Unusual Incidents

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I guess the reason why you have to cover this every year, is because it feels wrong and is not in the Law Book..
I am happy for you to argue your view of any ambiguities. I see no basis for a claim that your view is the only possible one.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
crossref, you are one dogged individual. I gave up on this debate several threads ago. Even though I agree with your position I accept that this is how the Law is being applied. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the players.

I believe that at some future date the Laws will change and the defending 5m scrum will be awarded when the attacking team, after a KO in/into goal, also is first to ground the ball thus denying the defenders any possible advantage. All other cases to include grounding by a defender or the ball going dead will be a 22DO. Until the ball is made dead advantage can be played and if the defenders take possession then grounding the ball will reward them with the 22.

This may just be wishful dreaming but WR took the first step in this direction by allowing the non-offending team to choose lineout or scrum when the KO goes into touch. In that case advantage is "played" even after the ball is dead, seemingly contrary to the law. Please take note Ian Cook.

Not holding my breath.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
This may just be wishful dreaming but WR took the first step in this direction by allowing the non-offending team to choose lineout or scrum when the KO goes into touch. In that case advantage is "played" even after the ball is dead, seemingly contrary to the law.
How can a law be contrary to law? It does not produce a contradiction, so it was put in the laws because that was not an option otherwise. Law 8 is not an issue here.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
8.3(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been
made dead.


When a KO goes into touch the referee offers the choice of not accepting advantage (scrum) or accepting advantage and taking the lineout.

How is this not contradicting 8.3(e)?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Playing advantage means continuing play, waiting to see if advantage is gained or not

If you are playing advantage, and the ball goes dead you can't continue to play advantage. This is what the Law means.
When the ball goes dead you can't continue to play advantage. It's either advantage over. Or it's back to the original offence
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
I'd put the knock into touch in the same bracket as offside/late tackle/kick directly dead in goal options.

didds
 
Last edited:

leaguerefaus


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,009
Post Likes
248
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Sometimes this forum is a very helpful place.

Other times, it's about as useful as this comment.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
was that my comment? All I meant was I don't view KO into touch options as the same as "advantage" .

Not that I can be arsed to fight over it. whatever.

didds
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
8.3(e) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been
made dead.


When a KO goes into touch the referee offers the choice of not accepting advantage (scrum) or accepting advantage and taking the lineout.

How is this not contradicting 8.3(e)?
He is not using Law 8 at all. He is applying 12.1 (e).
[LAWS]12.1(e) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Knock-on or throw forward into touch. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on or throw forward, the non-offending team will have the option of a lineout at the point the ball crossed the touch line or a scrum at the place of the knock-on or throw forward, or a quick throw in.[/FONT][/LAWS]
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
How can a law be contrary to law?

However, a law can be inconsitent with a law. For example, somewhere it'll say "rugby is a game for players on their feet" and somewhere else it'll define what actions are allowed if off feet.

We spend 90% of our time debating these inconsistencies.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Oh shit. France v Oz game - 3rd minute. Was that a knock on by Gold winger in goal with a 22 drop out retsart? :shrug:
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
Oh shit. France v Oz game - 3rd minute. Was that a knock on by Gold winger in goal with a 22 drop out retsart? :shrug:

Was hoping for a replay to see if
(a) Gold knock-on
(b) Kick went dead
(c) White defender deliberately knocks it dead


PS:
Some of Glen Jackson's non-decisions make life hard for other refs
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Was hoping for a replay to see if
(a) Gold knock-on
(b) Kick went dead
(c) White defender deliberately knocks it dead


PS:
Some of Glen Jackson's non-decisions make life hard for other refs

They show a replay later on that looks pretty clearly a Gold knock on.

Is there no TMO in this game? There was a foul play incident (dangerous ruck entry by Gold) that I would expected would have been reviewed by TMO and put on screen for ref to look at.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
They show a replay later on that looks pretty clearly a Gold knock on.

Is there no TMO in this game? There was a foul play incident (dangerous ruck entry by Gold) that I would expected would have been reviewed by TMO and put on screen for ref to look at.

Yes and GJ just went with the original ruck infringement even after GJ discussed the entry with his AR.
Replay would suggest at least a chat if not a YC
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
PS:
Some of Glen Jackson's non-decisions make life hard for other refs

That's the most consistent part of his game!
And no more evident than the last 3 minutes! Put the whistle in his pocket after blowing it all game! Didnt want the game decided on a PK :grin: That made his game inconsistent.

On a positive - at least he had the ball to go PT for collapsing maul. Bout effin time. I hope his peers take note of that!
 

leaguerefaus


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,009
Post Likes
248
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
was that my comment? All I meant was I don't view KO into touch options as the same as "advantage" .

Not that I can be arsed to fight over it. whatever.

didds
Wasn't really directed at anyone. I just meant that everyone's views are so firm on the issues being discussed that the cyclical nature of the discussion was getting very tiresome and I don't really see anyone changing their opinion.

You are one of my favourite contributors to the forum in general because it ensures we all don't just see things from a referee's perspective (and seeing a coach that actually wants to understand the laws is nice too!).
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Great to see my reading of the Laws confirmed in an international game at the weekend.

It's exactly the scenario we have been discussing (the Gods of Rugby must have read this board, and arranged for it to happen!)
- gold (attacking) kick the ball into the in goal, and chase
- inside the in-goal, gold knock on, ball also hits white, and ball ends up over the DBL

restart - quite correctly IMO = 22m drop out.


here it is in real time (@1:42 game clock)

and in slow motion

I don't see any players, commentators complaining, nor any shots of an angry Cheika gesticulting at his laptop - this is because when you see it, it feels like (and indeed is) the right decision
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Wasn't really directed at anyone. I just meant that everyone's views are so firm on the issues being discussed that the cyclical nature of the discussion was getting very tiresome and I don't really see anyone changing their opinion.

You are one of my favourite contributors to the forum in general because it ensures we all don't just see things from a referee's perspective (and seeing a coach that actually wants to understand the laws is nice too!).

Gotcha :)

didds
 

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
Great to see my reading of the Laws confirmed in an international game at the weekend.

It's exactly the scenario we have been discussing (the Gods of Rugby must have read this board, and arranged for it to happen!)
- gold (attacking) kick the ball into the in goal, and chase
- inside the in-goal, gold knock on, ball also hits white, and ball ends up over the DBL

restart - quite correctly IMO = 22m drop out.

I don't see any players, commentators complaining, nor any shots of an angry Cheika gesticulting at his laptop - this is because when you see it, it feels like (and indeed is) the right decision

Much as I'm inclined to agree with your conclusions, I don't think GJ giving a drop out is proof that it's right - still less players and commentators not complaining. One of the commentators in the Scotland Argentina game was blabbering on about having to let a player on the ground back up!
 
Top