ianh5979
Referees in England
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2008
- Messages
- 468
- Post Likes
- 59
My touch judge would be in the correct position to make the right decision of course!!:biggrin:
Unusual Incidents
- Thread starter crossref
- Start date
I think this is the right decision here - no C&O knock on so treat it as the attacking team put it into in goal and it was made dead.
I think in practice you'd have to give a lineout to the team going forwards, for consistency. You can't very well say it wasn't a C&O knock on then say the team going forward put the ball into touch.
Regardless of what you actually saw, one of two things happened: a knock on into touch from the attacking team (so options), or a knock backwards into touch from the defending team. A knock on and it going into touch off the defending team isn't really an option (assuming you didn't clearly see such).
guys inthe field of play it's covered in the Laws
[LAWS]9.4 Who throws in
(a)
The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.[/LAWS]
For touch in goal that doesn't really help, if the attacking team put the ball into the in goal then, whatever restart you choose, it's the defending team who are going to have the put in/kick
[LAWS]9.4 Who throws in
(a)
The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.[/LAWS]
For touch in goal that doesn't really help, if the attacking team put the ball into the in goal then, whatever restart you choose, it's the defending team who are going to have the put in/kick
It doesn't matter for TiG, though. The only point of interest is who put the ball into in-goal and if you didn't see a knock on, it has to be a drop out.
Assuming it has been made dead by going over the TIG and DB line or a touchdown. If it is held up its an attacking 5m scrum. If it is knocked on is a 5m scrum to whoever didn't knock it on.
You're quite right - though the original question involved a kick into in-goal and the ref not being sure who had knocked it into TiG or if there was a knock on involved.
What about using:
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Scrum after any other stoppage. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/FONT][/LAWS]
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Scrum after any other stoppage. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/FONT][/LAWS]
I don't think that applies - these are stoppages covered by law, there's just uncertainty around the facts.
This law is there to cover the ref blowing for injuries, awarding a try on the 5m line, dogs running onto the pitch and suchlike.
talbazar
Referees in Singapore
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 702
- Post Likes
- 81
So, am I missing something here? (which is probable).
Red attacking into Blue in goal:
1. Red #11 enters in goal carrying the ball
2. Red #11 knocks it forward
3. Ref: "Advantage"
4.a Blue grounds the ball
5.a Ref: "Advantage Over. PeeP. 22 DO"
4.b Red grounds the ball
5.b Ref: "PeeP. No advantage, KO Red, Scrum Blue on the 5m"
4.c. Ball goes over DBL / TIG
5.c Ref: "Advantage Over. PeeP. 22 DO"
Same logic goes for a grubber (question is: who brought the ball in in-goal?)
And it's too fast to call the "advantage", don't just sell your decision based on that.
Keep It Stupid Simple
epper:Now, just in case one is not convinced you can do that (basically: play advantage after a knock-on by attacking team in defending team's in-goal, consider this:
4.d Blue picks up the ball, run the whole length of the pitch in a "try from the end of the earth" movement to score as the hooter goes and win the game
5.d Ref: __________________ (your call)
Pierre.
So, am I missing something here? (which is probable).
Red attacking into Blue in goal:
1. Red #11 enters in goal carrying the ball
2. Red #11 knocks it forward
3. Ref: "Advantage"
4.a Blue grounds the ball
5.a Ref: "Advantage Over. PeeP. 22 DO"
4.b Red grounds the ball
5.b Ref: "PeeP. No advantage, KO Red, Scrum Blue on the 5m"
4.c. Ball goes over DBL / TIG
5.c Ref: "Advantage Over. PeeP. 22 DO"
Same logic goes for a grubber (question is: who brought the ball in in-goal?)
And it's too fast to call the "advantage", don't just sell your decision based on that.
Keep It Stupid Simple
Now, just in case one is not convinced you can do that (basically: play advantage after a knock-on by attacking team in defending team's in-goal, consider this:
4.d Blue picks up the ball, run the whole length of the pitch in a "try from the end of the earth" movement to score as the hooter goes and win the game
5.d Ref: __________________ (your call)
Pierre.
You and crossref are going to get on VERY well!
There's a convention that if there's an attacking knock on in in goal and the ball is made dead, you take the scrum, rather than the drop out.
Last edited:
There is uncertainty over how the ball was made dead. The law does not cover this.
Scrum 5m attack.....
You can sell it....
My point is more - you have a situation where ultimately you need to make a decision. Be bold, and brave, and go with it. I don't care what the restart is, but the last thing you need is uncertainty.
So - "Scrum 5m defence, Attack knocked on" (If questioned - you just repeat that you saw Attack knock on)
OR - "22m DO." (If questioned: "Defence accidentally knocked dead - Attack put ball into ingoal - 22m DO")
OR - "Doubts over grounding - 5m scrum attack"
OR - .......
Don't go with the:
"Not sure what happened there, I think we'll go with ...."
Scrum 5m attack.....
You can sell it....
