Ball dropped while trying to score

[Treadmore]

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.

This is the nub, I think. For a knock-on into the in-goal, even accepting an argument that advantage law trumped Law 12.1(c), you end up at 22.7 in which 22.7(b) tells you the same as 12.1(c). But for a knock-on in-goal, 12.1(d) applies and has no similar support in 22.7 for being a special case.

I realise others have said similar earlier in the thread, I just found it instructive to go through it step-by-step.

 

[crossref]

Treadmore you are spot on. Starting with the Law that's the only conclusion you can possibly reach. Others are starting with their pre-conceived outcome, and trying to work the Law to arrive at it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This is the nub, I think. For a knock-on into the in-goal, even accepting an argument that advantage law trumped Law 12.1(c), you end up at 22.7 in which 22.7(b) tells you the same as 12.1(c). But for a knock-on in-goal, 12.1(d) applies and has no similar support in 22.7 for being a special case.

I realise others have said similar earlier in the thread, I just found it instructive to go through it step-by-step.

[LAWS]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.

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]

I just cannot see how anyone can read that and decide a 22DO is in order. 22DO is NOT mentioned in this Law OR ANY LAW that mentions a knock on in-goal. No amount of fancy word play can make that knock-on or throw forward disappear.

If you award a 22DO after the ball has been knocked in-goal then you are wrong!

We are just going to have to differ.

Personally, I have never seen any referee at any level from grass roots to elite, award a 22DO when there is been a knock on in goal

Treadmore you are spot on. Starting with the Law that's the only conclusion you can possibly reach. Others are starting with their pre-conceived outcome, and trying to work the Law to arrive at it.

Those "others" include every other referee on the planet.

 

[Treadmore]

[LAWS]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.

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]

I just cannot see how anyone can read that and decide a 22DO is in order. 22DO is NOT mentioned in this Law OR ANY LAW that mentions a knock on in-goal. No amount of fancy word play can make that knock-on or throw forward disappear.

you already agreed advantage was applied and gained (my earlier point 3) so 22.13 and 22.14 are irrelevant because we are not restarting from an infringement.

 

[crossref]

Personally, I have never seen any referee at any level from grass roots to elite, award a 22DO when there is been a knock on in goal
....
Those "others" include every other referee on the planet.

Except that in the only video I have been able to find of this scenario (which I posted above) Steve Walsh follows my logic and awards a drop out! Have you found any videos?

 

[RobLev]

Except that in the only video I have been able to find of this scenario (which I posted above) Steve Walsh follows my logic and awards a drop out! Have you found any videos?

Have you watched the videos illustrating Laws 22.13 and 22.14? In both cases, the ball goes/is made dead after the knock on, and a scrum5 is awarded.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Except that in the only video I have been able to find of this scenario (which I posted above) Steve Walsh follows my logic and awards a drop out! Have you found any videos?

Roblev beat me to it

22.13 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2391-attacking-scrum

22.14 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2392-defending-scrum

you already agreed advantage was applied and gained (my earlier point 3) so 22.13 and 22.14 are irrelevant because we are not restarting from an infringement.

You are starting after a knock on in goal.

The Law SPECIFICALLY states that the restart for that is a 5m scrum

This is laid down in Laws 22.13 and 22.14

It could not be any clearer than that

I am happy enough that my position on this issue is not only backed up 100% by the written Law, it is also accepted practice by virtually every referee at all levels of the game worldwide.

I will be following the lead of others here and not be posting in this thread any further; firstly, because the debate has reached a point of entrenched positions, and secondly, because it obviously a waste of time debating with intransigent people who seem bell bent on making up their own unique interpretations of the Law; ones that are at odds with the rest of the refereeing community.

This forum is supposed to be about educating referees, not looking for smart-arsed ways to circumvent Laws in pursuit of personal agendas. If you want to award a 22DO after a knock on in goal, that's between you and your assessor... good luck with that..

ETA
Another thing crossref and treadmore might want to consider.

Really good referees use good judgement as to when and how they apply advantage. The amount of advantage a referee would expect to see gained before calling "advantage over" can vary a lot with field position and the type of advantage being played (scrum or PK)

For example, there is a Blue knock on at a ruck left of centre-field, 10m outside the Blue's 22m. Red clears the ball and gets two passes wide right, with Blue back-pedalling rapidly. I am likely to call advantage over.

Now, move that ruck/knock-on scenario to a ruck 4m out from Red's goal-line, and am going to want to see a lot more tactical advantage or a considerable territorial advantage to red before calling advantage over.

