Ball dropped while trying to score

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
Yes, I would say it does, in the other thread, there was widespread agreement that when the ball is freely kicked advantage is over, even if the outcome of the kick was bad for the kicker. I am happy to go with that principle. Ball freely kicked, advantage over. So
If it goes into touch.. Lineout
opposition catch it and score.. Bad luck try
Ball goes into touch in goal.. Drop out

I think the logic is unassailable
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Yes, I would say it does, in the other thread, there was widespread agreement that when the ball is freely kicked advantage is over, even if the outcome of the kick was bad for the kicker. I am happy to go with that principle. Ball freely kicked, advantage over. So
If it goes into touch.. Lineout
opposition catch it and score.. Bad luck try
Ball goes into touch in goal.. Drop out

I think the logic is unassailable

Bear with me; we're nearly there. If the defender goes for the kick but completely misses the ball, losing it forward, and an attacker gets there first - still a try?
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
Or what if an attacker runs into in-goal, but is being bundled into tig and cannot ground the ball. He throws it infield in the hope it is caught by a team mate. In fact it is caught and grounded by a defender. 22do, no doubt about it. Now what if the pass by the original bc was marginally forward? Would you now be saying scrum 5?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
Roblev if I am following your scenario, that sounds like no advantage gained, back to the knock on, scrum.
The position of the scrum being 5m out as per the law
 
Last edited:

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38
Bear with me; we're nearly there.

I don't think we are - discussing more hypotheticals isn't helping

What would help me is understanding Ian's logic below (post #140)




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.
I don't understand how the ref can accept advantage has been gained but then go back to the original infringement.

And to be clear again with my understanding (happy to have it improved!) if it was knocked-on into in-goal, I agree it is a scrum restart but not because of Law 12 (which covers the original infringement) but because of Law 22.7(b) i.e. we are not restarting from an infringement, we are restarting from a touch down (which is what 22.7 covers).

The fact that 22.7 (Restarting from a touch-down) has a special case for if the ball went into in-goal from a knock-on in the FoP, but no special case for a knock-on in-goal is a very significant and (it seems to me) intentional difference.

I think there is no way of getting to 22.7(b) without having played advantage after the original infringement; so that tells me advantage can be gained in this scenario (attacking knock-on into in-goal) by the defender grounding the ball. I therefore think we can call advantage gained in the scenario of defender grounding after attacking knock-on in-goal.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
The fact that 22.7 (Restarting from a touch-down) has a special case for if the ball went into in-goal from a knock-on in the FoP, but no special case for a knock-on in-goal is a very significant and (it seems to me) intentional difference.
l.

This is where we came in. Way back up the thread OB could see the significance but argued that it was unintentional, because 1987, and that the Law should not be applied as written, but in line with what the Law makers must have really meant to say, as per 1987 before they somehow accidentally changed it

. It was a very different argument from Ian, and an argument that basically concedes that my and your understanding of the Law *as written* is accurate.
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
This is where we came in. Way back up the thread OB could see the significance but argued that it was unintentional, because 1987, and that the Law should not be applied as written, but in line with what the Law makers must have really meant to say, as per 1987 before they somehow accidentally changed it
They did not accidentally change it. During the 1980s they made several changes to cover points that they had overlooked earlier (mainly to do with making sure it covers a throw forward as well as a knock-on). I see it as undeniable that they wished to change the law in all such cases from awarding a dropout to awarding a defending scrum. I seem to recall that most people approved the changes at the time.
It was a very different argument from Ian, and an argument that basically concedes that my and your understanding of the Law *as written* is accurate.
I reject that inference. I think the attempts to get round the clear intentions of the law by a strained applications of the advantage law are unrealistic and conflict strongly with my views that the laws should be interpreted sensibly in the context of the game, not by some legalistic-cum-semantic arguments over the actual words used. The Laws are simply not written with that in mind. (Moreover NONE OF US operate to the letter of the law in other contexts.)

I only argued the verbal points raised because IMHO (agreeing with Ian) they were invalid, so worth disproving on their own terms.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
well, yes, I imagine they did deliberately change it after 1987, to distinguish knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE as different events, with different Laws applying.

