates...

 

[ChrisR]

Law 22.7(a) and 22.7(b) are contradictory.

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN

(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touchin-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.

(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.

Now, simply insert the words in red and the contradiction disappears.

(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 by an attacking player grounding it, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.

Now take a look at the knock-on in goal 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.

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.

What is missing from both laws is the requirement for the ball to be made dead by either team. So one would have to deduce that after a KO in goal there can be no advantage played. This means that if a defender KO's in goal and an attacking player grounds the ball then the "try" is disallowed and the 5m scrum ordered.

If you say that is total crap and the try should be allowed (as I would) then you should accept the argument that if the attackers KO and the defenders ground it (playing advantage) then they should get the 22DO.

Let me be clear on this point. Under current wording of the Laws and the current conventions of knock on in/into goal I fully expect a 5m scrum to be ordered regardless of how or by whom the ball is made dead.

I don't like it. There are numerous scenarios that seemingly "reward" a player who KOs in or into goal. What frustrates me is how simple it would be to correct and yet the WR answer is invent a new restart, the 5m drop out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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

[LAWS]8.3 WHEN THE ADVANTAGE LAW IS NOT APPLIED
(f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been
made dead.[/LAWS]

Made dead means everwhere in the playing area, not just in the field of play. What gives you the idea that this Law does not apply if the ball has been made dead in goal?

After the ball is knocked into in-goal by the attacking team, it is certainly possible to PLAY advantage with the ball in-goal before it is made dead, but I cannot see any possible way for the defending to gain a tactical or territorial advantage until they at least bring the ball out of in-goal, and I would not expect ANY referee at any level to call "advantage over" with the defending team still in the in-goal with the ball.

If they make the ball dead, they choose not to try to gain an advatge and instead will do what they would do anywhere else on the field, go mack to the mark for the knock-on for a scrum with their feed.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You're using a rehetorical question as a figure of speech, right? Or do you really not understand the argument and need it explained again?

Note: I am not an advocate of crossref's view, but certainly understand it.

Yes it was a figure of speech and yes I understand Crossref's view. I think its flawed.


[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 throwsforward
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.

22.7 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.

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.[/LAWS]

These Laws leave absolutely ZERO wiggle room for any outcome other that a scrum once the ball has been knocked forward into in goal, or taken, carried or played into in goal, and then knocked forward there, and then made dead.

There is simply there is no way that a 22DO can result.

 

[crossref]

But Ian, it's your interpretation of the ADVANTAGE Law that leads you to your conclusion. Given the advantage law as you understand it, that you can't get advantage by making the ball dead, then all four of the laws you quote are made completely redundant. What's the point of them? You could take all four away and you'd still reach the same conclusion...

And on advantage you misunderstood my point, in post #69 you said that you CAN get advantage by kicking the ball dead in touch, but you CAN'T get advantage by kivking the ball dead in TIG


for a kick over the DBL or TIG

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

for touch

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

how is this distinction justified in Law?

 

[Ian_Cook]

But Ian, it's your interpretation of the ADVANTAGE Law that leads you to your conclusion. Given the advantage law as you understand it, that you can't get advantage by making the ball dead, then all four of the laws you quote are made completely redundant. What's the point of them? You could take all four away and you'd still reach the same conclusion...

Its not my interpretation of the Advantage Law, it is simply what the Law actually says

[LAWS]8.3 WHEN THE ADVANTAGE LAW IS NOT APPLIED
(f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been
made dead.[/LAWS]

The referee PLAYING advantage is not the same as a team GAINING advantage.

Law 8.3 (f) instructs the referee that must not PLAY advantage once the ball is dead. A team still might get some kind of advantage by application of whichever Law is appropriate for a specific scenario, but that is not a gain under the advantage Law per se.

And on advantage you misunderstood my point, in post #69 you said that you CAN get advantage by kicking the ball dead in touch, but you CAN'T get advantage by kicking the ball dead in TIG


for a kick over the DBL or TIG

for touch


how is this distinction justified 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 throwsforward
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.

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]

"for a kick over the DBL or TIG" - in this situation the ball is made dead there in the in goal, so 12.1 and 22.7 apply

"for touch" - in this situation the ball is made dead in the field of play, so 12.1 and 22.7 do not apply

 

[crossref]

Sigh, Ian - pay attention to this! - 12.1.c and 22.7.b both deal with the ball knocked INTO to the in-goal, and in that scenario it's perfectly clear that you don't get a 22DO. I agree. Everyone agrees.

