Whistled, but not in touch.

M

McDuck

Guest


All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken
place in the field of play.
A knock on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre
scrum, opposite the place of infringement.

Back to choppers point the first part of the law is important - you play advantage on the field of play - -why not in this case?
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play. A knock on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place of infringement.

Back to choppers point the first part of the law is important - you play advantage on the field of play - -why not in this case?
You've answered your own question, McDuck (are you related to Scrooge of that ilk? Perhaps you are a nephew?:) )

22.7(b) tells us that an attacking knock-on in the field of play which is subsequently grounded by a defender results in a scrum at the place of the knock-on, or at the 5m line if further away than the knock-on. This is a specific statement that advantage cannot be played in this situation - I'm prepared to accept Deeps's reasoning, though I have no knowledge of the actual rationale.

22.15 - knocks-on (just for you, Chopper:wink: ) in in-goal are treated as though they occurred in the field of play. Ergo, no advantage. QED. Over and out.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,966
Post Likes
1,829
The law is clear: if the offence happens in in-goal, you treat it as if it had happened in the field of play (22.15), which means 22.7 (b) applies to a knock-on.

As to why that is the case, my recollection is that when the law was changed it was because it was felt the 22 drop out was too great an advantage to the defenders - much more than they would get elsewhere on the field.
 

chopper15

Learned Terrace Ref
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
5,774
Post Likes
3
You've answered your own question, McDuck (are you related to Scrooge of that ilk? Perhaps you are a nephew?:) )

22.7(b) tells us that an attacking knock-on in the field of play which is subsequently grounded by a defender results in a scrum at the place of the knock-on, or at the 5m line if further away than the knock-on. This is a specific statement that advantage cannot be played in this situation - I'm prepared to accept Deeps's reasoning, though I have no knowledge of the actual rationale.

22.15 - knocks-on (just for you, Chopper:wink: ) in in-goal are treated as though they occurred in the field of play. Ergo, no advantage. QED. Over and out.




Why ignore the contradictions and implications, Dixie?

Ref. 22.15. All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken
place in the field of play.


By not playing advantage they're not!

In the FoP you can run a KO, which infers that adv. can be played in-goal.

This is then contradicted by;

A knock on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre
scrum, opposite the place of infringement.


So, it's a waste of time touching it down 'cause the law demands that the ref. awards a 5m scrum for the KO . . . no mention of any aftermath in that law, like should the ball roll on over the dead ball line!


I think it's 'make-your-mind-up-time' before your next game, gents! (Wonder what the consensus is!)
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
chopper - what exactly are you asking?
 

David J.


Referees in America
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
932
Post Likes
1
It's not a matter of playing advantage in-goal, everyone here will agree advantage can be played in-goal. If, after an attacker knocked it on, instead of touching it down, a defender picked it up and ran it up field, "Play on!"

But the law says what happens when a player makes the ball dead in the in-goal. Often it's a 22m drop, but sometimes it's a 5m attacking scrum (if held up, e.g.), or an option of a re-kick (if at a kickoff), or a defending 5m scrum (after a knock on).

There is no 22m drop to play advantage to.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,966
Post Likes
1,829
Of course you can play advantage from in in-goal. "The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws" (Law 8 Definition). It does not need to be specified in each law whether advantage can be played or not; "yes" is the default position.

However playing advantage is not the same as looking to gain an extra advantage from a provision in the laws. By touching the ball down you have chosen NOT to play advantage, so 22.15 and 22.7 (b) apply.

You are raising a point that has been brought up many times over the years since the change in the law (1997). The answer has always been the same as you are getting now.
 

ExHookah


Argentina Referees in Argentina
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
2,444
Post Likes
1
OB is right (as always), and the key to the debate is looking at what a 22 drop really represents. It's a chance for the defending team to take a drop kick with protection (it can be contested, but onto up to the 22m line) that can send them deep into their opponents territory.

Now if a team chooses to kick ahead, then they are handing away the ball with the hope of getting it back, so if the defenders beat the chasing attackers to the ball then they are rewarded for positive defensive play by having the 22 drop.

If the attacking team knocks on and it leads to the ball being grounded in goal the defending team have not done anything positive in the game. There's nothing to commend about grounding the ball because a try was not a possible outcome. The 5m scrum to the defenders was always going to occur if the ball was made dead. The advantage part comes into play because if the defenders choose to snatch up that ball, and instead of grounding it they take off upfield with it, they have the chance to put themselves in a much better position than a 5m scrum.