But then - if you go with Ian's understanding of the advantage Law then the meaning of the phrases in Law 12 and 22 don't matter anyway (other than specifying the location of a scrum, if there is one)
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I wasn't going to post again in this thread, but I am becoming very annoyed with treadmore and crossref inferring that things I have posted support their view. They do not, and if those comments have been interpreted that way, they have been misrepresented or misunderstood. So, for the avoidance of doubt, I am going to be absolutely clear now on what my opinion is.

As OB has pointed out, both here, and many times previously, those who have over the years written, rewritten, amended and clarified the Laws of the Our Game have done so in order to create a framework for players to play the game, for spectators to follow the game, and for referees to adjudicate the game. They did not write the Laws so that a few smart-arses could use weasel-words and clever language to come up with unique interpretations that fly in face of expected practice by the rest of the refereeing community.

Admittedly, the Law writers have sometimes not made a very good job of making themselves clear, but that does not mean that we should be trying to come up with interpretations to subvert the clear intent of the Laws, and this is one of those cases where the Law is clear and unequivocal.

In the 1980's the Law writers intentionally changed the Laws regarding infringements in-goal. They did so in order to remove the 22DO as an outcome of a scrum infringement in-goal. The posters here who try to use clever wordplay to subvert the Law writers' intent, and to contrive the 22DO back into the game as an option, are doing the Game, this forum, other referees, and themselves a disservice.

IMO, there are only two possible results from a knock-on in goal...

► A 5m scrum, the mark being determined by a line through where the knock-on occurred; the opponents of the team that knocked the ball on will throw in

► Play on. Advantage can be played, in which case, I would not expect any referee worthy of holding a whistle, to call "advantage over" while the defending team still has possession of the ball in the in-goal. They are under pressure the whole time they remain there.

A 22DO is NOT an option! There is no way that a 22DO should be awarded after the ball has been knocked on in-goal by any player, and any referee who does so is committing a Law error. Period!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
Ian - on this forum, especially as you are a mod, you really need to stop using words like smart-arse, weasel words. it's very ad hominem! It's not the atmosphere we are after is it?

I just don't agree with your view of the intenttion of the Law makers, or the meaning of the Laws.

But I accept you are arguing in good faith, and I know I won't change your mind.

You last post didn't have anything new, so I won't respond with another rehearsal of what I said before.

BTW - It still tickles me that the only video anyone has been able to find of the scenario has the referee (aided by his AR in fact) pausing to determine if the knock on was INTO or INSIDE the in goal, and when he decides its INSIDE he awards the 22m DO

Let's enjoy it again :)

 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
well, yes, I imagine they did deliberately change it after 1987, to distinguish knock on INTO and knock on INSIDE as different events, with different Laws applying.
From reading the laws, I think the aim was to cover both situations separately but similarly to make sure they were not treated differently. I am certain there was one single aim: to ditch the drop out in favour of a scrum. I see nothing in the laws to suggest they intended there to be exceptions or loopholes. To adopt you logic, if they wanted to keep the drop out in some circumstances, they could have said so.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
BTW - It still tickles me that the only video anyone has been able to find of the scenario has the referee (aided by his AR in fact) pausing to determine if the knock on was INTO or INSIDE the in goal, and when he decides its INSIDE he awards the 22m DO

Let's enjoy it again :)


Actually Steve Walsh had it right to start with, and was undone by his AR who got it wrong. SA Referees actually pointed this out, its why the clip was posted in the fist place.

However, the two videos published on the WR website, are more definitive and they are the last word since WR actually make the Laws and cite these as examples.

As a referee, if you are interpreting the Laws differently from the way every other referee around you, its a bang on certainty that your interpretation is wrong!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
However, the two videos published on the WR website, are more definitive and they are the last word since WR actually make the Laws and cite these as examples.

but neither of those videos show the scenario in question! (attacking knock on, followed by defenders touching down)

As a referee, if you are interpreting the Laws differently from the way every other referee around you, its a bang on certainty that your interpretation is wrong!

Yes, that is actually the very strongest argument for giving a scrum - just because it seems like that's what other refs would do (I'm serious, convention and consistency are important).
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
I like watching games Steve Walsh referees. Usually open and fast affairs. However, just because he made a particular decision in a particular game doesn't guarantee he got it right. I remember another Waratahs game, not long before he hung up his whistle, where a kick off went straight into the Waratahs' in-goal where Beale dotted it down and started running towards the halfway only to be pulled up by SW who said it would restart with a 22 DO.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
I like watching games Steve Walsh referees. Usually open and fast affairs. However, just because he made a particular decision in a particular game doesn't guarantee he got it right..

