[In-goal] Knock-on in or into goal

[ChrisR]

I’m starting a new thread as the discussion re. “knock on in goal” has overwhelmed the thread that was intended to identify differences in the 2017 vs. 2018 books.
The question is whether omitting any direct reference to knock-ons in goal has changed the law or how it should be applied.

The general body (perhaps vast majority) of RR would rule that any KO in or into goal should result in a defenders 5m scrum. The one exception would be if the defenders picked up and played the ball and so gained sufficient advantage to earn “Advantage over!”

Words in the 2017 laws in sections 12 (Knock on or throw forward) and 22 (In goal) would support that:

[LAWS]12.1 (c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.

22.7 (b) If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.[/LAWS]

Also in the 2017 laws is this definition under 13.1 Dropout:

[LAWS]A drop-out is used to restart play after an attacking player has put or taken the ball into the in-goal, without infringement, and a defending player has made the ball dead there or it has gone into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.[/LAWS]

These three sections have been removed from the 2018 simplified laws but this section, that contradicts 12.1 and 22.7 has been retained:

[LAWS]22.7 (a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.
[/LAWS]
Only it has been reworded and moved to Law 12 Kick-offs and Restarts:

[LAWS]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]

The question is this: Has the removal of 12.1 and 22.7 and the 13.1 definition changed the law or how it should be refereed?

I believe that it has, and for the better. Now the 2018 law unambiguously states in 12.11 and I repeat:

[LAWS]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]

There is nothing elsewhere in the 2018 laws to contradict this.

If an attacking player knock-ons in or into goal and he, or a team-mate, grounds the ball then a 5m defending scrum still applies as the attackers have prevented any opportunity for the defenders to play the ball and gain advantage.

 

[Balones]

Then I suggest you take it up with WR if you do not accept the opinion that you are wrong, and have them clarify their position and correct the vast majority of the rugby world that applies the law correctly. Luckily it appears that you are not a referee so you don't have to worry about having negative comments made in your reports. You do not accept that the ball is made firstly (potentially) dead by the knock on and not by the actions of the defending side. The grounding of the ball by the defensive side is merely them accepting and confirming that they do not want any advantage that may have been on offer. Starting a new thread on the matter will not change the situation.

 

[OB..]

History first.

In the past there were Notes to the Laws for the Guidance of referees. These were issued by the IRB to make sure everybody was interpreting the laws in the same way.

Before 1978, a note to Law 17 said that a knock-on into in-goal by an attacker, made dead there, resulted in a drop out.

In 1978, that was changed to a 5m scrum, which represented a clear, deliberate change of policy by the IRB.

That view has remained, clearly stated, ever since.

We had an exhausting thread some time ago in which those who did not like the 1978 change tried to find ways round the accepted view. These ideas have now resurfaced.

One thing can be stated categorically: there is no clear statement from WR to say that their position has changed.

People are of course entitled to regret the 1978 change, but personally I was fully in favour. The Laws are deliberately not written in legalese, so trying to treat them as if they were statutory legislation is unlikely to be valid. There are indeed gaps and ambiguities in the laws, but trying to dig some out in order to overturn a widely accepted practice does not seem to be a helpful approach.

 

[crossref]

OB.. in 1978 what did they say about a knock on INSIDE the in goal, followed by a touch down ... was still a 22m dropout ?

 

[crossref]

Then I suggest you take it up with WR if you do not accept the opinion that you are wrong, and have them clarify their position and correct the vast majority of the rugby world that applies the law correctly. Luckily it appears that you are not a referee so you don't have to worry about having negative comments made in your reports. You do not accept that the ball is made firstly (potentially) dead by the knock on and not by the actions of the defending side. The grounding of the ball by the defensive side is merely them accepting and confirming that they do not want any advantage that may have been on offer. Starting a new thread on the matter will not change the situation.

This is saying .. don't worry yourself reading the Laws, give the scrum like everyone else does.

(Which is, I concur, excellent practical advice )

 

[chbg]

So WR just need to add back in the words "without infringement" into 12.11 and the true position will be clear to all, from those who have been refereeing since 1978 to those who are starting out now and want a Law Book reference.

(TY ChrisR - that (Dropout Definition) is first concrete argument that I have seen for how we referee this situation, outwith OB's historical explanation. Why did nobody else point that out?)

