Scrum advantage before 80:00

[CampbelT]

Scrum wasnt awarded until 80.15

Then it should not have been awarded.

 

[Butters]

not sure why you're focussing on the plane of touch. It would have been play on if player had landed in FoP regardless of plane of touch. So only question to the AR is did the player land in, or not in, touch. Law 18:

I’m glad this discussion is now addressing the key points.

What does land in field mean?
One foot down in play - I think he probably did that
Two feet down (NFL style) - possible but unlikely.
Two feet down and held his weight/ didn’t fall back (Long Jump) - no chance.

But in summary if one foot means he landed in play, then it is not a line out.

Foley then plays advantage beyond 80:00 and can’t go back for the scrum (where the offence occurred before 80:00) so the game should have ended.

But the other point which nobody has mentioned…. Does Sheedy’s hand not touch the ball when he is shepherding everyone else around to not touch it!!! If it did, there is no such thing as accidental offside in that situation so that would/ should have been a Tigers penalty. (Scotland/ Australia 2015?)

At the very least we should have had a 5 minute delay whilst the Ref and TMO chewed through the laws… and what actually happened.

 

[CampbelT]

I think that one foot is enough to be in, it must be first, however, that is not the case in this play.....

 

[Dickie E]

still 1: shows the ball has crossed plane of touch
still 2: shows player landing on touchline after he has knocked the ball

Should have been a lineout.

 

[buff]

Under 18.2b whether or not the catcher lands in the FOP or not is not the only question. He must also catch the ball. He cannot merely knock it back into the FOP.

 

[Balones]

Hi Dickie.
The point I was trying to make was that the knock-on happened (initiated) while the ball had crossed the the plane of touch. Therefore play couldn’t continue surely? The knock-on was in touch. The laws you outline I believe relate to or intended to relate when an offence hasn’t happened, but I will admit that that is not explicit.
I was surmising that the RFU ruling, if that is the actual position, is because the knock-on started/happened in touch (while the ball was on the outside of the plane of touch in relation to the pitch) and therefore you couldn’t have a scrum on the pitch.
Actually because of the action involved I would be more inclined to call it a forward pass because he did try to gather it and exert some control and looked as if he actually threw it forward.

Sorry Dickie, wrote all the above before seeing your post with stills. Based on that evidence then there is no doubt and re-emphasise my point about why there wasn’t any consultation. I still think my point about the offence happening in touch still stands. (If he had landed in play.)

 

[didds]

I'd look at it this way...

If you couldnt go back to this scrum advantage, then the ref now is almjost HAVING to NOT play advantage for a knock on the last 30 secocnds (say), as at least the award and scrum does give possession to the side with the scrum. As opposed to some sort of "lets see what happens, oh well, didnt happen, oh dear its 80:01, time up"

 

[Camquin]

For 99.99% of refs, time is up when we say it is, so it is irrelevant.

 

[Butters]

For 99.99% of refs, time is up when we say it is, so it is irrelevant.

That’s the spirit.

 

[crossref]

For 99.99% of refs, time is up when we say it is, so it is irrelevant.

I like to say "time is up", when we reach 80mins, and when I call "no-side, game ends", I like it best when I am following the Laws on that.

 

[CampbelT]

For 99.99% of refs, time is up when we say it is, so it is irrelevant.

Hahaha totally true, unfortunatelly for our colleague, at that level, he does not even needs a watch, the official clock is the scores one....

 

[Phil E]

The ref stated quite clearly that the knock on occurred before the clock went dead so the scrum would take place.

Should add that Bristol butchered a chance to end the game when they were in front, by kicking the ball away with less than a minute on the clock. There’s a reason the stats say they can’t close games out.

 

[Butters]

The ref stated quite clearly that the knock on occurred before the clock went dead so the scrum would take place.

Should add that Bristol butchered a chance to end the game when they were in front, by kicking the ball away with less than a minute on the clock. There’s a reason the stats say they can’t close games out.

The knock on did occur before time was up. But the scrum isn’t awarded until after and there is nothing in the laws that allows him to go back to that advantage. And this is nothing to do with Bristol vs Leicester or the whys/ wherefores. It’s about us clarifying and if necessary learning how to apply the law book to real life situations.

Granted as stated above 99.99% of us (maybe more) will never have to apply it, but it’s nice to know what is meant to happen on TV or at a live game.

 

[dave_clark]

For 99.99% of refs, time is up when we say it is, so it is irrelevant.

it might be me being dim, but what do you mean by this? time is up when the clock hits 80 minutes, but that shouldn't have any bearing on making the right decision surely? either we should give the scrum in this scenario or we shouldn't, the fact that nobody else knows the exact time shouldn't make a difference.

unless i've misunderstood what you're suggesting? it wouldn't be the first time

 

[Dickie E]

Hi Dickie.
The point I was trying to make was that the knock-on happened (initiated) while the ball had crossed the the plane of touch. Therefore play couldn’t continue surely? The knock-on was in touch.

interesting point. I'd never considered that. Certainly food for thought.

I don't think I'd go that way, though. If a player knocks the ball back in backwards, he gets the benefit of playing on. If he mucks it up and knocks the ball back in forwards, I'd go knock-on

 

[Flish]

The knock on did occur before time was up. But the scrum isn’t awarded until after and there is nothing in the laws that allows him to go back to that advantage. And this is nothing to do with Bristol vs Leicester or the whys/ wherefores. It’s about us clarifying and if necessary learning how to apply the law book to real life situations.

Granted as stated above 99.99% of us (maybe more) will never have to apply it, but it’s nice to know what is meant to happen on TV or at a live game.

Surely the scrum is ‘awarded’ the second that sir sticks his arm out and communicates the offence that has a scrum sanction, which was before 80 mins as I understand it, he then allows to play to continue to see If anything more advantageous came along, it didn’t, so we have the scrum.

I’ve never heard anyone call “we’ll take it” for fear of running out of time and losing the restart?

 

[crossref]

I’ve never heard anyone call “we’ll take it” for fear of running out of time and losing the restart?

Maybe you will now ! The clock doesn't stop for advantage, so it makes sense that it's part of the game time, and so son't waste it as it runs out.

As a general point , I do sometimes wonder why teams play on, in situations when advantage is unlikely and time is short...

 

[dave_clark]

Maybe you will now ! The clock doesn't stop for advantage, so it makes sense that it's part of the game time, and so son't waste it as it runs out.

is that your interpretation, or is that backed up by law or clarification?

if it's the former that's fine. for me, i prefer OB's suggestion of going back for the scrum, to avoid having the situation where the speed of whistle determines whether or not the scrum is played. it's not a likely scenario admittedly, but then it's not impossible either.

 

[Camquin]

As OB says the laws are not written to that level of accuracy - and there are many more important things I would like to have clarified.
I believe, the law was written to permit a solo referee to concentrate on play, not time.
I do not always check my watch when I stick out my arm, but I will check when I blow.
Anyway, we are talking about knock-on advantage. That should not be more than a few seconds.

 

[crossref]

We know that the clock doesn't stop while advantage is played

So for me, logically, if advantage persists beyond 80 mins , then time is up

But IMO the Law Book doesnt really address this scenario clearly so WR, when asked, could jump either way. I will be interested to see what they say.

(OB speed of whistle argument is an aristotlean red herring.. . , This question is not about the referees reaction time)