Unusual Incidents

[Dickie E]

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 ...."

I am not a fan of lying to help get out of a jam

 

[OB..]

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)

Do you mean 12.1 c and 12.1 d? even if you do, I don't see your logic, but to be honest, I am rather bored with the topic anyway.

 

[Dickie E]

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]

I thought of that but I would consider it grossly unfair to the defending team.

In reality, only one of 2 things actually happened. Either attacking team knocked-on (defending scrum) or defending team knocked it dead (22 drop out).

Attacking scrum is like Muhammad Ali's left nut ... it ain't fair and it ain't right

 

[Rich_NL]

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.

But then blue get the throw-in; with the drop-out red get the 22m plus possession, and can still kick the ball dead - under no pressure, and starting another 22m further upfield than in the first case.

From an equity point of view it's quite a gain, from just a knock-on. Red is attacking, close to scoring, and they get more heavily penalised for a minor technical mistake than they would 22 metres further downfield - it discourages ambitious, attacking play near the tryline and takes pressure off the defence. It's inconsistent with the spirit of the laws.

 

[crossref]

But then blue get the throw-in; with the drop-out red get the 22m plus possession, and can still kick the ball dead - under no pressure, and starting another 22m further upfield than in the first case.

From an equity point of view it's quite a gain, from just a knock-on. Red is attacking, close to scoring, and they get more heavily penalised for a minor technical mistake than they would 22 metres further downfield - it discourages ambitious, attacking play near the tryline and takes pressure off the defence. It's inconsistent with the spirit of the laws.

it may or may not be in the spirit of the Laws that's a matter of opinion - but it's not IN the Laws!
another spirit of the Laws problem is presented when red kick into the blue in goal

- if the ball goes directly over the DBL then blue get a choice of 22m or scrum back
- but if red chasers manage to get a hand to it, and knock it on over the DBL then most referees (mistakenly in my view) give a 5m red scrum

So red are rewarded fro knocking on - a more pressing spirit of the Laws problem, I think

 

[chbg]

it may or may not be in the spirit of the Laws that's a matter of opinion - but it's not IN the Laws!
another spirit of the Laws problem is presented when red kick into the blue in goal

- if the ball goes directly over the DBL then blue get a choice of 22m or scrum back
- but if red chasers manage to get a hand to it, and knock it on over the DBL then most referees (mistakenly in my view) give a 5m red scrum

So red are rewarded fro knocking on - a more pressing spirit of the Laws problem, I think

No - Red are awarded for getting close to touching it down.

 

[DocY]

No - Red are awarded for getting close to touching it down.

It's not for getting close to scoring, though. If they knocked it backwards (and it was subsequently made dead) they're just as close to scoring, but it would be a drop out. The thing that changes a drop out to a 5m scrum is the knock on.

 

[crossref]

at the end of the day, we all have slightly different views of what the 'spirit of the Laws' means, and so what we have to do is to refer to the actual Laws, and specifically to Law 8 - what constitutes an advantage
- blue knock on
- does red get a tactical advantage, often described as the freedom to play the ball as they wish? - ie did they freely choose make it dead (kick it, touch it down, carry it out)
- does red get a territorial advantage - yes 22m drop out
- is there anything in Law 8 that would specifically apply here to change your view?

 

[DocY]

- does red get a territorial advantage - yes 22m drop out

Hopping back to the other side of the fence - I don't think territorial advantage can apply. They only gain the territory after the ball is made dead, which can't happen.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Hopping back to the other side of the fence - I don't think territorial advantage can apply. They only gain the territory after the ball is made dead, which can't happen.

So this leads to the other argument, that they can "play the ball as they wish" to gain their advantage.

But the question here is obviously whether you believe that "playing the ball" includes making it immediately dead. To me, it doesn't. But there is probably no point rehashing all the old arguments/POV as it was a welll entrenched debate that wasn't going to finish anywhere!

 

[crossref]

Hopping back to the other side of the fence - I don't think territorial advantage can apply. They only gain the territory after the ball is made dead, which can't happen.

but there's nothing in the Law that says that....
and even if you think that, there's the tactical advantage, the ability to place the ball as you wish (eg to kick it into TIG).


in a lot of this argument my impression is that there are a school of refs who know what the answer must be (because they have been told it many times, a scrum) and are then trying to use the Laws - or the spirit of the Laws - to back up the pre-determined answer.

what I am saying is that if you work the other way round: take the scenario, and apply the Laws, you get to a different result (a 22m)

So this leads to the other argument, that they can "play the ball as they wish" to gain their advantage.

