Unusual Incidents

[OB..]

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?

[LAWS]12.1 (d)[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]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.[/FONT][/LAWS]I notice that this does not mention any need to make the ball dead. Taken literally it means you cannot apply Law 8 since the only option is a scrum.

If a defender knocked on in in-goal and an attacker dived on it, I would apply law 8 and award a try. Wouldn't we all?

This implies that Law 8 applies as soon as an infringement takes place, rather than when the referee calls it. It follows that if you can gain advantage by making the ball dead, then the referee could (should?!) call "Advantage over" even if a defender immediately grounded the ball under 12.1 (c) or (d). Those who think you can earn a drop out by grounding the ball because advantage was being played would find (c) and (d) unnecessary unless the attackers made the ball dead.

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)

I have pointed out that 12.1 (c) was introduced to remove an anomaly whereby a referee would award a drop out for a knock-on into in-goal. You are saying it was never effective anyway. Apparently nobody spotted that in the past 38 years.

This is all getting both legalistic and airy-fairy.The simple approach is surely the obvious one: a knock-on leads to a scrum unless the attackers can score a try. The defenders can attempt to play advantage, but unless they gain a satisfactory advantage without relying on the belief that the referee can give it to them, play will go back for the scrum. In other words, most of the time Law 8 does not come into it.

 

[crossref]

OB, but in your view why did they need to bring in 12.1.c, because in your view, after a knock on it is impossible to touch down for a 22m anyway. So why did they ever need 12.1.c?

(the answer is, it's correct to award a 22m after a knock on INSIDE the in goal, but they wanted to change that for the case of a knock on INTO the in goal)

 

[Dickie E]

In my experience if an attacker knocks on over the goal line the defenders are so relieved that he's botched the try they really don't care what the restart is

 

[DocY]

In my experience if an attacker knocks on over the goal line the defenders are so relieved that he's botched the try they really don't care what the restart is

That was the original point - a defending team were perfectly happy with a scrum when an attacker lost the ball in the tackle over the goal line, but after the ball was kicked into in-goal and knocked on, they weren't.

 

[talbazar]

OB, but in your view why did they need to bring in 12.1.c, because in your view, after a knock on it is impossible to touch down for a 22m anyway. So why did they ever need 12.1.c?

(the answer is, it's correct to award a 22m after a knock on INSIDE the in goal, but they wanted to change that for the case of a knock on INTO the in goal)

CrossRef, I'd like to greatly apologise to you for what I am upon to write, but I'm afraid I don't have a choice...

This whole thingy about knock on (inside or into in-goal), touch-down (which means by defending player), Scrum 5 def team is unfortunately not a "convention", it's the law.

Let me explain how I got to that conclusion.

My Initial position

[LAWS]Law 8 - Definitions
The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]8.3 When the advantage law is not applied
(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]
On laws.worldrugby.org, you can find that definition:
[LAWS]Dead: The ball is out of play. This happens when the ball has gone outside the playing area and remained there, or when the referee has blown the whistle to indicate a stoppage in play, or when a conversion kick has been taken.[/LAWS]

From that, and comparing to the SH knocking the ball on purpose to get the quick tap, my initial thought was:
there is nothing in the law telling us that the defending team grounding the ball to a 22m drop out wasn't a way of exercising their "freedom [...] to play the ball as they wish" (which is the definition of a tactical advantage. After all, the ball is not dead and as such law 8.3.(e) does not apply.



And then I read Law 22 a bit more in detail

[LAWS]22.11 Ball dead in in-goal
(c) When a player scores a try or makes a touch down, the ball becomes dead.[/LAWS]

Conclusion
Infringement: . . . . . Knock-on inside or into in-goal --> apply 12.1.(c)/(d)
Advantage: . . . . . . Apply the definition of advantage --> Play on
Player action: . . . . .Defending player grounds the ball in in-goal --> apply 22.11.(c) --> Ball Dead
Advantage: . . . . . . Apply 8.3.(e) --> No advantage can be played
--> Scrum 5m defending team.


As usual, please prove me wrong and make me a better ref...

Cheers,
Pierre.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Side note 1: this forum does change people's opinion once in a while

Side note 2: to all fellow refs having issue with the "zombie ball" status vs. advantage when the ball is in touch, read again the definition above of a dead ball: ../.. one outside the playing area and remained there ../..
epper:

 

[crossref]

talbazar - well done, your clear thinking has correctly identified that for the knock on inside the in-goal - this all revolves around Law 8, and how/whether you can gain advantage. It's a Law 8 problem, not a Law 12 problem.

you have developed a case that you can't gain an advantage by touching the ball down. I don't agree with this (see below), but this is not always a question of touching down: after a red knock on blue might kick it into touch and gain advantage, they might kick it into TIG, or the ball might just roll dead

Turning back to The meaning/purpose of
[LAWS]8.3 When the advantage law is not applied
(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.[/LAWS]
I don't think that applies - the purpose/meaning of that Law was to cover the case :
red knock on, playing adv, ball rolls into touch, can blue gain adv by taking a QTI? No because the ball was dead (of course nowadays the answer is yes!)