The scenario we disagree on is the knock on inside the in-goal, where 12.1c and 22.7.b don't apply.
- Red carry or kick the ball into blue's in goal
- Red then knock on

a) Blue pick it up, assess options and choose to kick the ball a distance into touch (we agree: lineout)
b) Blue pick it up, assess options and choose to kick the ball to TIG (we disagree)


In both cases blue kick the ball dead to gain an advantage, in one case you allow that in the other you don't, but with no basis in Law..... explain ....

 

[DocY]

The different interpretations of the advantage law seem the crux to me and what is meant by "after the ball has been made dead". I would argue that the act of making the ball dead (in this scenario) constitutes advantage (with 22.11(b) applying), though granted it isn't the intention of the advantage law - the law in its current form doesn't prohibit it. I guess other object to this on the grounds that some how that advantage has to be being played between the making dead and the DO?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Sigh, Ian - pay attention to this! - 12.1 and 22.7 both deal with the ball knocked INTO to the in-goal, and in that scenario it's perfectly clear that you don't get a 22DO.

The scenario we disagree on is the knock on inside the in-goal.
- Red carry the ball into the in goal
- Red then lose it forewards
- Blue pick it up, assess options and kick the ball TIG

The situation you are talking about is also clearly dealt with in Law

[LAWS]22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it
becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touchin-
goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.[/LAWS]
No infringement in the in-goal, so DO22 is appropriate, but if there is an infringement in the in-goal, then these Laws come into play...

[LAWS]12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(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]
[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.

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.[/LAWS]
All three Laws say its a scrum. You may not like it, but I do, and its the Law.

Explain to me why the defending a team should be able to kick the ball into TiG, and in do doing, get a risk-free 22m leg-up, followed by a likely further gain of perhaps 40m, Further explain to me why the attacking team should be punished by 22-60m for a mere knock-forward.

If the defending team want a bigger gain from situation than the 5m gain in ground and the scrum throw in (with and near certain possession) afforded to them by the Law, they need to earn it and take some risk. When the attacking team knock on, the defending team need to play on, get back into the field of play and undertake an exit play to gain their ground. Alternatively, boot the bloody thing as far downfield as they can....

 

[Ian_Cook]

The different interpretations of the advantage law seem the crux to me and what is meant by "after the ball has been made dead". I would argue that the act of making the ball dead (in this scenario) constitutes advantage (with 22.11(b) applying), though granted it isn't the intention of the advantage law - the law in its current form doesn't prohibit it. I guess other object to this on the grounds that some how that advantage has to be being played between the making dead and the DO?

And I would argue that making the ball dead constitutes nothing other than that the ball is made dead.

22.11 only tells you when the ball is dead, and what happens when there has been no infringement in-goal

 

[crossref]

All three Laws say its a scrum. You may not like it, but I do, and its the Law.

OK now we are moving forward, yes it is the Law, and I like it fine -
the outcome of a knock-on in goal is a scrum, just like knock-on in the FoP

[LAWS]12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward
(a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.[/LAWS]

But wait - after any knock-on advantage can be played, and if advantage is gained the scrum never takes place.

So the crux of this question is all about the advantage Law.
a) can advantage be played for a knock on in goal. We agree: Yes
b) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into touch for a line out up field. We agree: Yes
c) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into TIG for a DO. Here we disagree.

You ask me why do I think they can get a DO? I say because that's the way the Law is. Your answer is all about whether it's fair or whether they deserve it. Well they may not deserve the 22 DO -- but I'd say the same to you : you might not like it but it's the Law.

(I'd say they do deserve it, because if red drop the ball backwards in goal, blue can get a dropout - so I don't see why blue should be made worse off by red knocking on...)

 

[Pegleg]

OK now we are moving forward, yes it is the Law, and I like it fine -
the outcome of a knock-on in goal is a scrum, just like knock-on in the FoP

[LAWS]12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward
(a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.[/LAWS]

But wait - after any knock-on advantage can be played, and if advantage is gained the scrum never takes place.

So the crux of this question is all about the advantage Law.
a) can advantage be played for a knock on in goal. We agree: Yes
b) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into touch for a line out up field. We agree: Yes
c) can they gain advantage by kicking it dead into TIG for a DO. Here we disagree.

You ask me why do I think they can get a DO? I say because that's the way the Law is. Your answer is all about whether it's fair or whether they deserve it. Well they may not deserve the 22 DO -- but I'd say the same to you : you might not like it but it's the Law.

(I'd say they do deserve it, because if red drop the ball backwards in goal, blue can get a dropout - so I don't see why blue should be made worse off by red knocking on...)

