Do you offer the choice?

[ChrisR]

There are several laws that offer the non-offending team a choice of restarts. Also, when playing advantage and multiple offences occur there is a protocol for deciding which offence to act on. But there are situations where a second offence doesn't happen, the ball goes dead and you have the decision to act only on the dead ball, go back to the prior offence ar something else.

Three theoretical situations. Red v. Blue. I'm assuming that advantage is played even though the speed of events prevented "Advantage" being called.

Case 1. Red knock-on near touch and within a step or two kick the ball to touch. If the ball had bounced directly to touch you would offer the scrum/line-out choice but it was kicked there by Red.
Do you:
a. Order a Blue line-out.
b. Go back to the Blue scrum.
c. Make a judgement based on ??? and order Blue line-out/scrum accordingly.
d. Offer the line-out/scrum choice to Blue.

Case 2. Red knock-on near touch and immediately Blue kick the ball to touch some distance toward Red's goal.
Do you:
1. Consider the gain in territory sufficient to end advantage and order a Red line-out.
2. Go back to the Blue scrum.
3. Make a judgement call as distance gained v. possession.
4. Off the Blue scrum/Red lineout as a choice to Blue.

Case 3. Red knock-on near opponents goal. Before it goes into goal Red kicks the ball into touch-in-goal.
Do you:
a. Order the 22/scrum option..
b. Go back to the Blue scrum for the knock-on.
c. Determine best advantage for Blue and order appropriately.
d. Offer the 22/knock-on scrum to Blue.

 

[crossref]

Case 1
b - KO by red, Blue Scrum

Case 2
none of the above. The way I see it
- if the blue kick was freely taken decision to take the advantage and play the ball -- then advantage over, red lineout
- if the blue kick was clearly forced/under pressure/instinctive no advantage gained blue scrum

Case 3
b - KO by red, Blue Scrum

Good questions!

the thing these have all got in common though : these aren't multiple offences. There is just ONE offence, the knock on, and then one or other team leagally plays the ball, as they are entitled to if you haven't blown your whistle

So the guidance about multiple offences -- choosing the best advatage - doesn't apply.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Case 1. Red knock-on near touch and within a step or two kick the ball to touch. If the ball had bounced directly to touch you would offer the scrum/line-out choice but it was kicked there by Red.
Do you:
a. Order a Blue line-out.
b. Go back to the Blue scrum.
c. Make a judgement based on ??? and order Blue line-out/scrum accordingly.
d. Offer the line-out/scrum choice to Blue.

Offer the option. A team does not have to accept advantage if they do not want it and provided you do not deem that advantage is over(in this case they would most likely be a bit closer to their goal line than where the KO took place) give the option. They may not want a scrum/lineout as the other team may be strong in one department.

Case 2. Red knock-on near touch and immediately Blue kick the ball to touch some distance toward Red's goal.
Do you:
1. Consider the gain in territory sufficient to end advantage and order a Red line-out.
2. Go back to the Blue scrum.
3. Make a judgement call as distance gained v. possession.
4. Off the Blue scrum/Red lineout as a choice to Blue.

Advantage over with the ball in the air. From a KO they have had a chance to clear the ball and gained some ground from their goal line. It's not a PK advantage so it is not a free play. They are getting much the same as what they would hope from a scrum.

Case 3. Red knock-on near opponents goal. Before it goes into goal Red kicks the ball into touch-in-goal.
Do you:
a. Order the 22/scrum option..
b. Go back to the Blue scrum for the knock-on.
c. Determine best advantage for Blue and order appropriately.
d. Offer the 22/knock-on scrum to Blue.

Scrum to blue

 

[Accylad]

I am with Crossref but I can see what ForF is saying in the first scenario.... Still would just go with the first knock on though I think although it is possible that if blue were being hammered in the scrum I might go with line out. I am damn sure I would be able to sell it !!

 

[Phil E]

I am damn sure I would be able to sell it !!

To the players, or your assessor?

 

[Accylad]

Both "Demonstrating empathy in the context of the game.... Felt right at the time."

If he is not happy say "I can quite see your point of view and will bear it in mind for next time I see it happen" Internally - shrug.