 

[ChrisR]

For the benefit of Balones let me begin by setting the record straight. I have been an active referee, as well as a coach, since 1972. First with the Southern California referees society then Potomac (Washington, DC area) and finally with Virginia. It has been a while since I refereed adult matches and I finally had to give up the whistle even for youth as my legs fail to keep up with their play.

Being a coach requires me to think through the application of law in ways not required of a referee. For every technical or tactical skill that I teach I cover the corresponding aspects of law. What is required, what is prohibited and what is optional. So I address aspects of the law on a day to day basis that you probably don't think much about at all. So, when a new law is introduced or wording modified I try to project how the game should be played to accommodate the change, not just how it should be called by the referee.

And that brings me to the "knock-on in or into goal". I accept that in current practice a defending 5m scrum will be awarded in all instances of an attacking KO in/into goal with the exception of the defenders taking possession and subsequently gaining advantage and thus “Advantage over”. I have also refereed it that way. In fact, I’m sympathetic to the notion that a 22DO is too much of a penalty for a knock-on.

However, I think that it was poorly implemented into law and was not carefully thought through. By automatically awarding a 5m in all circumstances some ridiculous situations arise where a KO can actually bring a benefit. Consider the following:

Red, attacking, carries the ball into goal and loses control. Blue ground the ball. If the ball went forward from Red then the call is 5m scrum to Blue. If the ball goes backwards then Blue gets a 22DO. So, Red may have lost an opportunity for a try but by the ball going forward he has benefitted over the ball going back. Does that seem right?

Some time ago I was watching Women’s 7s and an Irish player makes a long break (70 -80m) into goal. Without looking back she slows up before attempting to ground the ball. An Oz player, who had chased her the full distance, tackles her just short of the dead ball line. The impact jars the ball free and it goes flying over the dead ball line. Knock-on in goal, 5m scrum defending. What if she had held onto the ball and been driven over the dead ball line?

What happens next, after a KO, was never a consideration but it should have been.

If the attacking player, or a teammate, recovers his own KO then he has denied the defenders any opportunity for advantage (as he would in the field of play) and he should be rewarded by limiting the defenders to their 5m scrum.

If the defenders gain possession and ground the ball then they should get the same reward as if the attackers put the ball in goal in any other way (carrying, kicking or charge down). Why should the attackers get a different, and better, result by knocking-on into goal?

Similarly, if the knock-on goes dead or the defenders make it dead, the result should be the same as if it were played into goal in any other way.

The omission of the specifics for knock-on in/into goal in the 2018 Simplified Laws is not so much a change but a correction.

 

[Balones]

My apologies ChrisR. I took it that the info you provided on your profile only referred to ‘player or coach’ in relation to being a player and a rugby club type coach. There was no slight intended.

I do think about all aspects of law on an almost daily basis. I have played at a reasonable level, been a club coach (and still do some from time to time), been a referee, coached referees and still act as an advisor to several, I am quite heavily involved with referee training and development within my society and region; all in addition to my role as an RFU Panel Match Observer.

The sorts of scenarios you outline are the sorts of scenarios that could be clarified through the appropriate channels which could end up in front of the WR for clarification. It is your governing body that you should be taking your concerns to in the first instance if you feel that a law is not being applied correctly. On a forum such as this where there are referees of nearly all abilities it is important that they do not get misinformstion that will affect their management of a game or fall foul of observation (assessment) reports that may deter their progress and development.

 

[OB..]

The omission of the specifics for knock-on in/into goal in the 2018 Simplified Laws is not so much a change but a correction.

I have no idea how you can make such a statement. If your view were accepted it would represent a massive change. Any such change needs to be made very clear. You are simply inferring a possibility.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]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]

There is nothing elsewhere in the 2018 laws to contradict this.

If an attacking player knock-ons in or into goal and he, or a team-mate, grounds the ball then a 5m defending scrum still applies as the attackers have prevented any opportunity for the defenders to play the ball and gain advantage.

Yes, there is


[LAWS]2018 Law 11 KNOCK-ON
1. A knock- on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2. It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes
contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum.[/LAWS]
In-goal is part of the playing area

[LAWS]2018 Law 19
The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor
infringement or stoppage.