The judgement used when referees play advantage often sorts out the really good referees from the also-rans.

 

[Treadmore]

Roblev beat me to it

22.13 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2391-attacking-scrum

22.14 - http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2392-defending-scrum

The relevant one in that scenario is 22.13 (attacking infringement in-goal) and in that clip the defenders do not get the ball - no advantage can apply, so not the circumstances we are discussing.

You are starting after a knock on in goal.

Only if you have changed your mind and are deciding that no tactical advantage was gained when the defender had the freedom to play the ball as they wished (by grounding it).

You previously agreed on that but now are going back to infringement.

It could not be any clearer than that

 

[crossref]

Have you watched the videos illustrating Laws 22.13 and 22.14? In both cases, the ball goes/is made dead after the knock on, and a scrum5 is awarded.

? of course, I have! but neither of those show the scenario in question .

The scenario is : attacking knock on in goal, defenders get the ball, advantage is played and the defenders then make it dead hoping for a 22m DO.

This isn't a question about Law 22 it's a question about Law 8 - Advantage - and when / how can advantage be gained.

This forum is supposed to be about educating referees,

I am educating you

 

[RobLev]

? of course, I have! but neither of those show the scenario in question .

The scenario is : attacking knock on in goal, defenders get the ball, advantage is played and the defenders then make it dead hoping for a 22m DO.

This isn't a question about Law 22 it's a question about Law 8 - Advantage - and when / how can advantage be gained.

...

And we are pointing out that unless advantage is gained prior to the going dead of the ball the Law mandates the outcome. For the purposes of the 22DO it doesn't matter how the ball goes dead in in-goal, so it's irrelevant that in the attacking KO example it goes over the DBL, rather than being touched down by a defender.

 

[crossref]

And we are pointing out that unless advantage is gained prior to the going dead of the ball the Law mandates the outcome. For the purposes of the 22DO it doesn't matter how the ball goes dead in in-goal, so it's irrelevant that in the attacking KO example it goes over the DBL, rather than being touched down by a defender.

Ok so now we are having the correct discussion, which is about how advantage is gained. Good.

Law 8 doesn't say that advantage has to be gained before the ball goes dead. What's your law reference for that?
It says that advantage can't be played after the ball is dead, which is a different statement altogether, as I am sure you will agree

In the other thread there is general agreement that for a scrum advatange, advantage is over when you freely kick the ball... so if you freely kick it into TIG ...

 

[Pinky]

I am with Crossref, Treadmore et al on this. I always viewed 22.13 and 22.14 as defining the place of the scrum for a relevant in-goal infringement, rather than requiring such. The sanction for a knock-on in the fop is a scrum, but we frequently don't have one if the opposition gather and are able to play the ball.

 

[RobLev]

Ok so now we are having the correct discussion, which is about how advantage is gained. Good.

Law 8 doesn't say that advantage has to be gained before the ball goes dead. What's your law reference for that?

Law 8.3(e):

[LAWS] Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]

It says that advantage can't be played after the ball is dead, which is a different statement altogether, as I am sure you will agree

I fundamentally disagree. If the ball is dead, there can be no further "play"; that is not a consequence of 8.3(e), but of the definition of "dead ball", which is that the ball is out of play. 8.3(e) goes further.

In the other thread there is general agreement that for a scrum advatange, advantage is over when you freely kick the ball... so if you freely kick it into TIG ...

We are also agreed that the advantage must be actual, not potential:

[LAWS]...A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough...[/LAWS]

The opportunity to gain advantage by hoofing the ball 40m downfield is not taken by kicking it sideways into touch. In the FoP, such a kick would lead to the ref saying "no advantage" and going back to the scrum. It would be the equivalent of the SH knocking on, or saying "I want the scrum please"; or, if it were close to the touchline, the SH picking the ball up and running into touch.

Take a situation where the (isolated) attacking winger is tackled close to the line, loses the ball forward (but not into in-goal) and the defending #15 kicks the ball sideways into touch, or even picks it up and runs into touch. Are you really saying that you'd give the 5m lineout to the attacking team, rather than the scrum5 to the defenders, because the defender had freedom to play the ball as he wished?

You are praying in aid the *consequences* of the ball going dead; which by definition follow the making dead of the ball - and quite apart from the argument that a sideways kick doesn't confer an advantage, 8.3(e) says you can't do that.

 

[Treadmore]

And we are pointing out that unless advantage is gained prior to the going dead of the ball the Law mandates the outcome.

We are pointing out the same thing too!

