Knock On into Ingoal

[Account Deleted]

The significant difference is that in your example the advantage is gained by playing good rugby. In the case of the knock-on it would be given to the team by a quirk of the laws rather than any skilful play. The lawmakers felt it was anomalous. I agree.

8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE

(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish .

Can you point out where it says "...advantage is gained by playing good rugby. "? However,it does say "...play the ball AS THEY WISH". Pity they then add caveats to that.

 

[Edref]

I had just got my head around this- until in last nights Ospreys/Glasgow game when this happened- advantage played and 22 drop out given.

 

[OB..]

Surely Minoring the ball and gaining 22 mtrs is playing "the ball as they wish" gaining a tactical (and territorial advantage).

As I said above. minoring the ball is asking the law to give you an advantage, not earning one for yourself by playing good rugby. Anywhere else on the field of play a knock-on only gives the opposition a scrum. That is why I strongly support the current law

 

[OB..]

8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE

(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish .

Can you point out where it says "...advantage is gained by playing good rugby. "? However,it does say "...play the ball AS THEY WISH". Pity they then add caveats to that.

I don't have to. The IRB has specifically decided the old law was unfair. There is no need for caveats in other laws. I was explaining the philospphy behind it, not arguing about what other bits of law say.

 

[Davet]

ATTR - then write more clearly - I can't be arsed to decipher ramblings.

 

[Account Deleted]

ATTR - then write more clearly - I can't be arsed to decipher ramblings.

You could not decipher:

But the law is the law so 5mtr scrum it is.

Then you have my sympathies. That sentence is crystal clear. Try reading properly.

 

[Account Deleted]

I don't have to. The IRB has specifically decided the old law was unfair. There is no need for caveats in other laws. I was explaining the philospphy behind it, not arguing about what other bits of law say.

I agree the IRB had in its "wisdom" come to that conclusion. I think it is nonsense but as clearly stated. I will ref such incidents according to the law.

The have, in effect, added a caveat in that the defending side is not free to play the ball as they wish to gain an advantage. That, of course is the IRB's right. As it is mine to think it daft.

 

[Davet]

ATTR - yes , but you actually say WHAT you think the law is.

You talk about "too much advantage" in relation to a ball going in goal and being picked up, as if the law said that would be a 5m scrum but we would be laughed at for doing that.

So - in clear terms - the Law says that you cannot play advantage when the ball has gone dead. If is grounded in the 22 it is made dead so no advantage is possible. If it is picked up then advantage is possible.

 

[Account Deleted]

ATTR - yes , but you actually say WHAT you think the law is.

You talk about "too much advantage" in relation to a ball going in goal and being picked up, as if the law said that would be a 5m scrum but we would be laughed at for doing that.

So - in clear terms - the Law says that you cannot play advantage when the ball has gone dead. If is grounded in the 22 it is made dead so no advantage is possible. If it is picked up then advantage is possible.

No I don't! I say what I feel it should be but then say: "But the law is the law so 5mtr scrum it is." How many times do you have to be told?

 

[Davet]

ATTR - I am fully aware that you will uphold the law. You told me once, I believe you.

You appeared to be suggesting that after a knock on into in goal then a defender picking it up and playing it was not legal, and people would laugh at us when we said they were getting too much advantage, and called it back for the scrum.

I simply pointed out that in fact such an action was perfectly legal, and the advantage gained was fine.

If you actually understand that then my work here is done.

 

[Account Deleted]

You appeared to be suggesting that after a knock on into in goal then a defender picking it up and playing it was not legal, and people would laugh at us when we said they were getting too much advantage, and called it back for the scrum.

No I did not. If you read it properly then my work is done.

The post you seem to be having trouble with:

"
"Too much" is an absurd concept.


Knock on 5 mtrs out by the attacking side. Defender picks the ball up and kicks the ball down field. Winger follows up and scores under the posts. Too much advantage? Nonsense, people would laugh at us."

Clearly that is a hypothetical situation used to indicate the absurd nonsense that "too much advantage" is.

and the following clearly showed I knew exactly what the law requires,despite one of your subsequent posts.

"But the law is the law so 5mtr scrum it is. "

If you had read the post in context it would be quite clear.

 

[Treadmore]

For me ATTR's point is well made and highlights that it is the IRB logic that is erroneously concerned with advantage gained after the ball is made dead by Red.

Blue put the ball in the Red in-goal, Red touch down. Ordinarily the result of that is a drop-out. Why do the IRB want a special case for the knock-on as the means of putting the ball in-goal? Seems they want to reward Blue for fumbling.

 

[Treadmore]

Double post

 

[Ian_Cook]

For me ATTR's point is well made and highlights that it is the IRB logic that is erroneously concerned with advantage gained after the ball is made dead by Red.

Blue put the ball in the Red in-goal, Red touch down. Ordinarily the result of that is a drop-out. Why do the IRB want a special case for the knock-on as the means of putting the ball in-goal? Seems they want to reward Blue for fumbling.

[chopper]
What if the ball is thrown forward into in-goal and is there grounded by the defending team? :biggrin:
[/chopper]


*** I'll just get my coat epper:

 

[Davet]

Or they feel that the simple act of touching down is a far too easy get out, and prefer a team to work for advantage.

Different people will have different views - the one that counts is that expressed in law.

That allows for advantage after a knock on into in-goal, but if none accrues the we have a scrum - defending put-in. Same as any other knock-on.

 

[damo]

I like the law as it stands. I think it makes sense to not give the defensive team a free ride out to their 22m just because the offensive team has knocked it on.

 

[OB..]

I'm with Davet and damo.

Not that it matters in the slightest. This was a deliberate change in the law, so the chances of it being reversed must be closer to nil than epsilon.

 

[didds]

Blue put the ball in the Red in-goal, Red touch down. Ordinarily the result of that is a drop-out. Why do the IRB want a special case for the knock-on as the means of putting the ball in-goal? Seems they want to reward Blue for fumbling.

And as OB has repeatedly said, though newcomers may not be aware of course,
is that the normal sanction for a KO is a restart at the point of KO (or no more than 5 metres downfield if we need to get pedantic)... not a restart up to 21.99 metres further downfield.

didds

 

[Treadmore]

And as OB has repeatedly said, though newcomers may not be aware of course,
is that the normal sanction for a KO is a restart at the point of KO (or no more than 5 metres downfield if we need to get pedantic)... not a restart up to 21.99 metres further downfield.

didds

No kidding?

Just for newcomers, can the ref play advantage after a KO? Nevermind.

ATTR's point was advantage had been played, Red played as they wished but the "normal" outcome is denied to them. It's just odd. Blue could kick it through from a 1m out, Red touch down, DO: Blue try to kick it through 1m out but fumble and KO to in-goal, ref allows advantage, Red touch down, scrum 5.

For some reason, the IRB thought a DO instead of a scrum 5 was rewarding Red too much. Just seems odd, that's all.

 

[Phil E]

Advantage must be clear and real, a mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough.