Drop goal unsuccesful

[sungwon]

The red player team attempts to score points by dropping a goal.
But blocked or touch by the blue side, the goal drop is unsuccessful and the ball goes behind the goal line. What will the referee do? Thank you.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What happens to the ball after it goes behind the gol line? At the moment it is simply play on.

 

[sungwon]

What happens to the ball after it goes behind the gol line? At the moment it is simply play on.

The ball goes out behind the goal area.

What happens to the ball after it goes behind the gol line? At the moment it is simply play on.

 

[Phil E]

The important bit is who put the ball into in-goal.
Since the ball last touched a defender, it has been put into in-goal by the defender, then the ball has gone dead.
5m attacking scrum.

Law 19.1
The ball is taken into in-goal by the defending team and made dead.
Scrum: In the scrum zone at the point closest to where the ball was made dead.
Who has the put in: The attacking team.

 

[didds]

agree with Phil 100%

 

[Pinky2]

A rare day when I do not agree with Phil! I think this is an unsuccessful drop goal and is covered by the exception to 21.11 and is a 22 drop out.

 

[Phil E]

A rare day when I do not agree with Phil! I think this is an unsuccessful drop goal and is covered by the exception to 21.11 and is a 22 drop out.

Surely the exception only applies if the ball is kicked dead without touching anyone on the way? In this instance the ball was deliberately touched by a defender prior to crossing the goal line.

BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN-GOAL
11. If a team kicks the ball through their opponents in-goal from the field of play
into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead-ball line, 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.
Exception : An unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal. In these cases,
the defending team restarts with a 22-metre drop-out.

 

[Pinky2]

19.1 describes the ball being taken in the in-goal by the defending team, and for me it is a stretch to suggest that touching it (could even be a charge down attempt) qualifies as that?

 

[Phil E]

19.1 describes the ball being taken in the in-goal by the defending team, and for me it is a stretch to suggest that touching it (could even be a charge down attempt) qualifies as that?

That's a whole different question, but I think its generally accepted that if a team touches the ball then they are responsible for where it goes next. Certainly that would apply to touch

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For me Phil is spot on.

 

[Pinky2]

That's a whole different question, but I think its generally accepted that if a team touches the ball then they are responsible for where it goes next. Certainly that would apply to touch

That is true to an extent, but we are talking here about the circumstances of a missed kick at goal and there are exceptions that apply to that. I don't think that a team would be able to claim three points if the opposition threw the ball over the bar? And we have long debated the difference between "touched" and "played". I think the ball was touched or played, but I don't think it was taken in goal by the defending team, but this is one where interpretation is requre3d as the law is not sufficiently precise (and to be honest, I think you could sell either outcome to both sides if you were confident in explaining why)

 

[smeagol]

That is true to an extent, but we are talking here about the circumstances of a missed kick at goal and there are exceptions that apply to that. I don't think that a team would be able to claim three points if the opposition threw the ball over the bar? And we have long debated the difference between "touched" and "played". I think the ball was touched or played, but I don't think it was taken in goal by the defending team, but this is one where interpretation is requre3d as the law is not sufficiently precise (and to be honest, I think you could sell either outcome to both sides if you were confident in explaining why)

I disagree, I think the law is quite clear with the exception regarding an attempted DG.

Also, for the team that attempted a DG, why should they be rewarded with a 5m scrum from a mis-cue?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That is true to an extent, but we are talking here about the circumstances of a missed kick at goal and there are exceptions that apply to that. I don't think that a team would be able to claim three points if the opposition threw the ball over the bar? And we have long debated the difference between "touched" and "played". I think the ball was touched or played, but I don't think it was taken in goal by the defending team, but this is one where interpretation is requre3d as the law is not sufficiently precise (and to be honest, I think you could sell either outcome to both sides if you were confident in explaining why)

With little doubt in the case of an attempted drop goal any touch on the ball by a defender is 99% intentional so the player is almost certainly (or as certain as we can be) the defender has chosen to play the ball. Therefore ther can be little doubt that the defender put the ball into the in goal area. That is good enough for me.

 

[Volun-selected]

I think intention is important here. For me, the exception is only for when the kicker fluffs their lines. As per the OP, if the blue player has carried out an action that means they have intentionally touched the ball then by definition they have played the ball.

In this scenario, they may have conceded a 5m scrum but they may have also just saved 3 points and bought themselves some time to regroup.