Knock On into Ingoal
- Thread starter pwhaling
- Start date
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
The rational for supporting the 5m over a 22 by some (perhaps most) on this site seems to be that a 22 "reward" to the defenders for "doing nothing" and "benefiting from the misfortune of the attackers" is too much.
I find this curious for two reasons:
1. The knock-on is assumed to just be an attacking error. The scene proposed is always an attacking side toiling diligently at great length with verve and energy only to be foiled by bad luck. What a crock! It's as if the defenders were standing around having a nice cup of tea and had nothing to do with it.
2. The 22 over the 5m is always presented as this huge gain in ground, produced by such a minor slip, that is unique to this event. What a crock! An attacking player with ball putting one toe into touch 1cm into the field of play gives up a 5m line-out. The same attacker puts the same toe 1cm in touch-in-goal yields a 22. Would those that argue for a 5m for a KO do likewise for the TiG? I hope not.
To me, one of the great attractions of rugby stems from it's principles: Contest for possession and continuity of play. Both the Laws and our application of them are constantly being tuned to find that optimum balance. The balance between risk and reward defines how a team plays the game. The highest reward is always the try. The highest risk is playing the open, attacking rugby that we all want to see. Reducing the penalty for failure may induce more open rugby but it won't make the game more interesting. Instead it will make it more predictable.
When the Laws changed to allow the defending team to take the scrum at point of kick when the ball has been kicked thru goal I saw that as changing the risk/reward equation and I think it had a small but positive effect. I think modifying the "KO in Goal" law to reward a 5m scrum only when the attacking team ground the ball following the KO is consistent with other in-goal law.
:deadhorse: Yes, I know.
I find this curious for two reasons:
1. The knock-on is assumed to just be an attacking error. The scene proposed is always an attacking side toiling diligently at great length with verve and energy only to be foiled by bad luck. What a crock! It's as if the defenders were standing around having a nice cup of tea and had nothing to do with it.
2. The 22 over the 5m is always presented as this huge gain in ground, produced by such a minor slip, that is unique to this event. What a crock! An attacking player with ball putting one toe into touch 1cm into the field of play gives up a 5m line-out. The same attacker puts the same toe 1cm in touch-in-goal yields a 22. Would those that argue for a 5m for a KO do likewise for the TiG? I hope not.
To me, one of the great attractions of rugby stems from it's principles: Contest for possession and continuity of play. Both the Laws and our application of them are constantly being tuned to find that optimum balance. The balance between risk and reward defines how a team plays the game. The highest reward is always the try. The highest risk is playing the open, attacking rugby that we all want to see. Reducing the penalty for failure may induce more open rugby but it won't make the game more interesting. Instead it will make it more predictable.
When the Laws changed to allow the defending team to take the scrum at point of kick when the ball has been kicked thru goal I saw that as changing the risk/reward equation and I think it had a small but positive effect. I think modifying the "KO in Goal" law to reward a 5m scrum only when the attacking team ground the ball following the KO is consistent with other in-goal law.
:deadhorse: Yes, I know.
Personally I'd be quite happy for a law change so that the KO into in goal to result in advanatge, and if that resulted in a 22 I wouldn't be bothered.
I can't see why you would do that but then revert to a 5m Scrum defenders put in just because the bloke who knocked on them managed to fall on it.
But it isn't so it isn't.
I can't see why you would do that but then revert to a 5m Scrum defenders put in just because the bloke who knocked on them managed to fall on it.
But it isn't so it isn't.
Lee Lifeson-Peart
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 7,815
- Post Likes
- 1,008
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
Is it me or is this the most uninteresting of threads?
I wasn't going to post again in this one, but I feel compelled to agree.
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
LLP, I'm sure it's not just you. I suspect others found this particular thread of little interest.
However, it seems they just ignored it and didn't feel compelled to make some snotty comment.
However, it seems they just ignored it and didn't feel compelled to make some snotty comment.
TheBFG
Referees in England
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,392
- Post Likes
- 237
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
Sorry to drag this thread back up, but a Q a fellow ref asked me:
Ball knocked on into goal, that ball then goes TIG or over the DBL, is this covered by the law below?