But the question here is obviously whether you believe that "playing the ball" includes making it immediately dead. To me, it doesn't. But there is probably no point rehashing all the old arguments/POV as it was a welll entrenched debate that wasn't going to finish anywhere!

of course the defenders might not touch it down, they might pick it up and kick it into touch, or touch in goal, even pick it up, pass it, and then kick it dead. whatever.


anyway.. that's enough from me (really!)

 

[OB..]

at the end of the day, we all have slightly different views of what the 'spirit of the Laws' means, and so what we have to do is to refer to the actual Laws, and specifically to Law 8 - what constitutes an advantage

[LAWS]Law 8 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular][...] [/FONT][/LAWS]Arguing that you can gain an advantage by stopping play contradicts that ethos, so needs a clear exception in law.

Law 12 was deliberately changed to to make all knock-ons in or into in-goal have the same sanction. It does not provide for an exception.

in a lot of this argument my impression is that there are a school of refs who know what the answer must be (because they have been told it many times, a scrum) and are then trying to use the Laws - or the spirit of the Laws - to back up the pre-determined answer.

That cannot apply to me. In 1978 I had been playing for nearly 20 years, and had already noted as an anomaly that a knock-on into in-goal was a drop out. I thought that was inappropriate, and was of course glad when the law was changed.

For me therefore,the law is clear and correct, so I have no sympathy with legalistic attempts to subvert it. (I would welcome the opportunity to mark it as a law error in a report just so as to get my society to react. :biggrin: )

 

[DocY]

I think if these threads have shown anything it's that the law (as written in the book) isn't clear!

 

[OB..]

I think if these threads have shown anything it's that the law (as written in the book) isn't clear!

They show that people are keen to use legalistic arguments, which are generally inappropriate. For me the law in this case is very clear.

 

[Rich_NL]

I think if these threads have shown anything it's that the law (as written in the book) isn't clear!

12.1.c specifically covers a knock on into in-goal followed by the ball being made dead, though. I'm not entirely sure how it could be clearer.

 

[DocY]

12.1.c specifically covers a knock on into in-goal followed by the ball being made dead, though. I'm not entirely sure how it could be clearer.

We're discussing the ball kicked into in-goal, then knocked on and made dead, rather than the knock on occurring in the FoP, so 12.1 (c) doesn't apply - and I'm sure this law was cited by both sides in the earlier debate as evidence for their viewpoint.

 

[crossref]

12.1.c specifically covers a knock on into in-goal followed by the ball being made dead, though. I'm not entirely sure how it could be clearer.

the scenario being discussed is a knock on inside the in goal

 

[Bunniksider]

the scenario being discussed is a knock on inside the in goal

It's a moot point. Knock on into or within in-goal result in a 5m scrum (or further out if long knock on into in-goal).

12.1 (c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.


12.1 (d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.

 

[thepercy]

at the end of the day, we all have slightly different views of what the 'spirit of the Laws' means, and so what we have to do is to refer to the actual Laws, and specifically to Law 8 - what constitutes an advantage
- blue knock on
- does red get a tactical advantage, often described as the freedom to play the ball as they wish? - ie did they freely choose make it dead (kick it, touch it down, carry it out)
- does red get a territorial advantage - yes 22m drop out
- is there anything in Law 8 that would specifically apply here to change your view?

How often do you think the ball is made dead, in-goal, after a knock-on, without being under pressure?

 

[crossref]

It's a moot point. Knock on into or within in-goal result in a 5m scrum (or further out if long knock on into in-goal).

12.1 (c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.


12.1 (d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.

you haven't been following the thread!

well, firstly note that the Laws for the two scenarios are different!

then for 12.1 (d)
- we all agree that if advantage is played, and gained, then no scrum happens
- so the question all revolves around advantage : does the freedom to make the ball dead (one way or another) constitute a tactical or territorial advantage?

It's a Law 8 question not a Law 12 one

(Note that if you argue that you can't gain advatage by making it dead, then 12.1(c) is rendered superfluous)