They can't because the law makers are saying: "IF you want advantage PLAY THE BALL" you cant have the in goal equivilent of drop the ball and take a quick one".

No one is stopping advantage being played but they are saying we think 22 metres advantge is too much ( now you can disagree with that in principle. But it is another debate). So either Tap it down and we have a scrum OR run / kick etc and play advantage.

 

[crossref]

They can't because the law makers are saying: "IF you want advantage PLAY THE BALL" you cant have the in goal equivilent of drop the ball and take a quick one".

No one is stopping advantage being played but they are saying we think 22 metres advantge is too much ( now you can disagree with that in principle. But it is another debate). So either Tap it down and we have a scrum OR run / kick etc and play advantage.

I'm not arguing on principle or what people deserve, or what it is 'too much' advantage - I'm just following the Law book

But going along with your line of thinking for a moment - how can it possibly be right that a 22 DO is 'too much' advantage, because that's what you routinely get if the attackers deliberately put the ball into the in goal and then you make it dead --- that's just what happens, it's the normal thing.

So

- if red kick the ball into the in goal, blue can touch it down for a 22 DO (which presumably you don't consider 'too much' advatage, because it's simply what the Law says)

- but if red kick the ball into the in goal, and then fumble it forwards trying gather it, you'd say blue cannot now get a 22 DO whatever the law might say, because now, for some reason, because red knocked on, all of a sudden it would be 'too much' advantage for them to make it dead for a 22 DO.

can you see the flaw in this? red knock would make blue worse off.

(I am sort of waiting for a bulb to light up and you to say - hey, sh*t, he's right!)

 

[Rich_NL]

It's not necessarily a flaw, though. In the second case, they were most likely closer to scoring and blue is saved by a minor handling mistake of the opposition's, rather than their own defensive play covering the kick.

That's how it can possibly be right.

 

[OB..]

I'm not arguing on principle or what people deserve, or what it is 'too much' advantage - I'm just following the Law book

No, you're not. You are arguing that the advantage law requires a referee to award a dropout when the ball is made dead from these knock-ons. The law says advantage is designed to encourage players to play on, and also says advantage cannot be played after the ball is made dead. Your interpretation of it makes no sense to me, and flies in the face of the clearly expressed intentions of the law-makers when they deliberately changed all previous references to awarding a dropout. Nothing in the laws has since changed that situation.

But going along with your line of thinking for a moment - how can it possibly be right that a 22 DO is 'too much' advantage, because that's what you routinely get if the attackers deliberately put the ball into the in goal and then you make it dead --- that's just what happens, it's the normal thing.

So

- if red kick the ball into the in goal, blue can touch it down for a 22 DO (which presumably you don't consider 'too much' advantage, because it's simply what the Law says)

Chalk and cheese. The law makers wanted to discourage the tactic of long kicks into the in-goal as a way of gaining ground.

- but if red kick the ball into the in goal, and then fumble it forwards trying gather it, you'd say blue cannot now get a 22 DO whatever the law might say, because now, for some reason, because red knocked on, all of a sudden it would be 'too much' advantage.

Red has lost an easy try. Is that a common enough situation to justify overturning the law in all other cases? Even if you were right?

can you see the flaw in this? red knock would make blue worse off.

Under current law, blue is in exactly the same situation as for any other knock-on. You want them to be better off. However that is irrelevant since the law is clear.

(I am sort of waiting for a bulb to light up and you to say - hey, sh*t, he's right!)

Whereas I am puzzled that you are so keen to use legalistic wrangling over the wording of the laws in order to overturn their clear intention. Do you really think the law-makers intended this supposed loophole to exist?

 

[DocY]

It's not necessarily a flaw, though. In the second case, they were most likely closer to scoring and blue is saved by a minor handling mistake of the opposition's, rather than their own defensive play covering the kick. That's how it can possibly be right.

I think the debate has been around the laws, more than what's a fair sanction, but how about the case when the attacker can't take a kick through cleanly, knocks it forward (still not hit the ground or another player), the defence get there and play the ball before he can gather it (so preventing him scoring a try)? Isn't this good defensive play?
On the other hand, a kick is put through to land just in the field of play to try to get the fullback to carry the ball over the goal line, but the kick travels a foot too far, the fullback catches in in goal and touches down for a DO. Isn't this a "minor mistake" from the attacking team resulting in a DO?
But in a situation that the attacking team lose the ball in in goal and it's grounded by a defender, it's better for the attacking team to have infringed than not infringed. That's the bit that doesn't seem right.