1. Where the game is restarted with a scrum and which team throws in is determined as
follows:

[/LAWS]

The scrum zone is defined in Law 1 (bottom right diagram on page 25)

The end result is exactly the same... whether the ball is knocked on in-goal or knocked on INTO in goal, the mark for the scrum is 5m out, nearest to the the knock on, defending team to feed.

as well as this

[LAWS]2018 Law 7.3 Advantage must not be applied and the referee must blow the whistle immediately
when:
f. The ball is made dead.[/LAWS]

The specific reference is gone because the rewording and reorganisation has removed the need for it. ...but the Law has NOT changed!

 

[crossref]

The meaning of 7.3 is that when the ball comes dead you can't continue to play advantage .. when the ball becomes dead you must blow your whistle and decide either no advantage , or advantage gained.

There are plenty of examples of gaining advantage by making the ball dead

 

[Balones]

The meaning of 7.3 is that when the ball comes dead you can't continue to play advantage .. when the ball becomes dead you must blow your whistle and decide either no advantage , or advantage gained.

There are plenty of examples of gaining advantage by making the ball dead

Not really. You gain an advantage by making ground or being able to make a tactical decision. E.g. kicking the ball to touch. The result of your tactical decision may make the ball dead. The ‘dead’ ball comes after the advantage has been gained/earned.

 

[crossref]

As one example
Defending team knock on in the in goal
Attacker falls on the ball for try

 

[Balones]

As one example
Defending team knock on in the in goal
Attacker falls on the ball for try

Again not really. The result of the knock-on is a try from an advantage allowed/played by the ref. The dead ball is the result of the try being scored and the referee blowing the whistle. Again the ‘dead’ ball comes after the advantage.

 

[crossref]

Let's try a variation scenario

Justify your answer with reference to the 2018 Law Book

Red grubber kick into the Blue in goal
1 red chaser fumbles and ball goes backward into TIG
2 red chaser fumbles and knocks ball forward into TIG

Tbh I would quite surprise if a match assessor queried a 22m droput in either scenario

 

[Ian_Cook]

No amount of angels on pinheads scenarios or new-age bullshit variations on a theme can take away from the fact that this law was intentionally changed in 1978 for the specific purpose of having a 5m scrum (defending throw in) and NOT, repeat NOT a 22DO when the ball was knocked on in or into in goal. This Law has been refereed this way ever since (coming up for 40 years!!)

By taking the view that you are taking, you are attempting to intentionally subvert the Laws, purely because you personally don't like that Law. That is unacceptable for any referee of any grade IMO

 

[crossref]

Ian
1 you didn't answer the question
2 the 1978 change was for a knock on INTO the ingoal, so isn't relevant to the question

 

[Ian_Cook]

Let's try a variation scenario

Justify your answer with reference to the 2018 Law Book

OK

Red grubber kick into the Blue in goal
1 red chaser fumbles and ball goes backward into TIG

Red took the ball into in goal where it was made dead, so 22 drop-out

Justification:
[LAWS]Law 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]

2 red chaser fumbles and knocks ball forward into TIG

Red took the ball into in goal and knocked it on before it went dead, so scrum 5m defending team throw in.

Justification:
[LAWS]KNOCK-ON
1. A knock- on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2. It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes
contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum[/LAWS]

In-goal is in the playing area

[LAWS]Law 19.1
1. Where the game is restarted with a scrum and which team throws in is determined as
follows:

[/LAWS]

Tbh I would quite surprise if a match assessor queried a 22m droput in either scenario

I'd be astonished if you didn't get a red ink entry for awarding a 22DO in scenario 2.

 

[Balones]

Let's try a variation scenario

Justify your answer with reference to the 2018 Law Book

Red grubber kick into the Blue in goal
1 red chaser fumbles and ball goes backward into TIG
2 red chaser fumbles and knocks ball forward into TIG

Tbh I would quite surprise if a match assessor queried a 22m droput in either scenario

In very general terms, there are different levels of match observer, just as there are different levels of referee. Hopefully the higher level observers make fewer errors than the lower level ones, just as you hope higher level refs make fewer errors than lower level ones. But being a match observer is not just about knowing the laws, though it does help.

Ian has answered the question.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian
1 you didn't answer the question

I have now

2 the 1978 change was for a knock on INTO the ingoal, so isn't relevant to the question

A knock on in-goal was already a 5m scrum, defending team put in. The 1978 change ADDED knock on into in goal so that their outcomes would be the same.