I know, and I am not claimng SW as the ultimate arbiter, of course - but still -- it make me laugh, because Ian said

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

and so far looking at all the videos found it's 100% drop out :biggrin:
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
I HAVE seen referees at grassroots level do it. I posted about it in March or April 2014 or 2015 I think.
It was from that post that I followed it up with those in high places at the ARU to confirm my understanding of the law. It has been a pet hate of mine since as we have a couple of "serial offenders" in my association who still award DOs for Knock-ons, both into and within in-goal, that are made dead
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
I have been doing some more googling, and found this great thread from 2009.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-8015.html?

the formatting has gone, so you need to do some thinking to work out where the quote marks should be, but it's interesting : quite few expressions of opinion..

I think the posts from Donal1998 are quite interesting - he is quite clear that he has been told that he should award a 5m scrum, even though the Laws of the game would dictate a dropout.

Donal1988
03-08-09, 12:08

Dickie there is no law reference. I say that earlier. I assumed before I started refereeing that it was another urban myth but the fact is an assessor will ping you for awarding a 22m instead of a scrum 5.

A 22m advantage is both clear and real. It is the best possible advantage that can be awarded to the non offending side. While I accept this scenario it seems in conflict with Laws of the Game.

But the best quote, perhaps is this one - rather like Donal, Simon is saying it's not really in the Laws, but convention is to award the 5m scrum - but I like the bit in bold (my bold)

Simon Thomas
03-08-09, 12:08
We have had this debate a number of times at Group & Federation meetings.

My understanding is that of course one should always apply advantage in open play in such circumstances (Dickie E is quite right, but so is Phil as he was just talking about the knock on I believe), but that once the ball is made dead (touch in goal, past dead ball line, defensive grounding) you cannot use advantage to justify awarding a 22m drop. You must use the the first offence of attacking knock-on (either made in-goal itself, or resulting in the ball going in-goal after the knock on).
Donal - there is an IRB Law Ruling on this - and I did see a level 5 Group Referee get it wrong last season. Much to her (ooops, what a giveaway) coach's annoyance.

Dickie's subsidiary question is an interesting one - my advice to the referee would be never call 'advantage' over whilst they are still in goal, wait for them to get into the field of play ! But if you did call it over, I wouldn't criticise a referee who awarded 22m drop out, as we have had some play and effort to be positive by the defenders (see assessor's do have heart sometimes).
.

Some of the posters from 2009 are still with us... I thnk Dickie E was arguing for the 22m, but it's not clear.

A lot of the posts really are saying 'don't read the law book, do this because we tell you'
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I know, and I am not claimng SW as the ultimate arbiter, of course - but still -- it make me laugh, because Ian said



and so far looking at all the videos found it's 100% drop out :biggrin:

No, you cant dismiss the only two that really count simply because they don't support your argument. BOTH the Law examples on the WR Laws site say 5m scrum, so its 33% DO, 66% 5M scrum.... so far. But wait, there's more...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59L_YU0H7Rs

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829969/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njxemyyvLjA

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830586/

NOTE: In the second one, Steve Walsh is the AR on that side. He does not tell Roman Poite it should be a 22DO.

The score is now 80% scrum 5, 20% DO22
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
No, you cant dismiss the only two that really count simply because they don't support your argument. BOTH the Law examples on the WR Laws site say 5m scrum, so its 33% DO, 66% 5M scrum.... so far. But wait, there's more...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59L_YU0H7Rs

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829969/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njxemyyvLjA

Discussed here: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830586/

NOTE: In the second one, Steve Walsh is the AR on that side. He does not tell Roman Poite it should be a 22DO.

The score is now 80% scrum 5, 20% DO22

But Ian, in neither of those cases did the defender ground the ball or make it dead, so there was no advantage to play. So in both those cases scrum 5 is the only option.
 

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38
To adopt you logic, if they wanted to keep the drop out in some circumstances, they could have said so.
They did - it's 22.7(a)...

Knowing the Laws aren't perfectly written, I'm happy to accept the expert consensus and historical intent - I had no entrenched view before nor now. But I do reject the assertion by those saying it is taking smart-arsed weasel-word reading of the Laws to find that a 22m DO is supported in the specific case raised by crossref.
 
Top