My point is more - you have a situation where ultimately you need to make a decision. Be bold, and brave, and go with it. I don't care what the restart is, but the last thing you need is uncertainty.
So - "Scrum 5m defence, Attack knocked on" (If questioned - you just repeat that you saw Attack knock on)
OR - "22m DO." (If questioned: "Defence accidentally knocked dead - Attack put ball into ingoal - 22m DO")
OR - "Doubts over grounding - 5m scrum attack"
OR - .......
Don't go with the:
"Not sure what happened there, I think we'll go with ...."
Indeed no. In this case I'd go for "Ball went dead - I didn't see a knock on, so it's a drop out".
Of course you can play advantage after a knock-on, wherever it occurs. However the notion that by stopping play you gain advantage is nonsense. If the referee calls advantage and you have not gained any when you choose to kill the ball, then advantage is not over and you go back to the offence.
Why should an advantage call by the referee grant you exemption from the clear intention of the law?
Why should an advantage call by the referee grant you exemption from the clear intention of the law?
of course it isn't nonsense, after a knock on by blue in red's 22m, then red can kick the ball dead, say, 22 metres up-field into touch, thus gaining 22 metres of territorial advantage.
the same thing can happen in red's in-goal, if the knock happened there.
Last edited:
talbazar
Referees in Singapore
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 702
- Post Likes
- 81
Well, after a good 20-25 minutes research (not kidding):
it's not in any of the clarification of the Laws 8, 12 or 22
I haven't found it in any WR application guidelines.
It doesn't appear in our own Guideline in Singapore for this season (of the past ones)
It's not in the Asia Rugby Guideline for 2016.
So this convention is:
either
A guideline/regulation from your local Union or Society.
or
A "he has to let him up" ""convention""
Happy to be proven wrong as always: that means I'll be a better ref next Saturday!
Cheers,
Pierre.
talbazar - there was a very long (and heated!) argument about this earlier in the year
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...le-trying-to-score&highlight=knock+on+in+goal
where were you when I could have used some more support?
here's an earlier (less heated) thread that made pretty much the same points
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...tre-drop-out/page2&highlight=knock+on+in+goal
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...le-trying-to-score&highlight=knock+on+in+goal
where were you when I could have used some more support?
here's an earlier (less heated) thread that made pretty much the same points
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...tre-drop-out/page2&highlight=knock+on+in+goal
Last edited:
I'm told it's an international convention - and the support it has on here bears testament to that.
I spent a very long time trying to find a clarification, or to reconcile it with the lawbook, but to no avail.
After asking increasingly senior people I've grown to accept that it just is this way. I'm still not 100% happy with it 100% of the time. Particularly when an attacking player kicks the ball into in goal and then knocks on - it's a bit too much like they benefit from the knock on for my liking.
The best argument I've heard in its favour is that it's not in the spirit of the advantage law - advantage is supposed to reduce the number of stoppages in a game, and encouraging a player to make the ball dead does the opposite.
talbazar
Referees in Singapore
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 702
- Post Likes
- 81
Well... Better than nothing, but then, let's talk about the SH intentionally knocking the ball forward to end a PK advantage and take a quick tap... I've never seen (and I wouldn't myself) reverse the Penalty because the SH is intentionally infringing, which is Foul Play.
Anyways, let's no highjack just now
Unless.... Unless... Unless...
That's exactly what the wonderfully worded law 8.3.(e) covers:
[LAWS]8.3 When the advantage law is not applied
8.3.(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]
Which could then read:
[LAWS]8.3 When the advantage law is not applied
8.3.(e) After the ball has been made dead.
When the ball is made dead in/from in-goal, it is considered that no advantage has been gained and the referee orders game restart in accordance with the original infringement advantage was played against.[/LAWS]
:deadhorse:
I'll go read the two threads tomorrow... It's very late here right now
Cheers,
Pierre.
PS: CrossRef, I don't know where I was. I'm sorry if I indeed let you alone with all these mean people :biggrin:
Last edited:
A 22m gain of distance is indeed an advantage, which is gained BEFORE the ball goes dead. We are talking about supposedly gaining an advantage merely by grounding the ball at a point when no territorial advantage has been gained. The claim that this can be regarded as a tactical advantage relies on the referee awarding a 22 DO, despite the clear intention of the law.
I have quoted the history before. Up to 1978, it was indeed the case that a knock-on from the field of play into in-goal, made dead by a defender, would result in a drop out. That was deliberately changed in 1978 because it was anomalous - on all other occasions it would result in a defending scrum, thus making the laws internally consistent.
sufficient to say I disagree - but we have made a lot of progress! we are arguing about the right Law, now - the answer to this question does indeed depend upon the meaning of Law 8, and not Law 12
(And if your reading of Law 8 is correct, then 12.1.d, 12.1.e (where this all started) would be redundant)
(And if your reading of Law 8 is correct, then 12.1.d, 12.1.e (where this all started) would be redundant)