In post #140 Ian agreed that the defender had gained tactical advantage as defined in Law. That being the case, how do we restart? Look at Law 22.7: if we got in-goal due to a knock-on into in-goal then scrum - that is the special case and we all agree. Otherwise it is down to who put the ball in-goal.

If you don't like the outcome or the fact that the Law treats it explicitly differently than the knock-on into in-goal then you have to say there was no tactical advantage gained. If you do that, you have to say that the defender didn't have the freedom to play the ball as they wished.

I have no idea if in the mists of time this is what the Law makers intended but it is what they wrote and they wrote it differently in each case. The only relevant video clip presented so far shows Steve Walsh checking for this distinction and then going with the 22m DO.

 

[RobLev]

We are pointing out the same thing too!

In post #140 Ian agreed that the defender had gained tactical advantage as defined in Law. That being the case, how do we restart? Look at Law 22.7: if we got in-goal due to a knock-on into in-goal then scrum - that is the special case and we all agree. Otherwise it is down to who put the ball in-goal.

If you don't like the outcome or the fact that the Law treats it explicitly differently than the knock-on into in-goal then you have to say there was no tactical advantage gained. If you do that, you have to say that the defender didn't have the freedom to play the ball as they wished.

I have no idea if in the mists of time this is what the Law makers intended but it is what they wrote and they wrote it differently in each case. The only relevant video clip presented so far shows Steve Walsh checking for this distinction and then going with the 22m DO.

So you would give the lineout in this situation:

[LAWS]Take a situation where the (isolated) attacking winger is tackled close to the line, loses the ball forward (but not into in-goal) and the defending #15 kicks the ball sideways into touch, or even picks it up and runs into touch. Are you really saying that you'd give the 5m lineout to the attacking team, rather than the scrum5 to the defenders, because the defender had freedom to play the ball as he wished?[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

[LAWS]Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]

until very recently the example people gave to show what this meant was the knock on into touch --- you couldn't play advatage and let them take a QTI, because the ball had been made dead. (now, of course, you can do this).

this is different from playing advatage, and they then kick it dead -- and once it's dead--- Adv over, lineout. (or DO)

 

[Treadmore]

So you would give the lineout in this situation:

[LAWS]Take a situation where the (isolated) attacking winger is tackled close to the line, loses the ball forward (but not into in-goal) and the defending #15 kicks the ball sideways into touch, or even picks it up and runs into touch. Are you really saying that you'd give the 5m lineout to the attacking team, rather than the scrum5 to the defenders, because the defender had freedom to play the ball as he wished?[/LAWS]

Why do you think I would do that?

The way you describe it sounds like the defender is under pressure, so I wouldn't call a tactical advantage.

 

[RobLev]

Why do you think I would do that?

The way you describe it sounds like the defender is under pressure, so I wouldn't call a tactical advantage.

The winger was isolated.

 

[ChrisR]

Roblev, the situation that you describe in your post #155 is not apples to apples to the KO in goal where the defender grounds the ball or otherwise makes it dead. In that situation the restart from putting the ball into touch is clearly inferior to the scrum.

A more similar situation would be the attacker KO near mid-field and the defender hoofing it into touch 3m from the opponent's goal. Then there would be a clear tactical/territorial advantage although loss of possession.

On a side note, as a player I'd like the choice to be mine. Has anyone ever offered the choice to the players or would you assume that to be the referee's call?

 

[RobLev]

Roblev, the situation that you describe in your post #155 is not apples to apples to the KO in goal where the defender grounds the ball or otherwise makes it dead. In that situation the restart from putting the ball into touch is clearly inferior to the scrum.

...

Which is the nub of the issue. CR is arguing that because a 22DO is clearly more advantageous than a scrum5, the defender putting the ball dead is entitled to receive the 22DO by virtue of the advantage rule; notwithstanding the wording of 22.13 and 22.14.

It is only if the restart after the defender putting the ball dead (after an attacking KO in-goal) is a 22DO that the restart from putting the ball into TiG is advantageous. CR is assuming that which has to be proved.

Look at it from another angle. CR says that the freedom to play the ball as the defender wishes, by kicking to TiG, is a sufficient tactical advantage that advantage is over and the Law 22.13-mandated scrum5 restart is no longer effective. When the ball thereby goes dead, so his argument runs, we then simply look at the restart mandated in the absence of law 22.13.

Bear in mind that advantage is considered over when the ball is freely kicked, not when it lands. If after an attacking KO in-goal the defender freely kicks the ball towards TiG (so advantage is over), but it is then caught by an attacker who dots the ball down, CR's logic requires you to award the try, doesn't it?