In other words it doesn't say that you can't gain advantage by making the ball dead - of course you can! we often see advantage gained by
- kicking to touch
- kicking to end the game
- scoring a try
all of which make the ball dead

what it says it that advantage can't be PLAYED after the ball is dead.
so if you are playing adv, then when the ball goes dead you can't continue to play it. It's decision time - either adv over, or no adv.

 

[DocY]

Ooh, ooh, ooh!

We've had debates on here regarding scrum advantage being over after kicking the ball, and there's a school of thought that says advantage is over as soon as the ball is kicked - if you slice it directly into touch, that's your problem.

So... What happens if there's been an attacking knock on in goal, a defender picks the ball up and kicks it (advantage over), but they slice it into TiG?

 

[crossref]

Ooh, ooh, ooh!

We've had debates on here regarding scrum advantage being over after kicking the ball, and there's a school of thought that says advantage is over as soon as the ball is kicked - if you slice it directly into touch, that's your problem.

So... What happens if there's been an attacking knock on in goal, a defender picks the ball up and kicks it (advantage over), but they slice it into TiG?

yes, this is another strand, and it's one reason why I often give the scenario of defenders kicking it dead, rather than touching down.

normally when playing knock on advantage, then when a kick is freely taken (not under pressure) we call adv over the moment the kick is taken... it's gaining a tactical adv

 

[OB..]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................................

 

[Pegleg]

Was the kick made under pressure? What options did the kicker have? It's not black and white.

 

[crossref]

Was the kick made under pressure? What options did the kicker have? It's not black and white.

let's say it was made with no pressure at all, with the intention of getting a 22m drop out.

 

[Pegleg]

I agree that would be advantage over.

 

[talbazar]

scoring a try

That's it, I'm depressed...:deadhorse:

If an attacker knocks on in in-goal and a defender grounds the ball Saturday, I send them both off for ref mental abuse and then I'll check myself in into the closest mental ward...

:wtf:

 

[Phil E]

You've been told this before CR, but lets go over it again and then "I'M OUT"

Attackers knock on in goal.
Under your ruling the defenders get to kick up field to clear their lines, AND can do it under no pressure, AND can take a 22m head start before kicking. Total gain in ground from a knock on...circa 70m or more.

It's too much advantage for a simple knock on that would normally give them a scrum.

 

[crossref]

You've been told this before CR, but lets go over it again and then "I'M OUT"

Attackers knock on in goal.
Under your ruling the defenders get to kick up field to clear their lines, AND can do it under no pressure, AND can take a 22m head start before kicking. Total gain in ground from a knock on...circa 70m or more.

It's too much advantage for a simple knock on that would normally give them a scrum.

to me you are saying : regardless of what's in the Law book, you don't think it would be fair.

but let's look at the fairness argument - I don't really understand it

- red get the ball into the blue in goal and lose it backwards, blue touch down - 22m is fair?
- red get the ball into the blue in goal and lose it forwards, blue touch down - 22m is too advantageous to blue ?

so red are rewarded for knocking on. To me that doesn't seem fair. YMMV


Basically it's a very old and clear rugby principle :

attacking team take the ball into the opposing in-goal, and it subsequently goes dead = 22m

I really don't understand the enthusiasm for the notion that an attacking knock on would over-rule that basic concept and win them a 5m scrum instead...

 

[OB..]

to me you are saying : regardless of what's in the Law book, you don't think it would be fair.

I think it is the other way round. You are trying to find a way round the clear intention of the law makers. After all, that is why they changed the law in 1978. Do you have an alternative explanation for that?

I really don't understand the enthusiasm for the notion that an attacking knock on would over-rule that basic concept and win them a 5m scrum instead...

... and I don't understand why you are so keen to get round current law which says they should get a 5m scrum.

 

[The Fat]

Sigh........
A knock-on is a knock-on is a knock-on absolutely anywhere inside the Playing Area.
Well documented in the Laws of The Game as to what happens following a knock-on and is at least one situation where the laws are very clear and as such require no forensic examination and over-interpretation.
It is obviously a mindset thing.
At the start of each season, somewhere in one of our first few education meetings, I will mention it. All of our members get it except for the same 2 guys who go, "Oh OK, that's pretty clear. Got it", and then will revert to a 22 the first time it happens in one of their games.
We'll see what happens in season 2017

 

[crossref]

I guess the reason why you have to cover this every year, is because it feels wrong and is not in the Law Book..

 

[The Fat]

I guess the reason why you have to cover this every year, is because it feels wrong and is not in the Law Book..

Only for two members.
I live in hope.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I guess the reason why you have to cover this every year, is because it feels wrong and is not in the Law Book..

But it is in the Law book.

You are just trying to use a "unique" interpretation the advantage Law to subvert what is in the Law book because you have a personal dislike of what it says