Knock on advantage

[Mipper]

Watching a game yesterday.

White defender drops a kick whilst attempting to catch, clearly goes forward.

Same white player then dives on the ball as purple chaser approaches. Purple chaser them
attempts to steal the ball but white clearly holds on.

Referee whistles for scrum purple, knock on white.

Everybody, players, spectators accept this.

Am I missing something? Should this not be a PK for holding on?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Ref would be playing advantage for the KO, and the moment the white player (or any on-side white player) plays the ball legally (ie picks up or takes possession) no further potential advantage can accrue so blow it up for the KO. In what you've explained there is no holding on penalty - the ref should have blown it up a little quicker.

 

[crossref]

7.2. Advantage ends when
d. The offending team commits a second or subsequent infringement from which no advantage can be gained. The referee stops play and allows the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous sanction.

so, yes, should have been a choice between a scrum and a PK -- ie obviously a PK

Ref would be playing advantage for the KO, and the moment the white player (or any on-side white player) plays the ball legally (ie picks up or takes possession) no further potential advantage can accrue so blow it up for the KO.

The point here is that if the white player is on the ground, and isolated, he's very likely to lose the ball, so I think keep playing adv for a second or tw0

 

[chbg]

Ref would be playing advantage for the KO, and the moment the white player (or any on-side white player) plays the ball legally (ie picks up or takes possession) no further potential advantage can accrue so blow it up for the KO. In what you've explained there is no holding on penalty - the ref should have blown it up a little quicker.

Disagree. If White goes to ground to gather the ball then he has immediate obligations under Law 13.1. If he does not comply he has further infringed.

 

[Dickie E]

Ref would be playing advantage for the KO, and the moment the white player (or any on-side white player) plays the ball legally (ie picks up or takes possession) no further potential advantage can accrue so blow it up for the KO. In what you've explained there is no holding on penalty - the ref should have blown it up a little quicker.

I disagree too with this. White player has illegally denied Purple player opportunity to use advantage.

It's similar to Blue player knocks on and offside Blue team mate intentionally catches/plays the ball. Will always be a penalty

 

[smeagol]

I disagree too with this. White player has illegally denied Purple player opportunity to use advantage.

It's similar to Blue player knocks on and offside Blue team mate intentionally catches/plays the ball. Will always be a penalty

The way I read this, you're saying that the white player has committed a penalty-worthy action by picking up the ball from his own knock-on?

What law did the white player violate by picking up the ball?!

 

[Locke]

What law did the white player violate by picking up the ball?!

I think he’s referring to White player holding on to the ball when Purple comes over him and legally tries to take the ball.

 

[Stu10]

The way I read this, you're saying that the white player has committed a penalty-worthy action by picking up the ball from his own knock-on?

What law did the white player violate by picking up the ball?!

In the OP, white player did not pick up the ball from the knock-on, he dropped on top of the ball and then did not release on the ground when purple (who is on his feet) tried to take the ball... for me this is a penalty against white for not releasing on the ground and denying purple to play.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

In the OP, white player did not pick up the ball from the knock-on, he dropped on top of the ball and then did not release on the ground when purple (who is on his feet) tried to take the ball... for me this is a penalty against white for not releasing on the ground and denying purple to play.

Will have to disagree, there is nothing illegal about going to ground to gather a ball, only about needing to release it immediately. The act of gathering the ball is playing it and that's where the period of play should be over IMO

 

[Phil E]

Effectively what's happening here is:
Knock on...advantage
Not releasing to a player on his feet...new advantage

At which point you blow up or call advantage over is up to the referee to decide.

 

[Mipper]

Effectively what's happening here is:
Knock on...advantage
Not releasing to a player on his feet...new advantage

At which point you blow up or call advantage over is up to the referee to decide.

In the OP, white player did not pick up the ball from the knock-on, he dropped on top of the ball and then did not release on the ground when purple (who is on his feet) tried to take the ball... for me this is a penalty against white for not releasing on the ground and denying purple to play.

Exactly this ^

This was precisely my view, but everybody else, on the pitch and in the stand seemed happy with the scrum for the original knock-on, hence the original question.

 

[Phil E]

Exactly this ^

This was precisely my view, but everybody else, on the pitch and in the stand seemed happy with the scrum for the original knock-on, hence the original question.

I think that's where a loud call of "New Advantage, not releasing" lets everyone know what phase of play we are in and removes any doubt in peoples minds.

