[In-goal] clarification please

[crossref]

So until the ball is out of in-goal (and probably past the 5m line), you don't call advantage over. If they're under pressure in their own in-goal that shouldn't take too long.

What if they kick it ?

 

[ChrisR]

Rich_NL, you are missing the point. If the referee calls "Advantage over" then, by grounding the ball, the non-offending team gains a true advantage. If he doesn't, and they ground the ball, then they can't gain that same advantage (as the law is applied today).

That strikes me as being counterintuitive.

 

[DocY]

Rich_NL, you are missing the point. If the referee calls "Advantage over" then, by grounding the ball, the non-offending team gains a true advantage. If he doesn't, and they ground the ball, then they can't gain that same advantage (as the law is applied today).

That strikes me as being counterintuitive.

TBH, I think it's more counterintuitive that by knocking the ball on in in goal before it's made dead, the attacking team gain an advantage.

No, I know they're not going to do this intentionally, but that's not the point.

 

[OB..]

OB
Are you sure about that because when I asked you about that a while ago you told me[LAWS]In 1977 the law said that a scrum offence in the In-goal would lead to a drop out. This was not changed in 1978.[/LAWS]

I can't track down that quote (for context), but the law on in-goal knock-ons was changed to a 5 metre scrum in 1989.

 

[thepercy]

Do we agree that a 22DO is of greater advantage to the defenders than a defending 5m scrum?

Yes, I agree it is a greater advantage, but not one that the defending team deserve. The attacking team has brought the ball all the way into the in-goal or very near it and has made a simple handling error, the law makers have decided giving the defending team a 22DO is too much gain for a minor infringement.

 

[crossref]

he law on in-goal knock-ons was changed to a 5 metre scrum in 1989.

That's intriguing !

I'd love to know then .. what did the Law say in 1988 and what did it change to in 1989 ?

 

[DocY]

Yes, I agree it is a greater advantage, but not one that the defending team deserve. The attacking team has brought the ball all the way into the in-goal

What if they'd put up a high kick into in goal and failed to gather it?

or very near it and has made a simple handling error, the law makers have decided giving the defending team a 22DO is too much gain for a minor infringement.

And yet that's the advantage they'd get if the attacking team had knocked it backwards, sideways or otherwise not knocked on.

 

[didds]

Yes, I agree it is a greater advantage, but not one that the defending team deserve. The attacking team has brought the ball all the way into the in-goal or very near it and has made a simple handling error, the law makers have decided giving the defending team a 22DO is too much gain for a minor infringement.

indeed... or to put things in another context the defenders are provided with a quarter of the pitch territory

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Yes, I agree it is a greater advantage, but not one that the defending team deserve. The attacking team has brought the ball all the way into the in-goal or very near it and has made a simple handling error, the law makers have decided giving the defending team a 22DO is too much gain for a minor infringement.

And this is part of the fallacy. The 22DO is not for a minor infringement. The 22DO is for playing the ball into the opponents goal and having the opponents ground it or having it go dead. Why should knocking the ball on in/into goal be treated differently?

I totally agree that a knock-on in/into goal that is grounded by the attacking team is the exception and should call for a defending 5m scrum.

If you have such sympathy for the attacking team then when they bring the ball all the way into the opponents goal only to put a toe into touch-in-goal wouldn't you want to deny them the 22DO and instead order a defenders 5m line-out?

 

[Christy]

Below is from 2017 law book ,,as we all know nothing has changed.
See point ( b ) .

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it
becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-
in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.
(b) If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into
the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on
or throw forward happened.
(c) If, at a kick-off or drop-out, the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having
touched or been touched by a player and a defending player grounds it there or makes it
dead without delay, the defending team have two choices:
• To have a scrum formed at the centre of the line from which the kick was taken and they
throw in the ball; or
• To have the other team kick off or drop out again.

 

[crossref]

Below is from 2017 law book ,,as we all know nothing has changed.
See point ( b ) .

that made me laugh out loud, Christy ! because something did change : 22.7(b) didn't make it into the 2018 Law Book :biggrin: It was removed.

To be honest I don't think the removal of 22.7(b) makes any difference, but it's removal was amusing!


If we look at the 2018 Law book for the relevant Law on knock ons we find this-

[LAWS]
19.1 1. Where the game is restarted with a scrum and which team throws in is determined as follows:

Infringement / stoppage- A knock-on or throw forward, apart from at a lineout.
Location of scrum - In the scrum zone at the point closest to the place of infringement
Who throws in - The non-offending team.

