Ball dropped while trying to score

[crossref]

wrong interpretation of Law 8 Advantage?

 

[Phil E]

actually, unless something really new comes up, I'm going to give up on the thread now.

I'm (finally!) as bored with it as everyone else must be

Fibber!

I'm off to buy some leggings.

:shrug:

 

[Treadmore]

My view is that you are using a strained and unnecessary interpretation of the law.

I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)

 

[OB..]

I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)

If there is a knock-on in mid-field, at what point do you call a scrum?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)

You mean this one?

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(b) 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

Well, its a tough question you have posed there Treadmore, but I think I would use it when "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".

By "made dead" I mean that the ball was grounded by either side or legally put into TiG or over the DBL. I would then order a scrum at the place of infringement, no closer than 5m to the goal line.

I might play advantage but, as in the scenarios governed by 12.1 (c) and (d) and 22.13, if the attackers knocked the ball on, the defenders can pass it around all they like; there is no way on God's green earth I am ever going to call advantage over until the defending team at least play the ball out of the in-goal!


Geez... that wasn't so difficult after all.

 

[crossref]

You are so rude, Ian. If you answered the question more straightforwardly you might grasp Treadmore point.

What decision would you give if that Law wasn't there?

 

[RobLev]

Roblev if I am following your scenario, that sounds like no advantage gained, back to the knock on, scrum.
The position of the scrum being 5m out as per the law

So advantage doesn't end when the defender has the freedom to play the ball as he wishes and does so?

 

[RobLev]

I don't think we are - discussing more hypotheticals isn't helping

What would help me is understanding Ian's logic below (post #140)





I don't understand how the ref can accept advantage has been gained but then go back to the original infringement.

And to be clear again with my understanding (happy to have it improved!) if it was knocked-on into in-goal, I agree it is a scrum restart but not because of Law 12 (which covers the original infringement) but because of Law 22.7(b) i.e. we are not restarting from an infringement, we are restarting from a touch down (which is what 22.7 covers).

The fact that 22.7 (Restarting from a touch-down) has a special case for if the ball went into in-goal from a knock-on in the FoP, but no special case for a knock-on in-goal is a very significant and (it seems to me) intentional difference.

I think there is no way of getting to 22.7(b) without having played advantage after the original infringement; so that tells me advantage can be gained in this scenario (attacking knock-on into in-goal) by the defender grounding the ball. I therefore think we can call advantage gained in the scenario of defender grounding after attacking knock-on in-goal.

No; 22.7(b) says precisely the opposite. The defender is not allowed to gain advantage by grounding the ball. The ref plays advantage, but if the ball is made dead in in-goal, we go back to the KO.

 

[crossref]

22.7. B applies to knock on Into the in goal. For a knock on INSIDE, take that away, and.....

 

[Ian_Cook]

22.7. B applies to knock on Into the in goal. For a knock on INSIDE, take that away, and.....

... the same, except that the scrum is always a 5m one

Regardless of whether the ball is knocked on by an attacker INTO the in goal, or knocked on by an attacker INSIDE the in-goal, I might play advantage but there is no way I would ever call advantage over until the defending team at least play the ball out of the in-goal!

 

[Treadmore]

You mean this one?

22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(b) 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

Well, its a tough question you have posed there Treadmore, but I think I would use it when "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".

By "made dead" I mean that the ball was grounded by either side or legally put into TiG or over the DBL. I would then order a scrum at the place of infringement, no closer than 5m to the goal line.

I might play advantage but, as in the scenarios governed by 12.1 (c) and (d) and 22.13, if the attackers knocked the ball on, the defenders can pass it around all they like; there is no way on God's green earth I am ever going to call advantage over until the defending team at least play the ball out of the in-goal!


Geez... that wasn't so difficult after all.

If I have understood your strained explanation to a simple question you do not have a scenario leading to 22.7(b)?

