[Law] Knock on into the dead ball area.

[Dickie E]

The last revision was explicitly meant not to change anything.

I think that can be filed in "you've got to let him up" and "you can't be offside in goal" bin. There are too many examples that contradict this. Who was it that said that?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

[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]

Is a ball knocked on into in-goal "taken" into in-goal? It goes there back how can you take a ball into in-goal if you yourswelf do not go there?

 

[crossref]

[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]

Is a ball knocked on into in-goal "taken" into in-goal? It goes there back how can you take a ball into in-goal if you yourswelf do not go there?

This is why the old Law made the distinction .. it made clear that a knock on in the FoP that goes INTO the in goal did not count as played or taken in

 

[Treadmore]

[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]

Is a ball knocked on into in-goal "taken" into in-goal? It goes there back how can you take a ball into in-goal if you yourswelf do not go there?

Maybe not, but it could have been played

 

[TigerCraig]

We have an issue that anyone who became a ref after the rewrite with no previous rugby experience will be stymied

 

[crossref]

We have an issue that anyone who became a ref after the rewrite with no previous rugby experience will be stymied

I don't agree, the 2020 edition is the only Law Book anyone needs.

If it is ambiguous by all means rely on convention and guidance .. but no one should be cherry picking from old books

 

[TigerCraig]

I don't agree, the 2020 edition is the only Law Book anyone needs.

If it is ambiguous by all means rely on convention and guidance .. but no one should be cherry picking from old books

Ok, then a knock on into in goal is a 22

 

[Rich_NL]

I don't agree, the 2020 edition is the only Law Book anyone needs.

If it is ambiguous by all means rely on convention and guidance .. but no one should be cherry picking from old books

So you give the dropout?

 

[crossref]

So you give the dropout?

Out on the field next Saturday in any scenario, I would give what I understand to be the conventional, generally expected decision.

 

[Phil E]

Out on the field next Saturday in any scenario, I would give what I understand to be the conventional, generally expected decision.

You've changed! What have you done with CR? :wow: :smile:

 

[Dickie E]

Out on the field next Saturday in any scenario, I would give what I understand to be the conventional, generally expected decision.

that is clearly in contravention of law. How do you justify that decision?

 

[crossref]

You've changed! What have you done with CR? :wow: :smile:

Not really. In this forum we struggle to separate discussions about what the Law Book says and what a grass roots ref should do on Saturday.
(I posted a proposal for solving this before .. in the forum section.)

 

[thepercy]

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]

12.11 law does not say "must be restarted with a 22DO"

7.3.F

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Advantage MUST not be applied and the referee MUST blow the whistle immediately when:

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The ball is made dead. [/FONT]​

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB][/FONT]​

 

[crossref]

12.11 law does not say "must be restarted with a 22DO"

7.3.F

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Advantage MUST not be applied and the referee MUST blow the whistle immediately when:

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The ball is made dead. [/FONT]​

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB][/FONT]​

that would mean you couldn't score a try from advatage .

In reality - it means something else ...

Serious note as it is important : that Law means something else : it means you can't carry on playing advantage when the ball goes dead

For example blue 11 knocks on, and then he kicks the ball into touch -- you can't carry on playing advantage to let RED take a QTI.. even if it would be a really good QTI)...

If you are playing advantage and then the ball goes dead, then as the Law says : you must blow your whistle. Then EITHER declare "no advantage, back to the offence" or "Adv over" continue with the lineout (or whatever)

 

[MadRef77]

I think that can be filed in "you've got to let him up" and "you can't be offside in goal" bin. There are too many examples that contradict this. Who was it that said that?

Here:

https://www.world.rugby/news/299688

I quote:

"...the simplified law book is designed to make the laws easier to understand while not altering the meaning of them or how the game is played."

That was the explicit intent.

If your claim is that, they screw it up, I am with you, but exactely because of that, refereeing to the letter of the new book, ignoring what the old one said is not the sensible thing to do in my view, as we would be reffing according to "unintended consequences" instead of what the law-makers wanted actually to achieve.

 

[GingerSeaMonster]

I was watching a game today, if the attacking team knock the ball on into the dead ball area, defensive team then touch it down, would you give the option of the knock on or 22?

I have been giving this option but then I saw a game today in The Champ Cup and the option wasn't given.

This happened this afternoon in the Italy v Scotland match, 42 minutes in, Scotland player loses control in the field of play, ball goes into the in-goal area, bounces loose and Italy touch it down.

The referee says it was touched down and awards a 5m scrum to Italy. Referee Ben O'Keefe thinks 5m scrum, good enough for me

 

[crossref]

Here:

https://www.world.rugby/news/299688

I quote:

"...the simplified law book is designed to make the laws easier to understand while not altering the meaning of them or how the game is played."

That was the explicit intent.

If your claim is that, they screw it up, I am with you, but exactely because of that, refereeing to the letter of the new book, ignoring what the old one said is not the sensible thing to do in my view, as we would be reffing according to "unintended consequences" instead of what the law-makers wanted actually to achieve.

In fact rhere were multiple changes. Some of them did seem to be accidental, but many were clearly deliberate (and welcome)

See my table for a full analysis

But really who cares now. There have also been changes since the rewrite as well

The laws now are what's written in the 2020 law book