Ball dropped while trying to score

[The Fat]

Can I just point out that, a few posts back, Pegleg and Ian agreed with each other.
That almost makes 120 posts worthwhile. Almost.:wink:

 

[crossref]

OB - but we still come back to :
- the advantage law is commonly understood to allow people to kick the ball dead into touch, so why not kick the ball dead into TIG?
- and in the other thread we agreed that advatage is over when you freely kick it, it doesn't matter what the outcome of the kick is.


Still at least we are having the right discussion now, as this IS all about the advantage Law, not about 12 or 21.


however NOTE that if the advantage Law is to be interpreted as precluding a team from making a ball dead in goal --- then Laws 12.1.c and 22.7.b, that cover knock-on into goal are redundant : why have a special case (in two different laws) denying the drop-out after a ball is knocked INTO in goal, if the drop out isn't possible in any case?

I really don't think I am wrngling, nor is there a loophole: Different Laws, with different wording cover knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE the in-goal. I have to assume that the reason for writing different Laws, with different wordings, is because they dictate different outcomes...

 

[Ian_Cook]

Different Laws, with different wording cover knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE the in-goal. I have to assume that the reason for writing different Laws, with different wordings, is because they dictate different outcomes...

And you would assume right.

The former is a scrum at the mark, which can be no closer than 5m to the goal-line; throw in to the defending team

The latter is a 5m scrum on a line through the place of the knock on, throw in to the opponents of the team that first knocked on.

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,

It is precisely why the Law makers changed the Law in the furst place

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.

Deliberately putting the ball into in-goal is not an infringement, knocking the ball forward is!


ETA


A knock on by the defending team on the 10m line (if no advantage accrues) is a scrum at that mark, attacking team to throw in. Correct?

A knock on by the attacking team on the 10m line (if no advantage accrues) is a scrum at that mark, defending team to throw in, we don't advance the ball 22m upfield of where the ball was knocked on.

 

[crossref]

And you would assume right.

The former is a scrum at the mark, which can be no closer than 5m to the goal-line; throw in to the defending team

The latter is a 5m scrum on a line through the place of the knock on, throw in to the opponents of the team that first knocked on.

sigh - that post is really not helpful- we all agree that advantage can be played, and if advantage is played, and advantage gained, then there is no scrum at all.. it's how advantage can be gained that is the issue, not the location of the scrum if it isn't.

It is precisely why the Law makers changed the Law in the furst place

yes, for knock-on INTO the in goal (because it's not the same as deliberately putting the ball in there).

(Why do you keep returning to knock on INTO the in-goal, when it's knock-on INSIDE the in goal that is the issue?)

 

[Phil E]

Still at least we are having the right discussion now,

No, we're not!

One person is :deadhorse: and everyone else is banging their heads against a brick wall :chair:

 

[crossref]

here's an interesting one:

attacking knock on very close to try line, and defender touches down.
- Steve Walsh is concerned to determine whether the knock on happened INTO the in goal, or INSIDE the in goal.
- having determined it happened INSIDE the in goal [not sure it was! but that's not the point here] he awards the 22m drop out.

So Steve Walsh is following my line of thinking.

To be fair to Ian/OB. SA Referees did conclude SW was wrong - they say it makes no difference whether it was inside or outside, but their argument doesn't help us - they simply quote 12.1(c) INTO and 12.1(d) INSIDE which are different and then say, there you are it's the same. They don't consider the crucial question of playing and gaining advantage.

I have googled around to try and find some other clips, but without success yet, it's quite a rare thing, an attacking knock on INSIDE, and the defenders make dead.

 

[RobLev]

OB - but we still come back to :
- the advantage law is commonly understood to allow people to kick the ball dead into touch, so why not kick the ball dead into TIG?

...

I am quite obviously not OB, but this is incorrect.

The (scrum) advantage law is commonly understood to allow the non-infringing side to play on, by among other actions kicking for touch to gain ground, albeit losing possession by doing so. The advantage is not gained by making the ball dead, but by hoofing it 40m downfield. In fact it doesn't matter whether the ball does go dead - if the defenders kick the ball 40m downfield under a scrum advantage, the advantage will be over even if the ball lands in the oppo #15's hands in the FoP. Play has been moved 40m downfield, and that is the advantage.

If you kick the ball towards, but not into, TiG, no ground is gained. Play remains in in-goal. No advantage is gained. If it then rolls one more time and goes dead, there has still been no advantage gained so play goes back to the scrum for the infringement.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I am quite obviously not OB, but this is incorrect.

