knock over a line

[crossref]

- red knock on over blue's 22m line, into blue's 22
- blue gather the ball and kick for touch, do they get gain in ground?

before answering consider knock-on over other lines
1 red knock on into blue in-goal, blue do NOT get to touch it down for a 22m
2 red knock on over blue DBL, blue do NOT get a 22m
3 but red knock on into touch, blue DO get a lineout (if they want one, of course they can also choose a scrum)

the last one is relatively new - until last season a knock on over the touch line did not lead to a line out. Until that changed we had a consistent principle that knocking on over a line didn't really count as putting the ball over the line, but now it can.

So - gain in ground ?

 

[damo]

- red knock on over blue's 22m line, into blue's 22
- blue gather the ball and kick for touch, do they get gain in ground?

before answering consider knock-on over other lines
1 red knock on into blue in-goal, blue do NOT get to touch it down for a 22m
2 red knock on over blue DBL, blue do NOT get a 22m
3 but red knock on into touch, blue DO get a lineout (if they want one, of course they can also choose a scrum)

the last one is relatively new - until last season a knock on over the touch line did not lead to a line out. Until that changed we had a consistent principle that knocking on over a line didn't really count as putting the ball over the line, but now it can.

So - gain in ground ?

Yes of course.

Is this a question to which you aren't sure of the answer, or are you trying to make a point about how you don't like a law?

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Yes. I would always give a gain in ground. Credibility would be lost otherwise.
the law states "When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22".
Your description, to me, does not give me any reason to think that the defending team have "caused the ball" to go back over their own 22

 

[didds]

Yes - gain in ground. Blue did not take the ball back in.

the in-goal and DBL: scenarios are because a 22m DO is seen as too great a benefit for the knock on, compared to it occurring elsewhere on the pitch.

the l/o I took to mean it was a sort of "playing advantage" and the other team having a choice. I can;t say I'm stronly opined on the l/o think either way.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

I'd allow it.

I'd also allow them to kick for gain following a knock-on into in-goal; I think the 22DO is too big a gain because you get to walk 22m upfield *and then* have a chance to kick for gain, without any pressure. That's a lot more reward, and an additional stoppage.

Fair question though: I'd say allowing the gain is consistent for line-out outcomes, and there's consistency in 22DO outcomes.

 

[crossref]

Sigh, Ian, there you go again !

No, I posted it because I thought it was a mildly interesting Law question, that posters here might enjoy, seeing as the Law doesn't specify and some parallel situations are not consistent .

It was prompted by it actually happening in my game at the weekend, as well as, in the same game #1 and #3. (We had a lot of knock ons!)

I gave gain in ground

 

[Phil E]

Sigh, Ian, there you go again !

No, I posted it because I thought it was a mildly interesting Law question, that posters here might enjoy, seeing as the Law doesn't specify and some parallel situations are not consistent .

It was prompted by it actually happening in my game at the weekend, as well as, in the same game #1 and #3. (We had a lot of knock ons!)

I gave gain in ground

I have to disagree with the part in bold. The law is very clear.

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

oops, I realise I mistakenly read post #2 as coming from Ian, but actually it was from damo.
Apologies.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

oops, I realise I mistakenly read post #2 as coming from Ian, but actually it was from damo.
Apologies.

For someone who recently made a topic about poor forum behaviour this seems to be slightly hypoctrical- immediately assuming it was Ian because he questioned your motives - in what seemed like a perfectly fair manner toi a "neutral" poster like me, given your historical view on this topic (re knock on into in goal).

I would call advantage, advantage over when kicked (assuming kicked not under significant pressure), and if the ball went directly into touch I would award the gain in ground.

 

[ChuckieB]

oops, I realise I mistakenly read post #2 as coming from Ian, but actually it was from damo.
Apologies.

Let the Ground open and swallow you up!

I am with Didds, with on the advantage element taking precedent and then, separately, Rich_NL on disallowing the DO for choosing to make the ball dead, i.e. not being in the spirit of the advantage laws by making the ball dead thus preventing making play continuous.

 

[SimonSmith]

There's a lot of risk associated with taking law in some situations and mapping them to others.

The ball going over the DBL or GL matters because the outcomes are very specific and the ball enters an 'altered' state. The law is also specific about what state the ball assumes - 22D/O, scrum...

The ball entering the 22m, and GIG, only becomes an issue when the defending team take it in and then kick directly to touch. If the ball in knocked on into the 22m, then it's a scrum, same as it anywhere else on the pitch.

I say this not critically, but as observation: you seem to be seeking a complication that isn't there.

 

[Pegleg]

- red knock on over blue's 22m line, into blue's 22
- blue gather the ball and kick for touch, do they get gain in ground?

before answering consider knock-on over other lines
1 red knock on into blue in-goal, blue do NOT get to touch it down for a 22m
2 red knock on over blue DBL, blue do NOT get a 22m
3 but red knock on into touch, blue DO get a lineout (if they want one, of course they can also choose a scrum)

the last one is relatively new - until last season a knock on over the touch line did not lead to a line out. Until that changed we had a consistent principle that knocking on over a line didn't really count as putting the ball over the line, but now it can.

So - gain in ground ?

1 red knock on into blue in-goal, blue do NOT get to touch it down for a 22m The logic is that blue have chosen to make the ball dead. Allowing the 22 metre gain in ground from "just walking to the 22" is "too much in the opinion of WR (now personaly I feel that is wrong - a basic point regarding tadvantagr is freedon to play the ball as you choose - But my opinion does not count here)
2 red knock on over blue DBL, blue do NOT get a 22m The same logic as point one except of course the defenders did not choose to make the ball dead.
3 but red knock on into touch, blue DO get a lineout (if they want one, of course they can also choose a scrum The logic is that blue are not getting an extra advantage. from the offer of line-out or scrum it's effectively "option" time and that is consistant with the laws in general.
In th scenario of a knock on into the 22 with blue playing the ball he is simply playing advantage. So gain of ground is fine.

Once you accept (you don't have to agree) with WR 's reasoning on "too much unearned advantage) it is all pretty logical.

 

[damo]

oops, I realise I mistakenly read post #2 as coming from Ian, but actually it was from damo.
Apologies.

No need to apologise. I don't know what difference it makes whether it was me or Ian who made the post. The post stands or falls on it's merits - regardless of who made it. I wonder if you are focusing too much on who is saying things rather than what is being said.

My personal view is that if any poster wants to start a debate thread about the merits of a piece of law then they should do so. That poster shouldn't disingenuously pretend to ask a question when they aren't really. Especially when it's a point that has been debated at length in the past.

 

[crossref]

I don't think we've ever discussed knock-on over the 22m before ...
(you are thinking of knock-ons inside the in-goal, but that's not the same... and let's not go there again)

 

[Pinky]

I think gain in ground is OK for this as the defending team did not play the ball into their own 22. But you are effectively playing advantage for the ko, and if you did not give gain in ground then the lineout (attacking ball) would be inside the 22 and that would be no advantage either possession or position compared to a scrum with your put-in outside the 22.

KO into touch advantage is played by offering the non-offending team the choice of lineout or scrum.

 

[crossref]

in this unusual situation, the moment blue gather the ball inside the 22m they already have a tactical advantage compared to the scrum - because they have the tactical option to kick for gain in ground, which the scrum, outside the 22m, would not afford them...

 

[Nigib]

in this unusual situation, the moment blue gather the ball inside the 22m they already have a tactical advantage compared to the scrum - because they have the tactical option to kick for gain in ground, which the scrum, outside the 22m, would not afford them...

This can only surely be considered an advantage if they have the freedom to play it as they wish. So if blue gather and then are immediately challenged by red, there's no immediate advantage (although I would signal) - if they pass, then choose to kick (and it goes out of play beyond the 22), advantage over, gain in ground. If there is a real tactical advantage then again adv over - otherwise the scrum o/s the 22.

 

[crossref]

Indeed

 

[Taff]

- red knock on over blue's 22m line, into blue's 22 - blue gather the ball and kick for touch, do they get gain in ground?

Yes. Advantage from the knock-on. The ball was put in the 22 by the opposition, admittedly by mistake but that's just tough.