[Law] Knock on into the dead ball area.

[OB..]

They’ve still made it dead in the goal area.

Thereby killing off the possibility of gaining a genuine advantage.

 

[OB..]

So is it no advantage or too much advantage?

The player had not gained any advantage before making the ball dead.

Why are people so keen to find a legalistic argument to get round the normal natural decision of awarding a scrum for a knock-on???

Do you really think this sort of chopperesque stuff is helping any aspiring referees?

 

[crossref]

I think you are using legalistic arguments to avoid giving the defenders the advantage they want after the knock on (ie to play on, and touch down for a 22 , just as they would be able to do if the knock on hadn't happened)

 

[didds]

but it did.

 

[Phil E]

:deadhorse:

 

[OB..]

I think you are using legalistic arguments

NO!!!
I am trying make rugby sense of the laws, and I have a very good historical precedent from the 2016 Laws[LAWS]12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of
infringement.
(b) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward at a lineout. A scrum is awarded 15 metres
from the touchline.
(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.
(d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or
throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of
infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.[/LAWS](My bold)
That wording was in the Laws from the 2000 re-write on, so it is what players should be used to. Unfortunately the lax wording in the new laws is unhelpful. However it is perfectly possible to interpret it in the 2016 sense. I claim that makes Rugby sense.

to avoid giving the defenders the advantage they want after the knock on (ie to play on, and touch down for a 22 , just as they would be able to do if the knock on hadn't happened)

What they have "earned" is the right to a scrum. A 22 would be something given to them by the referee getting it wrong.

 

[OB..]

:deadhorse:

I agree.

My worry is that some eager tyro might be misled.

 

[crossref]

I agree as well !

To restate .. in the example in the OP I would advise everyone to give a scrum. Out on the pitch tomorrow I would give a scrum

 

[mcroker]

This forum would be very dull if this particular topic was re-debated with the exact same arguments every season.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

You seem to be implying that you base certain decisions on how a team are performing.....level out the playing field as such!

Not levelling the playing field, as I've said if a team is getting hammered and the result is irrelevant and I've got a decision to make involving a potential safety issue, I'm giving a 22DO all day long.
I think it's called empathy ?

 

[frenchie851]

From the description in my original post I would now give a scrum.

If the ball was knocked on in goal.... I would give a scrum.


From the original post I sensed I had made a mistake and just wanted to check. I didn't think it would go onto 7 pages of responses!

 

[crossref]

. I didn't think it would go onto 7 pages of responses!

bwa ha ha ha ha haaaaa

 

[MadRef77]

My 2p:

Advocates of awarding the 22DO for a KO in or into the IG and made that argue that awarding a 5m-scrum the attacking team is better off as compared to the case where they didn't knock on in the first place and put the ball IG legally. In my view, the attacking team is never better off in this scenario because by knocking on, they are losing any chance to score a try in current play. The 22DO is there to create a high-risk vs high-reward situation for kicking the ball into IG: there is no need to bring a team back 22m when they already penalised themselves by losing a scoring-chance AND possession. It is reasonable instead to reward with the 22DO the defending team who managed to successfully defuse the threat of a loose ball put legally in their IG respectively to penalise the team trying a risky play, like a grubber into the IG, and screwing it up (e.g. miskicked and ball goes dead).

 

[crossref]

Yes, but that's another argument without any reference to the Law Book

 

[MadRef77]

My comment is aimed at explaining the rationale behind awarding a scrum. Previous versions of the law book and clarifications were pretty clear about the decision to be taken in such cases: a 5-m scrum. Although the new law book lacks clarity on this topic, I see no reason to think that it should be interpreted any different than we did in the past.

 

[Dickie E]

My comment is aimed at explaining the rationale behind awarding a scrum. Previous versions of the law book and clarifications were pretty clear about the decision to be taken in such cases: a 5-m scrum. Although the new law book lacks clarity on this topic, I see no reason to think that it should be interpreted any different than we did in the past.

so in 100 years time white haired referee sages will be saying to the new sprogs "don't worry about what's in the book, I have a fable to share with you"

 

[crossref]

My comment is aimed at explaining the rationale behind awarding a scrum. Previous versions of the law book and clarifications were pretty clear about the decision to be taken in such cases: a 5-m scrum. Although the new law book lacks clarity on this topic, I see no reason to think that it should be interpreted any different than we did in the past.

The Laws we should apply now are those in the 2020 book

But if you prefer an old law book .. the 2017 one drew a distinction between a knock on INTO the in goal, and a knock on INSIDE the in goal.

Do you think that distinction still stands ?

 

[OB..]

The Laws we should apply now are those in the 2020 book

But if you prefer an old law book .. the 2017 one drew a distinction between a knock on INTO the in goal, and a knock on INSIDE the in goal.

Do you think that distinction still stands ?

The 2017 book is identical to the 2016 version that I quoted earlier at #66.

It has nothing to do with whether or not a scrum is awarded, but simply the location of that scrum. If the knock-on was in in-goal then the scrum has to be on the 5 metre line. If it was into in-goal, then the scrum is where the offence took place.

 

[MadRef77]

so in 100 years time white haired referee sages will be saying to the new sprogs "don't worry about what's in the book, I have a fable to share with you"

No. I believe we should rewrite the law book to improve it. The last revision was explicitly meant not to change anything. The fact that it failed to do it effectively without losses doesn't mean we should now make up a different interpretation. It's not like the 2020 book now suddenly says you must award a 22DO: it is just unclear about what the correct restart would be, hence I'll stick to what it used to be as it is the sensible thing to do in my view.

 

[Dickie E]

It's not like the 2020 book now suddenly says you must award a 22DO:

yes it does:

[LAWS]12.11 Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.
[/LAWS]