The (scrum) advantage law is commonly understood to allow the non-infringing side to play on, by among other actions kicking for touch to gain ground, albeit losing possession by doing so. The advantage is not gained by making the ball dead, but by hoofing it 40m downfield. In fact it doesn't matter whether the ball does go dead - if the defenders kick the ball 40m downfield under a scrum advantage, the advantage will be over even if the ball lands in the oppo #15's hands in the FoP. Play has been moved 40m downfield, and that is the advantage.

If you kick the ball towards, but not into, TiG, no ground is gained. Play remains in in-goal. No advantage is gained. If it then rolls one more time and goes dead, there has still been no advantage gained so play goes back to the scrum for the infringement.

I am in Ian/OB etc camp here in general.

But to challenge the above I would say the advantage for a scrum is not so much the 40m territorial advantage but having the time and space to make an unpressured kick in and of itself constitutes a tactical advantage, again regardless of where it ends up. I think this was agreed in another topic about advantage.

Now, you could extend this scenario. Attack carry ball into the in goal, then knock on in goal. Defender picks up the ball, looks around, maybe jogs across the pitch, being under no pressure with no opposition nearby, assess his options, and then decides to kick straight into the TIG, or through the DBL. Is his advantage already over as soon as he chooses to kick? He has had the tactical advantage to play the ball as he wishes, and has done so, even if no territorial advantage has yet been gained. This would then suggest the 22DO is the correct option. But would you have needed to have called advantage over before the kick went dead? I know this is not that likely and with no opposition nearby the defender turned ball carrier would likely run forward and thus gain an advantage there. But it is a possibility and I wonder in this specific event would it alter anyone i the "always a scrum" camp's view?

 

[OB..]

Attack carry ball into the in goal, then knock on in goal. Defender picks up the ball, looks around, maybe jogs across the pitch, being under no pressure with no opposition nearby, assess his options, and then decides to kick straight into the TIG, or through the DBL. Is his advantage already over as soon as he chooses to kick? He has had the tactical advantage to play the ball as he wishes, and has done so, even if no territorial advantage has yet been gained. This would then suggest the 22DO is the correct option. But would you have needed to have called advantage over before the kick went dead? I know this is not that likely and with no opposition nearby the defender turned ball carrier would likely run forward and thus gain an advantage there. But it is a possibility and I wonder in this specific event would it alter anyone i the "always a scrum" camp's view?

You are trying to argue that running around with the ball is a tactical advantage, which I think is stretching the concept too far. If we are going to allow a player to get a drop out by delaying grounding the ball, we are immediately into arguments about how much delay is needed. Some people think that picking up the ball before grounding is is not "without delay". Let's keep things simple.

(The only point of interest might be if by delaying he managed to run the clock down past 80 minutes before making the ball dead. But then the scrum vs dropout argument would not matter anyway.)

 

[Pegleg]

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!)

One is a sanction the other is advantage. they are different things. What I think about "too much advantage" is not the point. It's what the law makers thing. I just referee I don't make the law. Prsumably the feel you have to create (earn) the advantage and not have it given to you on a plate.

So my light bulb is saying "Hey, crossref's WRONG!" Sorry.

 

[Pegleg]

Can I just point out that, a few posts back, Pegleg and Ian agreed with each other.
That almost makes 120 posts worthwhile. Almost.:wink:

I rarely have issues with Ian's thinking. I do have issues with his "style" at times. Same as other posters.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I am in Ian/OB etc camp here in general.

But to challenge the above I would say the advantage for a scrum is not so much the 40m territorial advantage but having the time and space to make an unpressured kick in and of itself constitutes a tactical advantage, again regardless of where it ends up. I think this was agreed in another topic about advantage.

Now, you could extend this scenario. Attack carry ball into the in goal, then knock on in goal. Defender picks up the ball, looks around, maybe jogs across the pitch, being under no pressure with no opposition nearby, assess his options, and then decides to kick straight into the TIG, or through the DBL. Is his advantage already over as soon as he chooses to kick? He has had the tactical advantage to play the ball as he wishes, and has done so, even if no territorial advantage has yet been gained. This would then suggest the 22DO is the correct option. But would you have needed to have called advantage over before the kick went dead? I know this is not that likely and with no opposition nearby the defender turned ball carrier would likely run forward and thus gain an advantage there. But it is a possibility and I wonder in this specific event would it alter anyone i the "always a scrum" camp's view?

If you were to call "advantage over", I would not expect you to do so unless they had a an actual tactical or territorial advantage (as Law 8 says, a mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough).

