But only if they fail to score without infringing! Fail to score by knocking on and it's a 5m scrum.
... or is it ?
But only if they fail to score without infringing! Fail to score by knocking on and it's a 5m scrum.
But only if they fail to score without infringing! Fail to score by knocking on and it's a 5m scrum.
.
Not for me / us to make the call on the "corectness" of the law. Ours to apply the law.
But at least the law has not changed!Thanks all. My justification also hinged on 7.3 (f) along the lines of:
-Green has knocked on into in-goal
-Black has regathered, advantage is applied
-Black touches down, gaining no advantage
-Advantage cannot be applied now the ball is dead (7.3f)
-We return to the last offence, Green's knock-on, which requires a scrum
-The scrum must be located in the scrum zone (19.1), i.e., 5m out from the goal-line
So much for the simplified re-write "clarifying" the law here - the 2017 law book was much clearer!
Thanks all. My justification also hinged on 7.3 (f) along the lines of:
-Green has knocked on into in-goal
-Black has regathered, advantage is applied
-Black touches down, gaining no advantage
!
You think they have gained no advantage, but that's only because you have decided not to give them the 22mDO
Other posters (even on this thread) argue that far from gaining no advantage, they have somehow gained TOO MUCH advantage , and that is why they should be denied the drop out
And I would be inclined to agree. It certainly seems from the 2017 edition of the laws that this was the law makers' intention.
Which is an odd conclusion as the rewrite actually removed the exception relating to knock ons that cross the goal line, making them the same as all other knock-ons.
In a world cup year no changes are to be made to the laws. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2020. I'm thinking this will be addressed.
That last statement is the nub of it
On the face of it , it's a 22m DO
You think they have gained no advantage, but that's only because you have decided not to give them the 22mDO
Other posters (even on this thread) argue that far from gaining no advantage, they have somehow gained TOO MUCH advantage , and that is why they should be denied the drop out
!
Here's a scenario Red attacking but knock the ball forward into in goal. Blue pick it up and pass to another player and I call advantage over. Second blue player then dots it down before crossing out of in goal.
I can now legally and morally call a 22 with no arguments from anyone as blue has gained tactical advantage. Simples!
If a team is getting mullered in the scrums, to give them a 5M scrum defending scrum is not advantage. I would normally look for advantage in these scenarios and if defending team was getting hammered and the result didn't matter, I'd be inclined to give a 22 drop out. Empathy!
Here's a scenario Red attacking but knock the ball forward into in goal. Blue pick it up and pass to another player and I call advantage over. Second blue player then dots it down before crossing out of in goal.
I can now legally and morally call a 22 with no arguments from anyone as blue has gained tactical advantage. Simples!
Good scenario.. I usually make it a kick that is the trigger for advantage over but a pass is a good alternative...
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.
Your supporting argument that the blue team has gained a real advantage just because they have completed a single pass is misguided and, in this case, simply wrong.
This whole argument that has now entered (probably) its second year is perpetrated by members on this forum who simply do not understand how the concept of advantage works.