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.
Unusual Incidents
- Thread starter crossref
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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
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
leaguerefaus
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,009
- Post Likes
- 250
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Sometimes this forum is a very helpful place.
Other times, it's about as useful as this comment.
Other times, it's about as useful as this comment.
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)?
[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
- 14,314
- Post Likes
- 2,281
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
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.
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
- 14,314
- Post Likes
- 2,281
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
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
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
- 250
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
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!).
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
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
- 12,230
- Post Likes
- 1,908
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!