For a tactical advantage, I would expect the defending team to have a clear overlap or outnumbering of opposing players to the right or left of the ball carrier.

For a territorial advantage, the ball would need to be advanced by being carried at least to the place of the mark (not where the actual knock on was in goal, but where the scrum would be, 5m out from the goal-line), or be kicked a considerable distance beyond that point, since that would entail loss of possession.

For those who argue that simply kicking the ball in an advantage situation is "advantage over", I disagree. Would you call advantage over if the kick was charged down?

I completely disagree with crossref's contention/interpretation that making the ball dead is somehow a manifestation of making a gain under advantage Law. It is not, and it never has been... making the ball dead means just what is says... play ends and restarts with whatever restart is mandated under the Law. For a knock, whether it is in the in-goal, or in the FoP and goes into in-goal that restart is a scrum, the place of which is determined by the circumstances of the knock on.

When there has been any infringement in-goal for which the sanction is a scrum, then the outcome is a scrum. This is clearly spelled out in 22.13 and 22.14; there is no way that awarding a 22DO in this situation can ever be correct, and no amount of weasel words and clever legalistic manipulation of Law 8 can justify a referee deliberately subverting a Law that was intentionally changed to prevent him doing what he is trying to do.

 

[Treadmore]

and no amount of weasel words and clever legalistic manipulation of Law 8 can justify a referee deliberately subverting a Law that was intentionally changed to prevent him doing what he is trying to do.

I think OB's history lesson is persuasive, however, in Law 8 we have:

[LAWS]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.[/LAWS]
Precendence over Law 22 is ok.
Grounding the ball is not an infringement.

[LAWS]8.1 Advantage in practice
(a)
The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b)
Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c)
Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d)
Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.
[/LAWS]
The Law supports a referee's discretion in deciding that grounding a ball is to play the ball as they wish.

No weasel words there?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think OB's history lesson is persuasive, however, in Law 8 we have:

[LAWS]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.[/LAWS]
Precendence over Law 22 is ok.
Grounding the ball is not an infringement.

No, but a knock on in-goal is an infringement

[LAWS]8.1 Advantage in practice
(a)
The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b)
Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c)
Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d)
Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.
[/LAWS]
The Law supports a referee's discretion in deciding that grounding a ball is to play the ball as they wish.

So, once the defending team has grounded the ball, you say advantage is over (the ball is dead, and Law 8 says advantage can no longer be played). Fair enough then. Grounding the ball ends general play, just as kicking the ball into touch ends general play. Therefore you do what the Law tells you to do next; restart play with a scrum.

No amount of playing with words and twisting meanings can give the referee an all-clear to disregard what he is SPECIFICALLY instructed to do, and then substitute his own personal Laws to suit his own sense of what he deems to be fair play.

If the ball is knocked on in-goal and is made dead in goal, the only possible way to restart is with a 5m scrum. There are no other options. If he now restarts with a 22DO, he has intentionally ignored the Law.

 

[ChrisR]

12.1 (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.

Fron Ian, above: If the ball is knocked on in-goal and is made dead in goal, the only possible way to restart is with a 5m scrum. There are no other options. If he now restarts with a 22DO, he has intentionally ignored the Law.

So, we all agree that the defenders KO, the attackers ground the ball and so earn themselves the put in to the 5m scrum.

Obviously not. The try is awarded.

And if the attackers KO and the defenders ground the ball then we all agree that they can claim the 22DO.

Apparently not.

 

[OB..]

12.1 (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.

Fron Ian, above: If the ball is knocked on in-goal and is made dead in goal, the only possible way to restart is with a 5m scrum. There are no other options. If he now restarts with a 22DO, he has intentionally ignored the Law.

So, we all agree that the defenders KO, the attackers ground the ball and so earn themselves the put in to the 5m scrum.

Obviously not. The try is awarded.

And if the attackers KO and the defenders ground the ball then we all agree that they can claim the 22DO.

Apparently not.

Come off it! Nobody was talking about attackers getting a try from a defending knock-on. Do we really need to spell out that sort of detail every time?! It makes life mush simpler if we assume a common context within the thread, and only challenge it when it makes a difference to the points under discussion..

 

[Treadmore]

So, once the defending team has grounded the ball, you say advantage is over (the ball is dead, and Law 8 says advantage can no longer be played). Fair enough then. Grounding the ball ends general play, just as kicking the ball into touch ends general play. Therefore you do what the Law tells you to do next [and Law 8 tells you don't stop for an infringement (the knock-on) if the defenders have played the ball as they wish (grounded it in this case)]; restart play with a scrum.

