Knock On into Ingoal

[OB..]

[LAWS]Law 8.3 (f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]I suppose if you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that since advantage cannot be played once the ball is dead, it does not make sense for it to be given either. Unless the law specifies it, which it doesn't.

This knock-on law was in place by 1974, though not in 1959, so I am not quite sure when it appeared. i remember playing under the old version and am in no doubt that the current one is better for the game. YMMV, but I thinks this discussion in now spinning its wheels.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]Law 8.3 (f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]I suppose if you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that since advantage cannot be played once the ball is dead, it does not make sense for it to be given either. Unless the law specifies it, which it doesn't.

This knock-on law was in place by 1974, though not in 1959, so I am not quite sure when it appeared. i remember playing under the old version and am in no doubt that the current one is better for the game. YMMV, but I thinks this discussion in now spinning its wheels.

The old Law was definitely still in place during the 1972-73 NH season, because I remember it from the All Black tour of that year (the NZ v Wales match was the first ever live rugby broadcast to NZ from the NH, and 1972 was my last year at High School. I joined the RNZAF in 1973, and I am sure I played under that Law for all my remaining time as a player, which ended in 1977. However, I don't recall ever refereeing under the old Law and I started refereeing in 1978, so I reckon the change was made in 1977, same time as the introduction of the Free Kick and the 22m restriction on the Fair Catch (Mark).

 

[The Fat]

This thread is doing my head in.
A knock on is a knock on no matter where it happens on the field. The result of which, if no advantage gained by the non-infringing team, is a scrum. Simple.
If blue knocked on anywhere within 5m of red's line, and red did not accrue any advantage, the result would be a scrum 5 with red to throw in. If the knock on occurred 20cm from the goal line we have a scrum. Red have some degree of pressure relieved as blue no longer have the ball less than a foot from their line. If I'm a red team player, I'm happy to get the scrum. If that same situation happens but this time the ball rolls across the goal line, then I'm still happy to have some pressure relieved and get a scrum with my team to feed and probably clear with a hoof down field.
To argue that red would prefer a DO because their scrum is shite is not the referee's problem, it is their coach's problem. We can't bend or make laws to suit a team's weaknesses, otherwise we would all be heading out to the middle with a piece of string and a bag of marbles instead of a rugby ball.
The law is clear and consistant regarding knock ons so I can't see where the problem is.

 

[OB..]

The old Law was definitely still in place during the 1972-73 NH season, because I remember it from the All Black tour of that year (the NZ v Wales match was the first ever live rugby broadcast to NZ from the NH, and 1972 was my last year at High School. I joined the RNZAF in 1973, and I am sure I played under that Law for all my remaining time as a player, which ended in 1977. However, I don't recall ever refereeing under the old Law and I started refereeing in 1978, so I reckon the change was made in 1977, same time as the introduction of the Free Kick and the 22m restriction on the Fair Catch (Mark).

Sorry - my error. Thanks for picking it up. It was the 1978/9 law book I was looking at. Prior to that the law specified it should be a drop out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This thread is doing my head in.
A knock on is a knock on no matter where it happens on the field. The result of which, if no advantage gained by the non-infringing team, is a scrum. Simple.
If blue knocked on anywhere within 5m of red's line, and red did not accrue any advantage, the result would be a scrum 5 with red to throw in. If the knock on occurred 20cm from the goal line we have a scrum. Red have some degree of pressure relieved as blue no longer have the ball less than a foot from their line. If I'm a red team player, I'm happy to get the scrum. If that same situation happens but this time the ball rolls across the goal line, then I'm still happy to have some pressure relieved and get a scrum with my team to feed and probably clear with a hoof down field.
To argue that red would prefer a DO because their scrum is shite is not the referee's problem, it is their coach's problem. We can't bend or make laws to suit a team's weaknesses, otherwise we would all be heading out to the middle with a piece of string and a bag of marbles instead of a rugby ball.
The law is clear and consistant regarding knock ons so I can't see where the problem is.

Neither can I but I do understand where some are coming from with the non-application of advantage from a knock-on if it happens to go in-goal and be grounded.

If I had may way, we would adopt something like the RL Law, where a ball put into in-goal by the attacking team (not from a knock-on of course) and made dead by the defending team results in a goal-line dropout, except if it is caught on the full, in which case it would be a dropout 22m; but that is another debate.

 

[TigerCraig]

Interesting that it is now inconsistent with a KO into touch, where you now get the LO option

 

[damo]

Interesting that it is now inconsistent with a KO into touch, where you now get the LO option

Yes that is true, but then there is no particular reason that the law has to be wholly consistent in matters like this. Others may not agree, but I like the principle involved in not giving a defending team a free ride out to the 22m. No such principle exists when awarding a lineout which will be more or less in line with where the scrum would have been.

 

[Account Deleted]

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.

Where does the advantage law state a team has to "work for" advantage. Either they get advatage by PLAYING WITHIN THE LAWS OF THE GAME or they don't get one. Minoring the ball after a KO OR a throw forward is a legal play. and should ( in my opinion) result in the territorial advantage of the 22 drop out.

