[Law] Penalty offence by team that didn't knock on while playing advantage for the KO

[Vovonne]

Hello all,

I have a (hopefully) quick question about advantage: say you are playing advantage after a knock on, and in the ruck that follows the non-offending team commits an offence in the ruck (but not amounting to foul play). Is the correct decision to:
- award a penalty kick in favour of the team that knocked-on, or
- to go back to the original knock on with a scrum in favour of the team that didn't knock on but played the ball off their feet?

I recently went for the Penalty Kick option - the infringement that came after the knock on was a player in the ruck playing the ball off their feet.

Conscious of Rule 7.2.c which suggests that was the wrong call, but at the time it felt wrong to go back to the knock on when the team it would have benefitted had then chosen to commit an offence (as opposed to do a knock on themselves for instance). What do people think? I'm sure the situation will come up again!

For ease of reference, here's Rule 7.2.c: "Advantage ends when ... c. The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s)".

Thanks for your contributions :smile:

 

[crossref]

go back to the knock on, but making blue aware that you clocked the PK offence.

UNLESS it's something like a punch etc, in which case all bets off, sanction the punch

 

[beckett50]

As crossref says, go back to the original offence - even though it is only a scrum offence - unless it is serious Foul Play, although when you blow the whistle just give a quick explanation that second offence occurred and so coming back for the first offence.

It does seem odd that you would come back for the lesser sanction, but that is the Law - unless it is Foul Play (as you correctly reference in Law)

 

[Rich_NL]

If it's not foul play, their offence costs them the opportunity to gain an advantage and gives the opposition a chance to contest at the scrum. If it's foul play, it costs them a penalty.

It does sometimes feel wrong to go back for a very minor scrum offence because of an egregious penalty though, and in some cases there can be some management needed because of flashpoints.

 

[Vovonne]

Thanks for your helpful responses, that answers my question!

All the best,

Vovonne

 

[Decorily]

If it's not foul play,

For clarity would you mind defining 'foul play ' as per your understanding.

 

[Rich_NL]

Anything that falls under law 9, including cynical and dangerous play.

I'm not aware of another meaning, I'm curious about the question?

 

[Decorily]

Anything that falls under law 9, including cynical and dangerous play.

I'm not aware of another meaning, I'm curious about the question?

It's just that in my experience it seems a lot of people consider foul play to be limited to offences such as striking an opponent, high tackles, dangerous clear out a ruck and such like 'physical ' acts.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That's not what the lawbook says.

 

[Dickie E]

It's just that in my experience it seems a lot of people consider foul play to be limited to offences such as striking an opponent, high tackles, dangerous clear out a ruck and such like 'physical ' acts.

the problem is that relatively innocuous offences such as 'obstruction' and 'throwing ball into touch' are included in law 9. If a team ran a scissors move that the ref deemed was 'obstruction', would he/she penalise that, or come back for the scrum?

 

[Decorily]

the problem is that relatively innocuous offences such as 'obstruction' and 'throwing ball into touch' are included in law 9.

Even more innocuous offences such as time wasting are include also.....which I suppose is exactly the point I am trying to make ( poorly obviously! )
So when I am TJing /ARing and the Ref tells his team that he wants us to flag 'foul play' I'm pretty sure he/she wouldn't be impressed if I stuck a flag out and,when asked, reported time wasting! !

 

[Dickie E]

Even more innocuous offences such as time wasting are include also.....which I suppose is exactly the point I am trying to make ( poorly obviously! )
So when I am TJing /ARing and the Ref tells his team that he wants us to flag 'foul play' I'm pretty sure he/she wouldn't be impressed if I stuck a flag out and,when asked, reported time wasting! !

True although a time wasting incident would be unlikely during a knock-on advantage period.

However: Blue knock on 5 metres from own goal line, ref calls advantage, ruck forms, Red win ball, and Red SH intentionally knocks on (ie commits foul play) cos Red want the scrum.

Wotcha gonna do?

[LAWS]9.7 A player must not:
Intentionally infringe any law of the game. [/LAWS]

 

[Decorily]

I'm gonna award Red the Scrum with a word to Red 9 that they might want to be careful about intentionally knocking on because next week they could have a pedantic ref who may penalise them !!

 

[didds]

True although a time wasting incident would be unlikely during a knock-on advantage period.

However: Blue knock on 5 metres from own goal line, ref calls advantage, ruck forms, Red win ball, and Red SH intentionally knocks on (ie commits foul play) cos Red want the scrum.

Wotcha gonna do?

[LAWS]9.7 A player must not:
Intentionally infringe any law of the game. [/LAWS]

well I sympathise but I guess this depends on whether any one ref will PK players in such circumstances - as debated here before.

didds

 

[seanaodh]

True although a time wasting incident would be unlikely during a knock-on advantage period.

However: Blue knock on 5 metres from own goal line, ref calls advantage, ruck forms, Red win ball, and Red SH intentionally knocks on (ie commits foul play) cos Red want the scrum.

Wotcha gonna do?

[LAWS]9.7 A player must not:
Intentionally infringe any law of the game. [/LAWS]

This is a great question. I wonder if you'd be pinged for getting this 'wrong' at the top levels. I've never seen it done, and I'm nearly sure I've seen advantages end with something that wasn't too bad but technically under law 9.

Comes under game management for me, I'd be going with the advantage every time unless it's what most people think of as foul play.

 

[Pinky]

For me the decision about whether to go back to the original offence is not just about whether the second offence is under law 9, but whether it is the sort of offence that might make you change the penalty, eg for retaliation or a punch/strike or whatever.

 

[SimonSmith]

True although a time wasting incident would be unlikely during a knock-on advantage period.

However: Blue knock on 5 metres from own goal line, ref calls advantage, ruck forms, Red win ball, and Red SH intentionally knocks on (ie commits foul play) cos Red want the scrum.

Wotcha gonna do?

[LAWS]9.7 A player must not:
Intentionally infringe any law of the game. [/LAWS]

I tell 9 and the captain before kick off that if they don't want the advantage, just tell me and I'll blow.

 

[Dickie E]

I tell 9 and the captain before kick off that if they don't want the advantage, just tell me and I'll blow.

So you'd give a PK against Red?

But you're skirting the point (somewhat mischeiviously, I expect). The point is: do all the clauses in law 9 trump a knock-on advantage (as required by Law 7) or only those that we would consider dangerous play (as required by common practice & common sense)?

 

[Taff]

... Comes under game management for me, I'd be going with the advantage every time unless it's what most people think of as foul play.

Makes sense. Foul Play should trump a technical infringement.

 

[SimonSmith]

So you'd give a PK against Red?

But you're skirting the point (somewhat mischeiviously, I expect). The point is: do all the clauses in law 9 trump a knock-on advantage (as required by Law 7) or only those that we would consider dangerous play (as required by common practice & common sense)?

And you, just as mischievously, are asking questions you already know the answer to