No amount of playing with words and twisting meanings can give the referee an all-clear to disregard what he is SPECIFICALLY instructed to do, and then substitute his own personal Laws to suit his own sense of what he deems to be fair play.

Ian, the history lesson on how the law changed was persuasive, as I said, but I think you are twisting meanings - you keep saying advantage can't apply once the ball is made dead (by grounding) but that is not the argument being made.

As I understand the argument being made by others we have:

1. The knock-on (infringement) has happened - can the ref play advantage? Yes, Law 8 says she can.
2. If the defender retrieves the ball can they ground it? Yes - Law 8 says they have freedom to play the ball as they wish.
3. Can the referee accept that grounding counts as advantage gained (and thus now over)? Yes, Law 8 covers it explicitly under tactical advantage - they had freedom to play the ball as they wished.
4. Can the referee now ignore the knock-on infringement? Yes, Law 8 encourages application of advantage, with precedence over most other Laws, so that there are fewer stoppages for infringements.
5. Is grounding the ball contrary to the spirit of Law 8? No, the purpose of Law 8 is fewer stoppages for infringements. Grounding the ball is not an infringement.
6. Is Law 22 (22.13) exempt from application of advantage? No, Law 8.3 lists when it cannot apply and knock-on in-goal is not one of those occasions.
7. Is the referee playing advantage after the ball is made dead by grounding? No, the application of advantage stops once a tactical advantage has been gained - in this case, the defenders played the ball as they wished by grounding it.
8. Now the ball is grounded, how do we restart? If attackers put it in-goal, by a 22 DO (Law 22.7(a)).

No twisting of meanings required to get to a 22 DO and no ignoring - intentional or otherwise - of the Law.

 

[Camquin]

But this is not how the law is interpreted by the majority of referees.
You could always try to get a law clarification.

If aliens found the law book and tried to play rugby, it would not look anything like the game we play - especially as they would presumably not get the memos. Probably after 100 years it would mutate into something like american football.

 

[ChrisR]

Come off it! Nobody was talking about attackers getting a try from a defending knock-on. Do we really need to spell out that sort of detail every time?! It makes life mush simpler if we assume a common context within the thread, and only challenge it when it makes a difference to the points under discussion..

I thought the context was "Restart from a KO in goal". I'm merely pointing out that you are applying a double standard.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As I understand the argument being made by others we have:

1. The knock-on (infringement) has happened - can the ref play advantage? Yes, Law 8 says she can.

Agree

2. If the defender retrieves the ball can they ground it? Yes - Law 8 says they have freedom to play the ball as they wish.

Agree

3. Can the referee accept that grounding counts as advantage gained (and thus now over)? Yes, Law 8 covers it explicitly under tactical advantage - they had freedom to play the ball as they wished.

Agree

4. Can the referee now ignore the knock-on infringement? Yes, Law 8 encourages application of advantage, with precedence over most other Laws, so that there are fewer stoppages for infringements.

Disagree.

The referee still has to be mindful that the ball was knocked-on in goal, because this is a special case, covered by some specific Laws that tell him how the game MUST be restarted in those circumstances.

5. Is grounding the ball contrary to the spirit of Law 8? No, the purpose of Law 8 is fewer stoppages for infringements. Grounding the ball is not an infringement.

No, but knocking the ball on is an infringement.

6. Is Law 22 (22.13) exempt from application of advantage? No, Law 8.3 lists when it cannot apply and knock-on in-goal is not one of those occasions.

Of course its not exempt, but your point is irrelevant since advantage can no longer be played past the point where the ball is grounded.

7. Is the referee playing advantage after the ball is made dead by grounding? No, the application of advantage stops once a tactical advantage has been gained - in this case, the defenders played the ball as they wished by grounding it.

Agree

8. Now the ball is grounded, how do we restart? If attackers put it in-goal, by a 22 DO (Law 22.7(a)).

Disagree.

Law 22.7 (a) does not apply because you cannot ignore the fact that the ball was knocked in goal, and that means 22.7 (a) is trumped by Law 22-13 or Law 22.14.

The only prescribed restart is a 5m scrum.

No twisting of meanings required to get to a 22 DO and no ignoring - intentional or otherwise - of the Law.

To paraphrase Rev Dr. Francis H. Wade, the former Rector of St Alban's Episcopal Church...

"The Lawbook is like a person; if you torture it long enough you can get it to say anything you want it to say"



ETA: Think of it this way.

When the ball is at the No.8's feet in a scrum, the other seven forwards are obstructing their opponents under Law 10. Why do we not apply this? Because this is a special case, covered by some specific Laws, Law 20.