[/LAWS]

That tells us where the scrum is, if there is one .... but very often after a knock on the other team gain possession, gain advantage, advantage over and we play on... and there never is a scrum.

..which is why we keep returning to the advantage Law, and when is advantage over.

 

[Christy]

that made me laugh out loud, Christy ! because something did change : 22.7(b) didn't make it into the 2018 Law Book :biggrin: It was removed.

To be honest I don't think the removal of 22.7(b) makes any difference, but it's removal was amusing!


If we look at the 2018 Law book for the relevant Law on knock ons we find this-

[LAWS]
19.1 1. Where the game is restarted with a scrum and which team throws in is determined as follows:

Infringement / stoppage- A knock-on or throw forward, apart from at a lineout.
Location of scrum - In the scrum zone at the point closest to the place of infringement
Who throws in - The non-offending team.

[/LAWS]

That tells us where the scrum is, if there is one .... but very often after a knock on the other team gain possession, gain advantage, advantage over and we play on... and there never is a scrum.

..which is why we keep returning to the advantage Law, and when is advantage over.

Yes i noticed its not in 2018 law book .
I get impression 2018 law book authors ,,take it for granted tnat the bits left out although are still relevant ,,but some how expect us to some how remember the bits left out .
It is confusing i agree .

A thinner book is 1 thing ,,but it does read as if some laws are now different or no longer exist .
Room for improvement

 

[Taff]

.... I get impression 2018 law book authors, take it for granted that the bits left out although are still relevant ,,but some how expect us to some how remember the bits left out.

Which may well work for the gnarly old Refs, but what about the youngsters starting next year? They won't have the original to work from and will be working from just the "simplified" lawbook. There will be laws which exist that they know nothing about. :wow:

 

[crossref]

How can a Law exist when it's not written in the Law Book ?

For 2018 yes, in the circumstances I think we can take account of the 2017 Book .. but I would say that any Law that doesn't make it into the 2019 book will be dead and gone

I actually think this is a bigger problem for the Southern Hemisphere. For us the 2018 book came out mid season, for them they are starting a new season and potentially having to take account of last season's law book ?

 

[Camquin]

The IRB believed shorter meant easier to read and mistakenly assume this means easier to understand and interpret.
But I think that is a mistake.
Rugby has too many corner cases - and sometimes you need more words to describe them.
You can make it easier to understand with diagrams and short sentences.

 

[menace]

Menace, my post is just making a point of how the current practice is turning the law on it's collective head.

Do we agree that a 22DO is of greater advantage to the defenders than a defending 5m scrum? If we don't then we don't have much to discuss.

In the situation where the defenders pick up the attackers KO and continue play in their own goal. If they ground the ball before the referee calls "Advantage over" then they can't gain the 22DO advantage (under current practice) but if the referee calls "Advantage over" and the ground the ball then they get the 22DO.

Doesn't that strike you as back asswards? It does me.

I do understand what you see as backward...but I just cant ever see me (or anyone) calling advantage over while the ball is in-goal while playing advantage for an infringment in goal? It's not until the ball is out of in-goal would I deem advantage has been gained.

 

[crossref]

The IRB believed shorter meant easier to read and mistakenly assume this means easier to understand and interpret.
But I think that is a mistake.
Rugby has too many corner cases - and sometimes you need more words to describe them.
You can make it easier to understand with diagrams and short sentences.

I agree - and by removing the duplications.

But overall I do think it was a good first stab, I like the approach, but it was sloppy, needed more rigorous cross-checking.
Hopefully the 2019 book will be better

 

[chbg]

So if the defenders chose to play on, when would you call advantage over before they cross the 5m line.

In 7s?

 

[chbg]

What I smile at, is that if the attacking team lose the ball forward, and it goes directly over the DB line / TiG without touching another player or the ground, surely a knock-on has not occurred in Law and therefore it will be a 22 DO?

If the attacking team put the ball (not a KO) across the TL by bouncing off the corner post, it is a 5m throw-in. If it crosses TiG just 10cm further on it is a 22DO. Is that too much of an advantage for such a small difference?

If the attacking team KO into or in In-Goal, they may have an opportunity to re-gather the ball before the defenders, or to touch-down, and thus only incur a 5m scrum. If they lose it by so much that the defenders can touch-down, then it ought to be a 22 DO.

But yes, I know what we are told to award, and I am a good boy ...

 

[Dickie E]

The poor, old OP, Last_20, will be having a WTF moment about now.