(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
He askes because it say "and is made dead", most would assume this means by a defender i.e. touched down, but by going over TIG or over DBL is this the same outcome :chin:
Ball knocked on into goal, that ball then goes TIG or over the DBL, is this covered by the law below?
(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
He askes because it say "and is made dead", most would assume this means by a defender i.e. touched down, but by going over TIG or over DBL is this the same outcome :chin:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
BFG - for what it is worth my interpretation is that any ball going in-goal from a knock-on by attacker and is made dead (grounded or goes TIG or over DB) counts, and so scrum 5m awarded to defenders.
TheBFG
Referees in England
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,392
- Post Likes
- 237
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
Which was my reply, however, his point is, is a ball going TIG or over the DBL "making it dead"? I can kind of see where he's coming from and i guess it's one of those funnies that is covered to the letter?
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
Of course the ball going TIG or over BDL is "making it dead". The bl***dy ball has made itself dead - end of !
Tell your fellow referee to get his sh*t togther and think about / work on the important things. Too many folks read the Laws and try to make pedadantic claims and interpretations. Tell him to just accept they are not perfect, written by a nice well meaning group of folks in Dublin, and changed occasionally by the Laws Steering Group to keep us referees on our toes :biggrin:
Tell your fellow referee to get his sh*t togther and think about / work on the important things. Too many folks read the Laws and try to make pedadantic claims and interpretations. Tell him to just accept they are not perfect, written by a nice well meaning group of folks in Dublin, and changed occasionally by the Laws Steering Group to keep us referees on our toes :biggrin:
rugbyslave
Getting to know the game
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 134
- Post Likes
- 6
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
To be fair to the ref who asked, the issue is not whether going over the TIG or the DBL makes the ball dead (which is obvious), but rather whether such a scenario counts as being made dead in the ingoal area. This is what is required by the bit in red in the law above.
I think it's a great question. The answer is probably as given, but even so the question very validly highlights yet another lacuna in the law.
Could be tricky for an experienced referee too. :biggrin:
So was the attacking 5m scrum the correct call? I would say no. :chin:
The ball was put in goal by Yellow - charged down. The Blue player was straddling the goal line (ie he was in-goal when he caught the moving ball) and then pushed over the TiG. So IMO it should have been a 22DO.
Last edited:
rugbyslave
Getting to know the game
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 134
- Post Likes
- 6
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
Five-metre scrum. The Highlanders are on desperate defence as they win a ruck near their own line. Aaron Smith, their scrumhalf, kicks to clear but big Michael Fitzgerald of the Chiefs charges the ball down. The ball bounces into the Highlanders in-goal area where Ben Smith of the Highlanders grabs the ball. Lelia Masaga of the Chiefs tackles Smith into touch-in-goal.
The referee orders a five-metre scrum, Chiefs to put in.
The commentator says that having a kick charged down is the same as having carried it back.
Law 22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCHDOWN
(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.
Aaron Smith was in the field of play when he kicked the ball.
Fitzgerald was in the field of play when he charged the kick down.
Fitzgerald sent the ball into the Highlanders' (opponents') in-goal.
The ball was made dead when Ben Smith was tackled into touch-in-goal.
It would seem that it should have been a drop-out, unless...
Unless Ben Smith carried the ball into the field of play and was then tackled back into touch-in-goal. Then it would have been a five-metre scrum, Chiefs' ball.
A charge-down into in-goal does not equate to carrying the ball back.:chin:
�
The referee orders a five-metre scrum, Chiefs to put in.
The commentator says that having a kick charged down is the same as having carried it back.
Law 22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCHDOWN
(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.
Aaron Smith was in the field of play when he kicked the ball.
Fitzgerald was in the field of play when he charged the kick down.
Fitzgerald sent the ball into the Highlanders' (opponents') in-goal.
The ball was made dead when Ben Smith was tackled into touch-in-goal.
It would seem that it should have been a drop-out, unless...
Unless Ben Smith carried the ball into the field of play and was then tackled back into touch-in-goal. Then it would have been a five-metre scrum, Chiefs' ball.
A charge-down into in-goal does not equate to carrying the ball back.:chin:
�
Last edited: