Drop goal after FK taken as scrum

[Davet]

I simply answered your question.

The scrum is over after the ball emerges, if after the scrum is over an opponent plays it then the side awarded the FK and which took the scrum option can then score a DG.

In what way does that constitute having it in for you?

 

[Phil E]

You've got it in for me. :sad:

Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me................you might be right :chin:

 

[chopper15]

I simply answered your question.

The scrum is over after the ball emerges, if after the scrum is over an opponent plays it then the side awarded the FK and which took the scrum option can then score a DG.

The ball emerged, the scrum is over, the ball was obviously touched in the scrum by the opponents, the ball's in play. So, no score if the SH is first to pick up and kicks a DG.

Didn't know that, Davet, thanks for the info'.

Does that also apply if a defending scrum is taken outside their 22?

ie., heeled against the head, attack pushes scrum completely over the 22, ball squirts out, defending SH first to pick up and kicks down-field direct into touch.

LO aligned where kick was taken as ball was not touched by opponent in FoP?

 

[chopper15]

Would appreciate an opinion on my #23 query, please.:hap:

 

[OB..]

Would appreciate an opinion on my #23 query, please.:hap:

If the attacking team drives the scrum over the 22 having the ball in their side, then they took it into the 22, and a gain in ground is allowed.

This is different from the FK situation where the scrum replaces the FK (no dancing on pinheads about whether or not the ball might have been touched in the scrum).

 

[chopper15]

If the attacking team drives the scrum over the 22 having the ball in their side, then they took it into the 22, and a gain in ground is allowed.

This is different from the FK situation where the scrum replaces the FK (no dancing on pinheads about whether or not the ball might have been touched in the scrum).

No dancing on pinheads if it might have been touched, OB, it was obviously touched.

My point being that in both the 22 and FK scrum option the ball was taken against the head and emerged from that side without any of their players in 'open' field touching it.

If I'm interpreting your opinion correctly, OB, you're suggesting that obvious contact in the scrum for a 22 situation is acceptable but obvious contact in the FK scrum option requires additional 'open' field contact before a DG can be attempted.

I'm curious as to what prompts your apparent contradiction.:hap:

 

[OB..]

No dancing on pinheads if it might have been touched, OB, it was obviously touched.

That is exactly the sort of thing I am fed up with. You seem to be more interested in semantic argument than the game.

As far as I am concerned there is a distinct different between a scrum taken in lieu of a FK, and a scrum for some other infringement. YMMV.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Oh Christ noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Sorry Bungle. I would say no it's not allowed however in a Dennis Wheatley type way you may well have summoned a creature from the South West that will now bore us all shitless for the next two weeks. :biggrin:

I don't like to say I told you so but I told you so.

 

[Davet]

I'm curious as to what prompts your apparent contradiction.:hap:

Try common sense.

 

[chopper15]

Try common sense.

OB misrepresented my scenario by suggesting that the attacking side put the ball into the scrum just outside the 22 to suit his answer.

He then stated that if they then took the ball over the 22 and the defending SH beat them to the pick-up when it emerged and kicked the ball down-field direct into touch the gain in ground would be allowed.

So, Davet, according to your interpretation of the FK scrum option that the ball must be touched by the opposition outside the scrum (which contradicts OB's opinion) should the defending SH put the ball into the scrum outside the 22 and the opposition take the ball against the head and trundle over the 22 with it and the defending SH then beat them to the pick-up immediately it emerges, there's to be no gain in ground should he kick it downfield direct into touch?

There's nothing in the LoG to support that opinion, so what's the 'common-sense' reasoning, please? :hap:

 

[OB..]

OB misrepresented my scenario by suggesting that the attacking side put the ball into the scrum just outside the 22 to suit his answer.

I did nothing of the sort. You wrote:-

Does that also apply if a defending scrum is taken outside their 22?

ie., heeled against the head, attack pushes scrum completely over the 22, ball squirts out, defending SH first to pick up and kicks down-field direct into touch.

LO aligned where kick was taken as ball was not touched by opponent in FoP?

and I replied, attempting to understand the situation you proposed

If the attacking team drives the scrum over the 22 having the ball in their side, then they took it into the 22, and a gain in ground is allowed.

what's the 'common-sense' reasoning, please? :hap:

To me, common sense suggests we stop going round in ever decreasing circles, because we all know where that ends.

 

[Simon Thomas]

To me, common sense suggests we stop going round in ever decreasing circles, because we all know where that ends.

A TV series with Richard Briers :biggrin:

 

[Jacko]

Good work at getting this thread so far away from me dropping a bollock. Thanks everyone!

 

[Robert Burns]

Chopper,

I would have no problem with awarding the dropped goal IF a team decided on taking the scrum in lieu of the FK, and the scrum was won against the head by the opposition, and the opposition carried out the dropped goal kick.

(Though a team would be bloody stupid to take a scrum instead of the kick near their own posts).

I would not allow the dropped goal to stand if the scrum was won against the head, and the original team then drives over and wins the ball. The move they first planned is still there and the law states they cannot score from it. I would allow a dropped goal from a point after a tackle, ruck or maul occurred, or where the opponents have clearly touched the ball in flight.

 

[Robert Burns]

Good work at getting this thread so far away from me dropping a bollock. Thanks everyone!

Doesn't look like it made a difference anyway considering the scoreline.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This should settle matter once and for all

All Laws of the Game, other than 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 pertain to General Play. The specified Laws pertain to specific phases of play in which the Laws pertaining to General Play are sometimes suspended.

For example, in a scrum or a maul, when a player at the back has the ball (at his feet in a Scrum, or in his possesion in a Maul) all the players ahead of him would be guilty of obstruction were the Laws of General Play applicable. They aren't.

The matter of a dropped goal not being allowed after a FK, even if a scrum option is ordered, is in Law 9. This is a Law of General Play, therefore the fact that an opposing player might have touched the ball while it was in the scrum, is irrelevant.

 

[Dickie E]

This should settle matter once and for all

Why do those words send a chill down my spine?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Why do those words send a chill down my spine?

They shouldn't.

You're not bird are you?

 

[chopper15]

Grateful thanks, to you all for debating my query. Such reasoned and detail opinions by so many respected and experienced threaders altho' much appreciated by this often unjustly derided outsider does deter him from posing a subsequent query.:sad:

But, genuinely thinking this follow-up does have justifiable merit, I will overcome my faint-heartedness and pose it . . .:hap:

How do your opinions apply to this particular scenario should it be either a sanctioned scrum or FK scrum option?

- Red scrum just outside Red 22.
- Blue takes ball against head.
- Scrum pushed into Red 22.
- Ball pops out Blue side in Red 22.
- Red SH beats Blue to pick-up.
- Red SH kicks ball from inside 22.
- Ball goes direct into touch on Blue 22.

I think that 19.1(f) would allow a gain in ground should the scrum be a FK option or sanctioned scrum . . . my reasoning being there's no distinction made in that law as to whether opponent contact with the ball is restricted only to general play.

But being respectfully mindful of your reasoned logic which you apply to 21.6 (b) to deny the DG, I suppose, it will also give you justification to deny the gain in ground for the touch kick going direct into touch? :hap:

PS. What does, ' You're not bird . . . ' mean, please?

 

[Dickie E]

I'd be happy with gain in ground