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

[Pablo]

I know this has been asked before, but my searches haven’t found a consensus since the law book rewrite.

Knock-on into (or in) the in-goal was explicitly covered in the 2017 law book as being a defending scrum 5m out, rather than being a 22m drop-out - the theory being, and adviser once explained to me, “not getting scored in is advantage enough”!

I had this knock-on situation arise three times on Saturday, and I gave the scrum every time (at least I was consistent!), but the non-offending side asked about the 22. I said no with enough conviction and confidence that it wasn’t argued, but when I went to check the law book afterwards, I found the explicit reference on this situation has been removed.

I still believe the decision is correct, but requires a somewhat tortuous justification in law compared to the 2017 clarity, and find myself wondering what others do. And I certinaly don’t think it was WR’s intent to changed the outcomes of this situation.

So, do you:
- still award scrum 5m to defenders, and if so, what’s your justification?
- give the 22 drop-out for a ball played into in-goal by attack, even though it was knocked on?

 

[Rich_NL]

I still award the 5m defensive scrum. My justification is interpreting 7.3.f that way (and not for defenders' knock-ons where the ball is made dead by scoring a try), because that's how it's always been interpreted in practice.

 

[collybs]

Law 7.3 (f)
Advantage must not be applied and the referee must blow the whistle immediately when:
The ball is made dead.

As the ball has been made dead advantage must not be applied.

 

[crossref]

In 2017 the Law about knock ons that cross the goal line was taken away.

So knock ons that cross the goal line are now exactly the same as a knock on in any other part of the pitch, and the Law of advantage applies .

When playing advantage , if the ball goes dead then you can no longer play advantage (obvs) so you blow your whistle
If advantage has been gained .. advantage over , restart as appropriate
If no advantage was gained, back to the knock on

 

[didds]

so the debate is over whether the choice between a ~5m scrum or a 22 d/o is "advantage" .

???

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

I had changed my view after the last big debate on this. I am now comfortable to argue that making the ball dead is a play under pressure and therefore not to be treated/considered an advantage in itself.

Just a thought process that allows me to be consistent in my application of the 5m scrum.

 

[The Fat]

so the debate is over whether the choice between a ~5m scrum or a 22 d/o is "advantage" .

???

didds

Yes.
Law 19 Scrum

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

Infringement / stoppage
A knock-on or throw forward, apart from at a lineout.

Location of scrum
In the scrum zone at the point closest to the place of infringement.

Who throws in
The non-offending team.

 

[crossref]

I had changed my view after the last big debate on this. I am now comfortable to argue that making the ball dead is a play under pressure and therefore not to be treated/considered an advantage in itself.

Just a thought process that allows me to be consistent in my application of the 5m scrum.

What if it clearly isn't under pressure?

 

[didds]

Oh gawd. Just when I thought Id got this stuff sorted in my head, here we go again... (that's not a dig at anybody in this site!).

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

What if it clearly isn't under pressure?

Possession within your own in goal area after an attacking knock on not meeting the definition of pressure for you then?

Its hardly the freedom to play the ball as you wish to keep the game continuing and your attacking options open which is what the advantage law is really all about.

it's a defensive play rather than an attacking play.

 

[crossref]

Shrug , a lot of time players under no pressure at all dot down a ball to get the drop out.

Usually when the oppo have kicked it into the in goal, true..

It's a great way to launch a counter attack , many advantages over counter attacking from the goal line

I don't think anyone consider it negative play .. it's routine


We could even make a direct comparison

Red 13 grubber kicks into blue in goal , white touch it dowm
Red 13 throws forward into blue in goal, white touch it down

 

[didds]

the clear comparisons being for those two scenarios occurring on half way for a similar linear distance and what outcomes would you expect.

that's the historical context. it now seems WR has muddied the waters and I have no idea what the reality is now.

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Advantage is a device to allow continuity of play. By making the ball dead the “non offending” has stopped continuity. There fore they have “declined” / ended the opportunity to play advantage
Why are you allowed to kick for touch (making the ball dead but not to ground it and gain? Well as kick to touch only becomes dead IF the kick succeeds: It may not get there / possession is handed over to the other side / A QTI may be an option to the other side and so on.
The law makers considered a 22 drop out to be “too much advantage” I’m not sure how you can have too much advantage. Eg a RED knock on in Blue’s 22. Blue play advantage and score at the other end. Surely if 22 meters of ground is “too much advantage” then a try from 80 mtrs is also too much. The “non offending” side could kick for touch. Let’s say they kick it 20 meters. Advantage over but let’s say they kick it 50 mtrs to touch is that “too much”?
However, that is not our call. The law makers decided to put the guidance into “the book” and it was now clear. A knock on into in goal that is minored MUST see a scrum 5 to the defending side as the outcome. Life was easy when the law book was simple.
Along came the “simplification” and it was decided that this bit of clarification was no longer needed. In fairness they did tell us that no laws were changing, so there was a clue that the Scrum 5 law still applies. However, it is clear, that the policy of letting Theresa May do the re-write was always going to be flawed.
For me it is business as usual. Knock on into in goal that is “minored” is a 5m scrum to the “non offending” side.

 

[Dickie E]

For me it is business as usual. Knock on into in goal that is “minored” is a 5m scrum to the “non offending” side.

But I still love the irony of a knock back in in-goal by the the attacking team and then "minored" is a 22 drop out.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

But I still love the irony of a knock back in in-goal by the the attacking team and then "minored" is a 22 drop out.

What offence has been committed? It is simply a ball carried into in goal and minored,

 

[Rich_NL]

The point is that the attacking team commit a technical offence and defenders touch down -> defensive scrum five
Attacking team play well but defenders touch down -> 22DO

The attackers relatively benefit from knocking on.

 

[didds]

(devil's advocate)

I suppose there could be an argument that says the defending team actually gain >=5m of territory with a 5m scrum, that elsewhere on the pitch they wouldn't get...

didds

 

[crossref]

Those metres of territory come from the attackers putting ball into the in goal, not from the knock on

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The point is that the attacking team commit a technical offence and defenders touch down -> defensive scrum five
Attacking team play well but defenders touch down -> 22DO

The attackers relatively benefit from knocking on.

The Attacking team got in to the scoring zone and failed to score. That is their problem. Drop out 22.

 

[DocY]

The Attacking team got in to the scoring zone and failed to score. That is their problem. Drop out 22.

But only if they fail to score without infringing! Fail to score by knocking on and it's a 5m scrum.