[In-goal] Choice?

[Dickie E]

Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.

Of course it may well be the same place most of the time, but not always. Retiring players etc.[/QUOTE]

[LAWS]4. An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or
b. Moves forwards towards the ball; or
c. Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately to an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.
Sanction: The non-offending team can choose either:i. Penalty at the place of infringement; or
ii. Scrum where the offending team last played the ball.[/LAWS]

If Red kick the ball on their own 10 metre line and a team mate (standing on halfway) starts to move forward, then, if the referee penalises the team mate, he would give the penalty on the halfway line. That is how we would do it here.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Under the current law trials and listed in 2017 LOTG at 8.1.a options can be offered when there are multiple penalty infringements:

When advantage is being played for multiple penalty infringements by the same team, the referee allows the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous of the penalty marks.

In this scenario there is only one infringement, offside, so there is no opportunity in law to offer options to the defending team unless it relates to the penalty event itself. So if offside was material in pressurising the defender to touch down then award a penalty. Otherwise it should be a 22.

 

[ChrisR]

the OP is a good question but I think there are some red herrings (ARs, materiality) muddying the water. Can I change the question thus:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into in-goal. Ref observes Red chaser in front of the kicker and calls "advantage". Red kicker has over-cooked the kick and ball goes over DBL.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

For me, I would award the penalty with no 22 option. But what would I do if the captain asked me if they could take 22DO instead?

Seems like the consensus is "No choice" although it seemed fitting and although there is precedence elsewhere there is no specific supporting law for this scenario.

With the ball going beyond the DBL it seems the offsides isn't material but having called "Advantage" are you then committed to the PK?

 

[beckett50]

There is another point to consider here.

Why is the AR signalling so obviously that you are 'hung out to dry'? What did your pre-match brief say about signalling of offences?

Also rather than call "Advantage" straight away a quick shout "Hold Red" may well preclude you from having to make the decision.

Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.

We don't know from where the chip took place, but it may well be the case - if it happened inside Blue's 22 - that a 22DO will offer better territorial advantage because they can hoof the ball way up field and pin Red back into their own half with a good kick chase and maybe force a turnover.

Every situation will be different, both from a match viewpoint and also a referee viewpoint.

 

[ChrisR]

As Dickie E pointed out there are some red herrings in the OP, such as an AR and materiallity, so let's change the scenario.

Attacking Red, 10m out from Blue's goal, knocks the ball forward but gets a toe to it and grubbers it into goal as you call "Scrum advantage Blue". What would your call be if:

a. It goes over the DBL

b. Blue kicks it over the DBL

c. Blue grounds it

d. Red beats Blue to it and grounds it.

 

[Phil E]

:deadhorse:

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Attacking Red, 10m out from Blue's goal, knocks the ball forward but gets a toe to it and grubbers it into goal as you call "Scrum advantage Blue". What would your call be if:

a. It goes over the DBL - no advantage, scrum Blue
b. Blue kicks it over the DBL - no advantage, scrum Blue
c. Blue grounds it - no advantage, scrum Blue
d. Red beats Blue to it and grounds it - no advantage, scrum Blue

 

[Dickie E]

[If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.

Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.[/QUOTE]

I've shown you mine, can I see yours?

Where would this place of "materiality" be?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I had a choice issue come up in my game on Saturday and I'm not sure if what we arrived at was one of all the choices available.

Anyway here goes.

Green attacking. They are about on 40m line. Green are awarded a PK for in the side - play advantage.
Another PK awarded on 22 a bit closer to touchline for something similar - play a new advantage.
Green box kick into corner. Red full back scoots into corner and goes to hoof bobbling ball into touch and slices it so badly it goes dead in goal.

I blow for PK and Green skipper opts for PK on 22. From crowd I hear a comment (not abusive or critical) querying if the 5m scrum wouldn't be the better option. Either skipper didn't hear it or wanted the PK but should I have offered the 5m attacking scrum too or I do I not have that latitude? Not sure? Similarly if skipper has said "can we have the 5m scrum?" is it available?

 

[crossref]

Great scenario
If the skipper asked for the scrum , I would give it. It seems silly to insist that no adv was gained, when he thinks it was gained

 

[Rich_NL]

Interesting! I don't see why they wouldn't have that option.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Interesting! I don't see why they wouldn't have that option.

I don't think you can offer the scrum option. You haven't announced advantage over, but you can't keep accruing the advantage after the ball is made dead to the new restart. The decision on advantage as I see it should be at the point the ball is made dead, not thereafter.

You could also argue you change the defending side's behaviour if you do or don't call advantage over. The defender mnay have tried to fall on the ball if you had called advantage over, for example.

 

[Elpablo73]

I had a choice issue come up in my game on Saturday and I'm not sure if what we arrived at was one of all the choices available.

Anyway here goes.

Green attacking. They are about on 40m line. Green are awarded a PK for in the side - play advantage.
Another PK awarded on 22 a bit closer to touchline for something similar - play a new advantage.
Green box kick into corner. Red full back scoots into corner and goes to hoof bobbling ball into touch and slices it so badly it goes dead in goal.

I blow for PK and Green skipper opts for PK on 22. From crowd I hear a comment (not abusive or critical) querying if the 5m scrum wouldn't be the better option. Either skipper didn't hear it or wanted the PK but should I have offered the 5m attacking scrum too or I do I not have that latitude? Not sure? Similarly if skipper has said "can we have the 5m scrum?" is it available?

Lee, I don't see how you could give the 5m scrum, as the trial is written - it is only for penalties.

But the thinking behind it's inclusion was to stop repeated infringements where an advantage would be played, so that would seem to open the door to the possibility!

Do you follow the letter of the law or the spirit?

 

[Camquin]

I think the non offending side always have the right to decline the penalty and take the tactical advantage gained.

It is generally unwise so rarely done.

 

[thepercy]

Red kick the ball into ingoal, ball is made dead? So a Green 22DO? Even if Green brought the ball into ingoal and it was made dead, with PK ADV I wouldn't offer options to Red.

 

[didds]

Red kick the ball into ingoal, ball is made dead? So a Green 22DO? Even if Green brought the ball into ingoal and it was made dead, with PK ADV I wouldn't offer options to Red.

red are the defenders. green attacking, red put the ball in goal and dead

didds

 

[thepercy]

red are the defenders. green attacking, red put the ball in goal and dead

didds

I messed up the colors, am I missing something else? Green kick into corner, of ingoal? Red kick ball over DBL or TIG, if no ADV then Red 22DO?

 

[crossref]

Green attacking kick to corner of field of play
Red defender slices ball over his own goal line and into TIG , so 5m scrum to green

 

[ChrisR]

If Red defender puts the ball into touch 5m out (instead over over his own DBL) would you allow Green to claim the lineout as his tactical advantage? I would. Same for over the DBL.

Take note of the dead ball definition change from '17 to '18. Is it pertinent to this discussion?

2017 Dead: The ball is out of play. This happens when the ball has gone outside the playing
area and remained there, or when the referee has blown the whistle to indicate a
stoppage in play, or when a conversion kick has been taken.

2018 Dead: The ball is dead when the referee blows the whistle to stop play or following an
unsuccessful conversion.

 

[crossref]

The 2018 Laws haven't got to grips with the zombie ball .. those situations that are dead (under that definition) but where one side is free to play the ball so it's not really dead and we don't allow (for instance ) replacements, questions
Eg when you blow for a PK and the quick tap is on , or touch and the QTI is on