In you last paragraph you say "but if none accrues" yet earlier posters (OB) were saying the drop out is "TOO MUCH" advantage. So come on which is it.


None or too much? It can't be both guys.

 

[Account Deleted]

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

Scrum on you 5mtr line Vs Drop out on your 22. Clear & real advantage in my opinion, to the away team.

 

[Davet]

In you last paragraph you say "but if none accrues" yet earlier posters (OB) were saying the drop out is "TOO MUCH" advantage. So come on which is it.

As far as I am concerned since you cannot gain advantage after the ball is dead then the 22 cannot be given as an advantage. So no advantage accrues, so we have a scrum on the 5m with the defenders putting in. (ie not quite the same as a "5m Scrum")

Note 8.3.f is relatively new - it did not appear in the 2009 book

 

[Dickie E]

If Blue knock on into Red's 22 and Red then kick ball out on full, is that gain in ground "too much advantage"?

Just asking ...

 

[Dixie]

If Blue knock on into Red's 22 and Red then kick ball out on full, is that gain in ground "too much advantage"?

Just asking ...

Great question.

 

[Account Deleted]

As far as I am concerned since you cannot gain advantage after the ball is dead then the 22 cannot be given as an advantage. So no advantage accrues, so we have a scrum on the 5m with the defenders putting in. (ie not quite the same as a "5m Scrum")

Note 8.3.f is relatively new - it did not appear in the 2009 book

The advantage is gained by making the ball dead (minoring it) not after it.

Anyway who is right?

OB - "Too much" advantage

or

Davet - No advantage


big difference between two assessors!

 

[OB..]

Great question.

... but irrelevant.

[LAWS]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements. Players are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents. When the result of an infringement by one team is that their opposing team may gain an advantage, the referee does not whistle immediately for the infringement.[/LAWS] By kicking the ball after the opposition had put it into the 22, the player was following the ethos expressed in the Definition in Law 8. He played the ball and thereby gained an advantage.

Minoring is not making play more continuous, nor is it playing to the whitle - it is forcing the referee to whistle and stop play.

The question of "too much advantage" was not decided in relation to the Advantage Law. At one stage the law said it would be a drop out, but the IRB obviously decided that was too draconian and changed it to a scrum.

However now that we have the recent addition of Law 8.3 (f) you might argue that Law 12.1 (c) is no longer needed (but I want it kept to make the situation crystal clear!).

 

[OB..]

Anyway who is right?

OB - "Too much" advantage

or

Davet - No advantage


big difference between two assessors!

No difference at all - we are referring to different aspects 30 years apart.

 

[Davet]

And to both of us, 30 years is but the blink of an eye.

 

[Account Deleted]

No difference at all - we are referring to different aspects 30 years apart.

Sorry but that is nonsense. One of you is saying a 22 drop out is too much the other there is no advantage. End of.

 

[Davet]

ATTR

No - I am not saying that a 22 drop out would not be an advantage, I am saying it's not allowed to be an advantage. Since you cannot have an advanatge after the ball is dead then the 22, which would be a very big advanatage, is not allowed.

It is also not allowed under much older law. Because
a) the iRB saw no benefit to the game - since
b) it doesn't keep the game flowing which is the point of advantage - and
c) simply dotting the ball down as a gimme for a 22 DO seemed to be a far greater return on the attackers failure that was reasonable.

If the attackers knock-on near the line, and the ball fails to go in-goal then the defenders have play it to get an advantage - but if it rolls in-goal they could get a feebie that the iRB felt was not justified.

But OB and I are saying precisely the same thing.

 

[OB..]

Sorry but that is nonsense. One of you is saying a 22 drop out is too much the other there is no advantage. End of.

Davet was referring to the current Law 8.3 (f) which could be said to cover the point on its own. I am saying that back in 1978 when the change was made, the Advantage law was irrelevant because the point was covered in the Knock-on law. Therefore any reference to advantage was not a reference to the Advantage law. I can change the wording if you like to "inappropriate sanction", but I think you are just playing inappropriate word games. And I am bored with it. Over and out.

 

[Robert Burns]

For me,

Technical Infringement = Scrum (i.e. out come will be a contest for the ball).
If they play their advantage as given by law, all outcomes will still allow the contest for the ball.

A 22 DO is not a contest for the ball (and neither is a KO), where it lands will become one.

I can see why this law came in, and also the point that ATTR makes in regards to playing the ball as they wish. However, think about it this way:

Blue 11 knocks on into in-goal - where Red 14 hits the ball with his hands backwards into touch-in-goal.

Are you going to give a 5m scrum to red, Penalty (try?) to blue?, or drop out to red?

I would like to think the latter is a certain no, the first two could be depending on how the game is being played, where other players were etc...

The main point I suppose is that the law is the law, and whilst it States "...to play the ball as they wish" how they play it must be in accordance with law, including this one.