[Law] Law variations

[Camquin]

I note the Rainbow cup is going to start with the law variations, Captain's challenge, goal line drop out and red card replacement. I understand theee tried in Australia and new zealand - how did they go there?

 

[crossref]

the goal line drop out is interesting to me, as a knock on INTO the in goal, clearly has a different outcome from a knock on INSIDE the in goal. Viz -

Red knock on in FOP, ball travels into the blue in goal, Blue touch down = 5m defending scrum
Red carry the ball into the blue in goal, then lose it forwards, Blue touch down = goal line drop out.

that's correct, right?

 

[SimonSmith]

The Captain's Challenge isn't new here - the NRL have been using it for a while.

The worst thing about it isn't the challenge itself. It's the peabrained commentators. Here's what I can guarantee the moment a shirt with a low number makes an appeal, and you can double my money if they lose the appeal "Don't let the forwards/front row ask for an appeal" with a 'isn't that clever and not at all an old trope' laugh.

Every. Single. ****ing. Time.

 

[Dickie E]

I quite like the goal line drop out. Gets the ball into general play very quickly.

 

[RedCapRef]

I can see the goal line drop out changing the way defence is managed very close to the try line. Instead of trying to make sure you keep the ball carrier from crossing the line, pull him on top off a pile of players so the ball is held up. Instead of 5 metre attacking scrum to defend against, you are gaining a defensive clearance kick and defence reset 30 or 40 metres out.

 

[Dickie E]

I can see the goal line drop out changing the way defence is managed very close to the try line. Instead of trying to make sure you keep the ball carrier from crossing the line, pull him on top off a pile of players so the ball is held up. Instead of 5 metre attacking scrum to defend against, you are gaining a defensive clearance kick and defence reset 30 or 40 metres out.

I understand the logic of your thought but I've never seen that happen here. There is an obvious risk in pulling a ball carrying attacking player into in goal ... it might actually assist him/her/them to reach out & score.

 

[TheBFG]

Not been about for a while, what did i miss?

Not sure if this one has been done and or answered, so sorry if it has

For the knock on into "in goal", does the ball carrier have to have crossed the goal line?

In one of the videos on the WR site, blue two is a couple of metres short of the line and loses the ball forward into "in goal" and the ref gives a goal line drop out, why? Surely the knock on is where the ball is lost, nit where it hits the ground, if this happened on the halfway line and say a 10 gave the ball to the 12 coming on a hard line and it was knocked forward 5-10 metres, no advantage we'd all give the scrum at the point it is lost, not where it lands, so why the difference?

 

[chbg]

The Law states "in in-goal" not "into in-goal". The Blues-Stormers video shows that the ball was probably over the GL when the Blues player lost control of it (reverse camera angle). Fair call for me.

 

[madgagoo]

In one of the videos on the WR site, blue two is a couple of metres short of the line and loses the ball forward into "in goal" and the ref gives a goal line drop out, why? Surely the knock on is where the ball is lost, nit where it hits the ground, if this happened on the halfway line and say a 10 gave the ball to the 12 coming on a hard line and it was knocked forward 5-10 metres, no advantage we'd all give the scrum at the point it is lost, not where it lands, so why the difference?

Although with a knock on into touch, we’d give the line out (scrum option) where the ball crossed the touch line?

Could do with some clarity on this point from WR!

 

[crossref]

The Law variation is for a knock INSIDE the in goal, which is now a goal line drop out
A knock on in the FoP remains a scrum.

It's lovely that the two are explicitly defined differently again.

In both cases, of course, advantage could be played and gained