Advantage here means "you are going to get a scrum on the 5m line, if you can beat that then try to go for it". It does not mean "anywhere else on the park it's a scrum, but here we'll give you 22 metres of territory and the chance to kick the ball away freely".

It took me a little while to adjust to the mindset, but once it "clicked" in my brain it made total sense.
 

chopper15

Learned Terrace Ref
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
5,774
Post Likes
3
So if the defender picks up the KO rolling towards him with one foot over the dead ball line . . . ?:love:

But thank you one and all for your patience, I think I can now grasp what the logic of the law is attempting to achieve.:swet:
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,966
Post Likes
1,829
:chin: It depends if KO stands for "kick off" or for "knock on".
 

B52 REF


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
650
Post Likes
9
i think miss dion has summed it up nicely. BUT- attacker "carries" ball in goal where he knocks it on , legally minded defender grounds it saying we'll have the advantage sir- dropout please as per ;
22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the
opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a
defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on
or over the dead ball line, a drop out is awarded.

my only response? durum hoc est sed ita lex scripta est.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
my only response? durum hoc est sed ita lex scripta est.
That's pasta, but the law is written so?

That bit is trumped by several more specific bits of law. A kick-off puts the ball into in-goal where it is grounded, but a scrum or rekick occurs, rather than the 22. Equally, 22.15 trumps it as regards the knock-on
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,985
Post Likes
1,102
It could be I'm oversimplifying, but - the output of a k/on is a scrum.

If a player knocks on into touch, I give a scrum; the option of a line out doesn't even cross my mind.

There are specified 'offences',for which there are specified sanctions. I'm not sure that location on the pitch changes that equation.

Do remember that for every team that wants the 22 as they think it gives them more advantage, the opposing team is disadvantaged to an equal degree. Is knocking on in goal or over the goal line such a heinous sin that you deserve to be on the receiving end of a 22m drop out?
 

ex-lucy


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
3,913
Post Likes
0
If a player knocks on into touch, I give a scrum; the option of a line out doesn't even cross my mind.

it does mine ... what if blue knock on into touch ... red scrum is being decimated!
I would go with line out red.
did so recently .... seemed right then.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,966
Post Likes
1,829
ex-lucy - so when later on red knocked on into touch, you insisted on the lineout even though blue's preferred option was obviously the scrum?


Yes, in practice you sometimes need to treat the laws elastically in order to get a game, but it can be a trip wire.

There is an argument that since both touch and knock-on only occurred when the ball hit the ground, they were simultaneous. However I vote for knock-on to take precedence on two grounds: (1) it started first; and (2) it is an infringement, whereas touch is not.
 

ex-lucy


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
3,913
Post Likes
0
yep, 95% of the time it would be a scrum for me .. . but occasionally i empathise with a dominated scrum and think .... i'll give the hooker a break, they may prefer a line out here.
 

B52 REF


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
650
Post Likes
9
Elasticity is the name of the game, at lower levels i quite often give the Ko into touch as a line out when the players are fed up with endless scrums.

Dixie; "That bit is trumped by several more specific bits of law"
wasn't aware that certain laws had precedence over others- makes one wish for the good old days when LOTG were written elegantly enough so as not to be contradictatory.

Simon Smith "Is knocking on in goal or over the goal line such a heinous sin that you deserve to be on the receiving end of a 22m drop out"
Hell yeah and a jug afterwards. Besides if a defender KO's and we play advantage, opponent grounds for try the "sin" is heinous enough to be on the receiving end of 5 or 7 points!!
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,530
Post Likes
1,717
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Yes, in practice you sometimes need to treat the laws elastically in order to get a game, but it can be a trip wire.

An elastic trip wire - seems to defeat the point :D
 

PaulDG


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,932
Post Likes
0
Simon Smith "Is knocking on in goal or over the goal line such a heinous sin that you deserve to be on the receiving end of a 22m drop out"

Take it to an extreme - you're at Aylesbury with its 25m in goal areas.

An attacking player, who has run the ball in, knocks on 1m in. Defenders immediately secure possession and look to play it out.

Must you blow up here and award a scrum to the defenders? Can you really not play advantage?

And lets imagine the most extreme advantage - the defenders use that width and depth, play it out, run the full length of the field and score.. Award the try or bring them back for the 5 defending scrum?

Or perhaps after several passes (which could be long and deep at Aylesbury!) with clear space in front of the ultimate receiver can you really not shout "advantage over"?

But then the idiot trips up and realising he's risking giving away a try he throws the ball back over the dead ball line. Why not a 22m?
 
Top