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...
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.
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.
yes, for knock-on INTO the in goal (because it's not the same as deliberately putting the ball in there).It is precisely why the Law makers changed the Law in the furst place
Still at least we are having the right discussion now,
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.
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.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?
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!)
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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..
AgreeAs 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.
Agree2. If the defender retrieves the ball can they ground it? Yes - Law 8 says they have freedom to play the ball as they wish.
Agree3. 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.
Disagree.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.
No, but knocking the ball on is an infringement.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.
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.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.
Agree7. 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.
Disagree.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.