knock on into opponents' 22

[crossref]

blue are in possession and attacking.
just outside red's 22m blue lose possession forwards, knocking the ball on INTO the red 22m

red gather the ball, ref plays advantage, can red kick to touch and get gain in ground?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yes..

But would they want to?

 

[Phil E]

Your hidden agenda isn't doing a very good job of hiding!

 

[crossref]

No hidden agenda. It just occurred to me. I don't think the answer here affects the other discussion either way.

The obvious parallel to knocking on into the in-goal would suggest No gain in ground. Would any argue that way?

 

[Phil E]

The law here is perfectly clear (for a change).

19.1(g) Ball put into a player’s 22 by the opposition. When the ball is put into a team’s 22 by the opposition, without having touched (or been touched by) a player of the defending team before crossing the 22 and the ball is then kicked into touch by the defending team, the throw-in is where the ball went into touch.

Where is the ambiguity in that?

Whether they gain advantage from that action is another question with many variables.

 

[Nigib]

The law here is perfectly clear (for a change).

19.1(g) Ball put into a player’s 22 by the opposition. When the ball is put into a team’s 22 by the opposition, without having touched (or been touched by) a player of the defending team before crossing the 22 and the ball is then kicked into touch by the defending team, the throw-in is where the ball went into touch.

Where is the ambiguity in that?

Whether they gain advantage from that action is another question with many variables.

Unfortunately, I spot an ambiguity

As worded, surely the defending team could run the ball out of their 22, kick for touch and the throw-in would be where it went into touch? That of course cannot have been the intention...?

 

[Ian_Cook]

No hidden agenda. It just occurred to me. I don't think the answer here affects the other discussion either way.

The obvious parallel to knocking on into the in-goal would suggest No gain in ground. Would any argue that way?

The only parallel is that in both cases, the defending team can kick the ball out and get a gain in ground.

 

[Phil E]

Unfortunately, I spot an ambiguity

As worded, surely the defending team could run the ball out of their 22, kick for touch and the throw-in would be where it went into touch? That of course cannot have been the intention...?

No ambiguity. This law is not to be read in isolation, but together with the rest of 19.1, which prohibits what you suggest.