[In-goal] Doubt about who took ball into in-goal ?

[didds]

It might be one of those situations where, once it is clear that the attacker is going to get into in-goal, you give him some momentum to keep him going through and out the other side.

totally dickie. its that judo thing of using the opponents own weight and momentum against himself.

didds

 

[didds]

Quite a high risk strategy, though !

I think I prefer the strategy where you try to keep your opponent out of your own in goal

there's other factors involved obviously... like you are in the corner already so its no more than an in-and-out. You wouldn't be trying it from under your own posts. That said if you have a 5m in-goal the potential I suppose is that you could step through to the DBL...

didds

 

[Balones]

It seems to me that there is considerable doubt in this scenario. (Other than the fact that the 'group' ends up in touch in goal.)

What is the basic tenet in rugby when there is doubt? - Scrum.
Doubt about which side was in possession? - Attacking ball. (Side going forward.)

Just a thought.

 

[ChrisR]

There is a sequence to consider here:

Attacking player maintains possession unless the ball is clearly taken by defender (as per Dickie E post #7). Therefore the ball is taken into goal by the attacker.

Play is dynamic so not held up (as per didds #14)

Group goes TiG has to go thru goal.

Therefore as per 2018 Law ?????

This (Law 12 Restarts) doesn't exactly cover it:

[LAWS]12.11. Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.[/LAWS]

Scrum Law 19 only reference is to the ball taken into goal by a defender.

Law 21 In-Goal only addresses 'Ball held up' and 'Doubt about grounding'.

The closest we get is 12.11 so a 22DO is appropriate but Balones makes a good point about 'When in doubt order a scrum'.

 

[Balones]

It seems to me that the key bit of doubt, according to the original post, is which team took the ball into goal. That should be the start of the decision making process. The defender ended up with the ball but when did he end up with it? The original poster is not sure.
Therefore from my point of view I would go with the original decision.

In such circumstances however I would mainly be looking for how decisive the referee was in their communication.

 

[didds]

Therefore as per 2018 Law ?????

This (Law 12 Restarts) doesn't exactly cover it:

[LAWS]12.11. Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.[/LAWS]

Scrum Law 19 only reference is to the ball taken into goal by a defender.

Law 21 In-Goal only addresses 'Ball held up' and 'Doubt about grounding'.

The closest we get is 12.11 so a 22DO is appropriate but Balones makes a good point about 'When in doubt order a scrum'.

So that would mean that a lone attacker in a narrow in-goal running to score behind the posts that inadvertently puts a foot in the DBL whilst losing out on a try (silly billy!) still earns his team a 5M attacking scrummage?

Not calling ChrisR out here! Just querying the 2018 simplified law's intentions...

didds

 

[crossref]

It's another error in the 2018 Laws .. in all the Laws up to now it doesn't matter who makes it dead.

A clear accidental mistake.. I will add it to my table

Why did it take us so long to notice that ??

Quite a big mistake as well !! How many times do we all repeat the mantra that it doesn't matter who made it dead, it's who put it into the in goal that counts

 

[ChrisR]

So that would mean that a lone attacker in a narrow in-goal running to score behind the posts that inadvertently puts a foot in the DBL whilst losing out on a try (silly billy!) still earns his team a 5M attacking scrummage?

Not calling ChrisR out here! Just querying the 2018 simplified law's intentions...
didds

You could make a case for it! Though I wouldn't call it that way (and I suspect that no member of this site would either).

I also wondered if an attacking player knocks-on directly into touch-in-goal if the defenders should be offered the choice of 5m defending scrum or 5m line-out. Actually, I think they should get a 22DO but that's for another thread. Bwahahahaha!

 

[didds]

It's another error in the 2018 Laws .. in all the Laws up to now it doesn't matter who makes it dead.

A clear accidental mistake.. I will add it to my table

I agree. an accidental mistake. Except to ask - how the proverbial did such a "mistake" ever occur? who thought it needed to have "made dead by an opponent" added? and to what end?

WHY????

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

Scoring a try also makes the ball dead.

If that weren't so, the "opponent" bit wouldn't have been necessary and the whole KO in goal/no advantage if ball was dead discussion would be easier.

 

[didds]

ah - get your nuance Rich.

then the simplified laws need a simplified explanation as to what happens when an attacker makes it dead-but-not-a-try.

Because the logic tree is broken without it, leading to guesswork and individual (whether personal or societal or NGB) interpretation which can only end up with ambiguity. Which the 2018 simplified law book was supposed to overcome.

Oh dear.

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Let’s cut away some of the white noise in the OP. We have:

1. Red Ball Carrier held by 2 Blue players short of Blue goal line
2. One Blue player gets a hand on the ball and he tries to rip the ball.
3. Second Blue player is trying to drive the group into touch.
4. The group goes into the in-goal area.
5. The group goes into Touch-in-goal.
6. At this point Blue has possession (Ref does not know at which point Blue gained possession.).

Ref thinks that red was resisting going into touch and into in-goal
Does the ref award a 5mtr attacking scrum or a 22 drop out?
An observation first. Why would red “resist going into in-goal”? If he gets there (as was his aim before being held) he may score a try. I am struggling with the ref “knowing” that is not Reds desire here.
However back to the facts.

We have a group of three payer who move from the FOP into in-goal and later into TIG Red initially had the ball and at the end Blue had it we don’t know when the change in possession occurred. That’s about it.

Three questions present.
What should happen if Red was in possession when the ball entered in-goal?
What should happen if Blue was in possession when the ball entered in-goal?
What should happen if we can’t decide who was in possession when the ball entered in-goal?


2017 Law
22.8 BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN-GOAL
If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the
dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the
defending team has two choices:

• To have a drop-out, or
• To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.
2018 re write has
Law 21 In-Goal BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN-GOAL
12. If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal from the field of play into touchin-goal or on or over the dead-ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or
attempted dropped goal, the defending team can choose:
a. To have a drop-out anywhere on or behind the 22-metre line; or
b. To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked.
So except for the addition of “from the field of play”, a missed “– ”, the changing of “has two choices “ to “can chose” and the removal of “and they throw in” (now elsewhere in the book) this really has not changed in meaning. But does it help? Well not particularly as we are not talking about a ball “kicked through”. However, we can take the basic inference that IF the attacking team causes the ball to go through In-goal they lose out. This inference can be taken from both 2017 and 2018 In-goal law.
So, let’s look elsewhere for help.
Law 12 2018 has been referenced
RESTART KICKS FOLLOWING A TOUCH-DOWN (22-METRE DROP-OUT)
11. Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an
attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre
drop-out.
What does the equivalent law in 2017 say?
13.9 BALL GOES INTO THE IN-GOAL
(a) If the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a
player, the opposing team has three choices:
• To ground the ball, or
• To make it dead, or
• To play on.
And
13.15 DROP-OUT GOES INTO THE OPPONENTS’ IN-GOAL
(a) If the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a
player, the opposing team has three choices:
• To ground the ball, or
• To make it dead, or
• To play on.
(b) If the opposing team grounds the ball, or makes it dead, or if the ball becomes dead by
going into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, they have two choices:
• To have a scrum formed at the centre of the 22-metre line from where the kick was taken
and they throw in the ball, or
• To have the other team drop-out again.
(c) If they opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay. Any other
action with the ball by a defending player means the player has elected to play on.
Neither 2017 nor 2018 are totally helpful in respect to our scenario. We are not talking about a kick going into / through in-goal. The same caveats apply as to the “in-goal” reference above.
So to compare the two books the law is just at “clear” or “Unclear” now as before the re-write. The situation is not covered in detail.
So, we apply basic principles. That is “THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE LAWS”. So…. What would you have done in December using the 2017 book?
So lets look at the questions again:
What should happen if Red was in possession when the ball entered in-goal?
I am sure that Pre Jan 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 2018 every one of us would have awarded a drop out 22 in this scenario.
What should happen if Blue was in possession when the ball entered in-goal?
I am sure that Pre Jan 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 2018 every one of us would have awarded a Scrum 5 attacking ball in this scenario.
What should happen if we can’t decide who was in possession when the ball entered in-goal?
Well pre Jan 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 2018 I would say thart this is the advice to follow: “It seems to me that there is considerable doubt in this scenario. (Other than the fact that the 'group' ends up in touch in goal.) What is the basic tenet in rugby when there is doubt? - Scrum. Doubt about which side was in possession? - Attacking ball. (Side going forward.)” - Balones




