Kick-off no 10m - advantage?

[vidiego]

Watching a game yesterday the white player nº 10 kicks the kick-off really high but too short –clearly the ball will not reach 10 m- and a team mate takes the ball preventing the yellow team´s play. The ref gives the yellow team the option, scrum or kick again.
All of that was ok but it makes me think:

What’s happens if in the same scenario a white player in attempt to catch the ball knocks it and the ball crosses the 10m line…do you allow the game to continue? Are you going to play advantage for no 10m and/or knock-on or would you stop the game immediately with options for the yellow team?

And what happens if in a kick-off the ball reaches 10m but a team mate of the kicker is in front of the ball? Would you play advantage or stop the game immediately?

Saludos!

 

[OB..]

What’s happens if in the same scenario a white player in attempt to catch the ball knocks it and the ball crosses the 10m line…do you allow the game to continue? Are you going to play advantage for no 10m and/or knock-on or would you stop the game immediately with options for the yellow team?

All the law says is [LAWS]If the ball does not reach the opponent’s 10-metre line the opposing team has two choices:

• To have the ball kicked off again, or
• To have a scrum at the centre of the half-way line and they throw in the ball.

[/LAWS]No mention of the effect of a knock-on.

If you play advantage for the knock-on and none accrues, would you have to go back to the point of the knock-on for the scrum? The kicking team would gain a small advantage from that. So most people I know argue that you do not play advantage, but offer the options.

And what happens if in a kick-off the ball reaches 10m but a team mate of the kicker is in front of the ball? Would you play advantage or stop the game immediately?

[LAWS]All the kicker’s team must be behind the ball when it is kicked. If they are not, a scrum is formed at the centre. Their opponents throw in the ball.[/LAWS]The law does not seem to treat this as an offence, since there is no specified sanction. It is just an event which leads to a scrum. A specific piece of law over-rides a more general one, so it cannot really be offside.

 

[Taff]

... If you play advantage for the knock-on and none accrues, would you have to go back to the point of the knock-on for the scrum? The kicking team would gain a small advantage from that. So most people I know argue that you do not play advantage, but offer the options.

I'm not so sure OB. I don't see why we can't play advantage from the knock-on inside the 10m line. The book gives us about 6 scenarios (nearly all scrum offences) where we cannot play advantage, and this isn't one of them. By implication I would allow a advantage to be played - and if there wasn't one, go back to the kick again / scrum option.

 

[OB..]

I'm not so sure OB. I don't see why we can't play advantage from the knock-on inside the 10m line. The book gives us about 6 scenarios (nearly all scrum offences) where we cannot play advantage, and this isn't one of them. By implication I would allow a advantage to be played - and if there wasn't one, go back to the kick again / scrum option.

[LAWS]8.5 (a)
When there is more than one infringement by the same team:
· If advantage cannot be applied to the second offence the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the first offence.
· If advantage is played for the second offence but none accrues, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the second offence.[/LAWS]

As ever this is not entirely clear. It appears to be saying that you go back to the last offence, which would be the knock-on, as I said. Is advantage being applied the same as being gained? It shouldn’t be, but you can’t be sure with the laws.

It is also unclear if the failure to kick 10m is actually an offence. If not, you cannot apply advantage, you just do what the law says.

There is also the argument that if the kick does not go 10m, the game has not restarted (except as in the laws).

Whatever the rationale is, whenever this has arisen in a meeting, the older hands have always said that if the kick does not go 10m you cannot play advantage for a knock-on.

I don’t think it is a bad reading, but others may have been taught differently.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm not so sure OB. I don't see why we can't play advantage from the knock-on inside the 10m line. The book gives us about 6 scenarios (nearly all scrum offences) where we cannot play advantage, and this isn't one of them. By implication I would allow a advantage to be played - and if there wasn't one, go back to the kick again / scrum option.

me too.

Similarly, Red lineout throw doesn't go 5, it is knocked on by Red into hands of Blue. Play advantage.

 

[menace]

IMO, Any reason to play advantage and avoid a scrum is a good reason!

 

[Baylion]

Sorry, got confused by the colours

 

[Taff]

IMO, Any reason to play advantage and avoid a scrum is a good reason!

Exactly. Where the law may be unclear, I'd be tempted to go with the option that keeps the game going.

If there was no advantage, I'd then go back for the Kick Again / Scrum option, and I honestly reckon that nobody oin the crowd, on the touchlines or on the field would question it.

 

[crossref]

Exactly. Where the law may be unclear, I'd be tempted to go with the option that keeps the game going.

If there was no advantage, I'd then go back for the Kick Again / Scrum option, and I honestly reckon that nobody oin the crowd, on the touchlines or on the field would question it.