 

[Accylad]

fftopic: Anyone ever seen a team dominant in the scrum deliberately knocking on so they can exert that dominance?? I haven't.....

 

[TheBFG]

fftopic: Anyone ever seen a team dominant in the scrum deliberately knocking on so they can exert that dominance?? I haven't.....

if it was a deliberate knock on, it would be a PK :wink:

(Ha beat crossref to it epper: )

 

[crossref]

if it was a deliberate knock on, it would be a PK :wink:

(Ha beat crossref to it epper: )

how many hands did they use, though ?

 

[Accylad]

You know what I mean fellas ! A pattern would develop.....

 

[Ian_Cook]

fftopic: Anyone ever seen a team dominant in the scrum deliberately knocking on so they can exert that dominance?? I haven't.....

No, but I have seen a team decline KO advantage to have an attacking scrum near the end of the time that an opposition forward was in the bin.

 

[winchesterref]

Agree with crossref.

1st scenario the offence is a knock on, before the ball is played again by the offending team. There is no second offence, no advantage from the knock on as non-offending team have not played the ball, and hence a scrum.

 

[The Fat]

Case 1. Red knock-on near touch and within a step or two kick the ball to touch. If the ball had bounced directly to touch you would offer the scrum/line-out choice but it was kicked there by Red.
Do you:
a. Order a Blue line-out.
b. Go back to the Blue scrum.
c. Make a judgement based on ??? and order Blue line-out/scrum accordingly.
d. Offer the line-out/scrum choice to Blue.

Case 2. Red knock-on near touch and immediately Blue kick the ball to touch some distance toward Red's goal.
Do you:
1. Consider the gain in territory sufficient to end advantage and order a Red line-out.
2. Go back to the Blue scrum.
3. Make a judgement call as distance gained v. possession.
4. Off the Blue scrum/Red lineout as a choice to Blue.
As per crossref's answer

"none of the above. The way I see it
- if the blue kick was freely taken decision to take the advantage and play the ball -- then advantage over, red lineout
- if the blue kick was clearly forced/under pressure/instinctive no advantage gained blue scrum"

Case 3. Red knock-on near opponents goal. Before it goes into goal Red kicks the ball into touch-in-goal.
Do you:
a. Order the 22/scrum option..
b. Go back to the Blue scrum for the knock-on.
c. Determine best advantage for Blue and order appropriately.
d. Offer the 22/knock-on scrum to Blue.

All answers backed by current laws and uncomplicated to referee

 

[Phil E]

All three answers are clearly defined in law.
I can't see what point you are trying to make, except hoping to reinforce your view that you think the law is wrong.

 

[ChrisR]

Phil E, I have no quarrel with advantage law but was curious as to the extent of its application. Also curious as to whether advantage could be stretched to allow the non-offenders a choice of restarts.

My answers are:

1. b. Go back to Blue scrum.
2. 2. Go back to the Blue scrum
3. a. Order a 22 as clear advantage over 5m scrum.

 

[OB..]

My answers are:

1. b. Go back to Blue scrum.
2. 2. Go back to the Blue scrum
3. a. Order a 22 as clear advantage over 5m scrum.

On 3 you are back to the other thread on the consequences of a knock-on into in-goal. You are trying to use the advantage law inappropriately.

 

[ChrisR]

OB, not so. This scenario is a knock-on where the ball does not go into goal until it's kicked there (and touch-in-goal) by the knocker-oner.

The other thread did start me thinking about advantage and the extent to which it may be played in different circumstances. In example 3. there has not been another offence but the action of the team following the knock-on has created an advantage opportunity in the restart.

Now, I get your understanding of the purpose of advantage to promote continuous play but isn't a side benefit the potential for advantage from subsequent actions of the offending team?

Example: If team Red transgressed, and you were playing advantage Blue, but Red retained possession, under pressure and giving ground, until they put the ball in touch for a territorial advantage to Blue. Under that circumstance I would consider advantage over when the ball goes dead and award the line-out to Blue rather than come back to the Blue scrum/PK.

I see Example 3, above, in a similar vein.