So, in conclusion we have a call to make Was it scenario A / B or C. Make your call accordingly
Is there anything in the re-write to, seriously, question those calls? Not really.
Just as an afterthought:
For me the notion that it is a “held up in in-goal” scenario, can be dismissed as folly. For me “held up2 clearly implies an end to a dynamic situation and the advent of a static situation. We really don’t have that here. So sorry “Pinky” I can’t support your view.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For me the 2018 re-write has not achieved its stated aim of clarifying the law. However, neither has it changed it or made it less clear. The debate about the merits of the new book has it's place but in this debate it has just muddied the waters.

If we start from the principle that no law has changed (WR's mantra and confirmed by the RFU from Phil's posts) we make life a lot easier in debate about scenarios. YES, where there is confusion because of apparent changes. Please flag them up via your societ / union etc and hopefully Law Book 2019 will be closer to what we really want / need.

 

[didds]

If we start from the principle that no law has changed (WR's mantra and confirmed by the RFU from Phil's posts) we make life a lot easier in debate about scenarios. YES, where there is confusion because of apparent changes. Please flag them up via your societ / union etc and hopefully Law Book 2019 will be closer to what we really want / need.

^^^ This.

The problem is that I perceive where there are changes the answer is "but that is what the 2017 laws SHOULD have meant". Whilst then not dealing with the absurd lack of logic in some 2018 laws (see above ball made dead by opponent etc)

didds

 

[crossref]

.

If we start from the principle that no law has changed (WR's mantra and confirmed by the RFU from Phil's posts)

Marc , I think you and Phil might be the last men standing with that starting point !

The issue now is what should we make of all these unexpected changes (or, if you prefer , difference s) and how to deal with them

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I've already answered that. Furthermore, I think you make a very large, and very difficult to justify, assumption in suggesting that only Phil and I hold that view.

 

[didds]

Marc , I think you and Phil might be the last men standing with that starting point !

The issue now is what should we make of all these unexpected changes (or, if you prefer , difference s) and how to deal with them

me too. I don;t see how there "can be no changes" and "both lawbooks are concurrent BECAUSE there are no changes" yet somehow the 2018 book is supposed to trump the 2017 one. Its nonsensical.

didds

 

[Phil E]

I've already answered that. Furthermore, I think you make a very large, and very difficult to justify, assumption in suggesting that only Phil and I hold that view.

Agreed.

My Society has told me there are no law changes.
I am aware of at least two other Societies that have given there members the same advice.

Maybe members here could share what they have been told by their individual Societies?

 

[ChuckieB]

I've already answered that. Furthermore, I think you make a very large, and very difficult to justify, assumption in suggesting that only Phil and I hold that view.

Good for me.

Easier to direct a call, especially in the heat of the game, on a set of laws that everyone thinks they understand, rather than a set of "unchanged" laws that few understand.

For those that didn't understand either, all this will just serve to reinforce their existing views.

 

[crossref]

Agreed.

My Society has told me there are no law changes.
I am aware of at least two other Societies that have given there members the same advice.

Maybe members here could share what they have been told by their individual Societies?

Cool , good idea
.. Phil do have an email or something, where someone asked about the differences and was told there weren't any ?

In the spirit of sharing Here's what I got from SA Refs when I asked them

Hi Duty Ref, Whether accidentally or deliberately it's hard to be sure, but one way or another the 2018 Law Book contains a number of differences from the 2017 Law Book. How should we referee those differences ? My view is simple : we should referee to the new Law Book. But some of my referee colleagues maintain that the 2018 Law Book is 'wrong' and that we should ignore the differences and continue to ref to the 2017 Laws

Answer

Hi, to be blunt and i see you have the same attitude; the 2018 law book is correct and needs to be read with the global law trials.