I am not so sure . the scenario is
- white kick off
- ball doesn't go 10m
- white knock it on.

white relax, knowing that, by Law, yellow will be offered options.
but you play on, yellow gather the ball (and possibly hare down the pitch and score!)

yes, I know white should play to the whistle. But if you have made an error in Law they would be justified in being aggrieved.

 

[Taff]

I am not so sure ... white relax, knowing that, by Law, yellow will be offered options. but you play on, yellow gather the ball (and possibly hare down the pitch and score!)

yes, I know white should play to the whistle. But if you have made an error in Law they would be justified in being aggrieved.

But have we made an error in law Crossref?

The book doesn't list this as one of the instances where we cannot play advantage - so personally I would play advantage. And "Play to the whistle" is one of the 5 general points I cover in my PMB. Perhaps a call of "Knock-on advantage" would be a good idea.

 

[ChrisR]

If you play advantage for the knock then the come-back will be a scrum at the knock, not the kick-off option.

 

[crossref]

If you play advantage for the knock then the come-back will be a scrum at the knock, not the kick-off option.

yes, which is why it doesn't seem right to me.
- white kick off, it goes 5m
- white knock on

if you play advantage for the ko - it's now impossible for yellow to get their options for the kick not being 10.

If they get a scrum it will be at the place of the knock on and you've allowed white gain 5m of territory by knocking on. That can't be right.

 

[Taff]

If you play advantage for the knock then the come-back will be a scrum at the knock, not the kick-off option.

yes, which is why it doesn't seem right to me.
- white kick off, it goes 5m
- white knock on

if you play advantage for the ko - it's now impossible for yellow to get their options for the kick not being 10.

Sorry, but why is it "impossible for yellow to get their options for the kick not being 10"?

We can play multiple advantages for infringements by the same side., and in this example there are 2 White infringements ie failing to kick it 10m and the knock-on. If the opponents don't get an advantage, we can go back for the most beneficial sanction - which in this case is the kick again / scrum option. Personally, I would just say "Not 10 boys. No advantage. What do you want kick again or scrum?" If anyone complained, I would be absolutely amazed.

 

[crossref]

We can play multiple advantages for infringements by the same side ..... If the opponents don't get an advantage, we can go back for the most beneficial sanction - .

no, you cant' though, the Laws are pretty sepcific - you go back to the last one.

 

[OB..]

If there was no advantage, I'd then go back for the Kick Again / Scrum option, and I honestly reckon that nobody oin the crowd, on the touchlines or on the field would question it.

They question decisions that go against them, without really knowing if they are right or wrong.

If I were assessing, I would discuss the issue with you, as on here, knowing it to be a contentious one.

 

[menace]

They question decisions that go against them, without really knowing if they are right or wrong.

If I were assessing, I would discuss the issue with you, as on here, knowing it to be a contentious one.

Really?? A scrum on half way vs a scrum no more than 10m behind the half way mark (parallel across the field) is contentious issue for you?Seriously?? Isn't there bigger fish to fry in terms of managing a game?

 

[OB..]

Really?? A scrum on half way vs a scrum no more than 10m behind the half way mark (parallel across the field) is contentious issue for you?Seriously?? Isn't there bigger fish to fry in terms of managing a game?

I would not make a big deal of it, but suggest it is a law error that needs further consideration.

 

[Taff]

no, you cant' though, the Laws are pretty sepcific - you go back to the last one.

I see your point.

8.5 More than one infringement
(a)When there is more than one infringement by the same team:
If advantage cannot be applied to the second offence the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the first offence.
If advantage is played for the second offence but none accrues, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the second offence.
If either sanction is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence.

I must admit though, I would have gone back to the first.

 

[Browner]

But have we made an error in law Crossref?

The book doesn't list this as one of the instances where we cannot play advantage - so personally I would play advantage. And "Play to the whistle" is one of the 5 general points I cover in my PMB. Perhaps a call of "Knock-on advantage" would be a good idea.

Yes youve made an error. The game hasn't restarted correctly - law 13.7 gives two choices, not three or four .
Play on is a cop-out usually associated with referees of inadequate law application , I am surprised you'd consider it taff

If the ball doesn't go 10 and the kicking team slap it to the floor in frustration what you gonna do ? PK for deliberate knock forward!

Just stick to the two options , rather than inventing others.IMO.

 

[vidiego]

Ok, Seems that the OP does not have an answer that is right or wrong.

I think that in these situations we need to bring the scenario to our local referee meeting and ask how the association rules the situation– because is not about what is right or wrong, but rather that we are all on the same page and make the same call.

Personally I would take the easy way: stop the game immediately– when the white player knocks the ball- and give the other team options. Later, I would call my coach/assessor and ask about the “ruling” for the local association

Saludos!