 

[Stu10]

Will have to disagree, there is nothing illegal about going to ground to gather a ball, only about needing to release it immediately. The act of gathering the ball is playing it and that's where the period of play should be over IMO

I assume you are considering law 7.2.d:

The offending team commits a second or subsequent infringement from which no advantage can be gained. The referee stops play and allows the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous sanction.

I would not say that white simply playing the ball after an infringement (i.e. the knock-on) immediately counts as "a second or subsequent infringement from which no advantage can be gained", and therefore play should be stopped... for example, I've seen a player knock-on and then fly hack the ball in frustration (i.e. play the ball), the ball has then been caught by an opposition player who has run through and scored... would you have denied this try?

In the OP, the offending team has committed a second infringement which I think does provide an advantage to the opposition, that being a penalty kick, therefore the penalty should be offered as the most advantageous sanction (vs a scrum)... is this not correct?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I assume you are considering law 7.2.d:

I would not say that white simply playing the ball after an infringement (i.e. the knock-on) immediately counts as "a second or subsequent infringement from which no advantage can be gained", and therefore play should be stopped... for example, I've seen a player knock-on and then fly hack the ball in frustration (i.e. play the ball), the ball has then been caught by an opposition player who has run through and scored... would you have denied this try?

In the OP, the offending team has committed a second infringement which I think does provide an advantage to the opposition, that being a penalty kick, therefore the penalty should be offered as the most advantageous sanction (vs a scrum)... is this not correct?

But the player hasn't infringed until he fails to release the ball after going to ground to gather - and the act of gathering the ball is when that player stops the game being played.

I see it as, would you permit white to continue playing if they were on their feet when they took possession if they didn't infringe other laws? Unlikely, you'd blow up the KO and play the scrum. The White player is legally able to dive on a ball to take possession and at the point they take possession no advantage can be gained by the non-infringing team. Maybe its a matter of timing, if the white player dived in at a ball that was at the feet of a purple player who was trying to pick it up I'd probably penalise the white player for killing the game, but if the ball isn't close to the purple player I'm more lenient.

 

[Stu10]

But the player hasn't infringed until he fails to release the ball after going to ground to gather - and the act of gathering the ball is when that player stops the game being played.

I don't see anything in the laws says you must stop play at this point... rather, I think it is subjective, therefore you are also allowed to give a little more time/advantage to see how things play out.

In my alternative example, the offending player hasn't infringed by fly hacking the ball after the knock-on, so you might have stopped play as soon as it left his toe; however, you would have prevented the opportunity for the opponent to catch the loose ball and score a try.

 

[chbg]

But the player hasn't infringed until he fails to release the ball after going to ground to gather - and the act of gathering the ball is when that player stops the game being played.

I see it as, would you permit white to continue playing if they were on their feet when they took possession if they didn't infringe other laws? Unlikely, you'd blow up the KO and play the scrum. The White player is legally able to dive on a ball to take possession and at the point they take possession no advantage can be gained by the non-infringing team. Maybe its a matter of timing, if the white player dived in at a ball that was at the feet of a purple player who was trying to pick it up I'd probably penalise the white player for killing the game, but if the ball isn't close to the purple player I'm more lenient.

Advantage is the referee's own decision. If you determine that no further advantage is going to accrue as soon as White goes to ground, then you are not wrong. But equally you are open to informed criticism when a further advantage (the PK for not releasing) is clearly seen to occur. If you have already made your decision and are blowing the whistle before the PK infringement occurs, then you may be advised to consider the timing of your decision. It's similar to a "Advantage ... not yet over" call.

For me, and others, a player does not have the privilege or right to end the opposition's advantage outwith of the Laws. Taking possession of the ball on the ground implicitly, in Law, entails obligations to enable the opposition to play the ball. Consider taking the ball in touch - the ball is dead, but the opposition have a right to restart play by the ball being released to them immediately (18.3). If either action is prevented, a penalisable infringement has occurred.

 

[Stu10]

Will have to disagree, there is nothing illegal about going to ground to gather a ball, only about needing to release it immediately. The act of gathering the ball is playing it and that's where the period of play should be over IMO

Just going to leave this here...

 

[didds]

i'm obviously missing something. Quins didn't gather that ball - they just fly hacked it away?

 

[Stu10]

Quin's played the ball, at which point Jarrod thinks play should have been stopped following the knock on

 

[didds]

Ok... not sure how that fits with the immediately prior made point to the video

"The act of gathering the ball is playing it and that's where the period of play should be over IMO"

But the ball wasn't gathered? So Im not following why its relevant to the point made immediately before it.

whatever. Just something else in life I cant follow clearly. Autism is a bitch :-(