Simply quoting the law back doesn't answer my question - nor help educate anyone - a simple decision tree covering the events that lead you to 22.7(b) with a law reference for each decision is all that is required: that would be educational for me.

 

[crossref]

So in your view 22.7.B (and the equivalent point in Law 12) is redundant.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You are so rude, Ian. If you answered the question more straightforwardly you might grasp Treadmore point.

What was rude about my post? There was not a single rude word in it... I answered the bloody question. I might have taken the Mickey, but the question deserved it.

Also, I am NOT STUPID! I fully understand what you and Treadmore are trying to have us believe; its simply that I completely and utterly disagree with it. In fact, I don't think you even have the beginnings of a valid argument.

What decision would you give if that Law wasn't there?

That wasn't what Treadmore asked. He asked

"I would be really interested to know in which scenario you would expect a referee to use 22.7(b)"

I think it is irrelevant speculate about what referees would do in the absence of certain Laws, but in this case, I'll humour you and answer

In the absence of 22.7 (b), I would go back to Law 12.1 (d) and award a scrum at the place of infringement, not closer than 5m from the goal-line.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If I have understood your strained explanation to a simple question you do not have a scenario leading to 22.7(b)?

Yes, I do. I posted it in #205.

Simply quoting the law back doesn't answer my question - nor help educate anyone - a simple decision tree covering the events that lead you to 22.7(b) with a law reference for each decision is all that is required: that would be educational for me.

This has just become stupid.

Attacking Player: Knocks the ball on 2m short of the goal line

IanRef: "Oh damn, he's knocked it on, Law 12 applies"

Ball: Rolls into in-goal

IanRef: "Right, we're in-goal now, so Law 22 could apply as well; I'll have to be careful"

Defender: Picks up the ball and passes to a team-mate

IanRef: Calls - "Advantage knock-on attackers!!" Law 8

Defender: Decides discretion is the order of the day, and grounds the ball

IanRef: In my judgement, there has not been sufficient advantage (Law 8.2) so we go to the original infringement Law. 22.7 (b) or 12.1 (c), I don't care which... order a scrum 5m in line with the place of infringement


And that, Treadmore, is how we do that!

 

[Treadmore]

IanRef: In my judgement, there has not been sufficient advantage (Law 8.2) so we go to the original infringement Law. 22.7 (b) or 12.1 (c), I don't care which... order a scrum 5m in line with the place of infringement

Thank you. I note you have judged no advantage (8.2). As I understand it that means take play back to to 12.1(c); it is not a choice of that or 22.7. Have I understood correctly?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Thank you. I note you have judged no advantage (8.2). As I understand it that means take play back to to 12.1(c); it is not a choice of that or 22.7. Have I understood correctly?

It actually does not matter which, they both say the same thing.

You will find that it is not uncommon for laws to be repeated and circumstances inferred in more than one place or Law in the Law book; for example

9.A.1
Penalty Goal. A player scores a penalty goal by kicking a goal from a penalty kick.

is repeated in

21.5 (a) A penalty goal can be scored from a penalty kick.

12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD
(e) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward
with hand or arm, nor throw forward.
Sanction: Penalty kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that
would probably otherwise have been scored.

is inferred in...

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Parts of this Law...

10.4 (k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. The front row of a scrum must not rush against its opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Front row players must not intentionally lift opponents off their feet or force them upwards
out of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or
maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

are repeated as applicable in...

20.1 (i)
20.8 (i)
20.9 (a)
16.3 (c)
17.2 (e)

 

[Treadmore]

It actually does not matter which, they both say the same thing.

Only in as much as the scrum is the outcome. But to get to 22.7(b) you are restarting play from the grounding; if you apply 8.2 you are not.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Only in as much as the scrum is the outcome. But to get to 22.7(b) you are restarting play from the grounding; if you apply 8.2 you are not.

Utter bilge....

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.

22.7 (b) 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.

The relevant wording in both Laws is identical. There is no possible way to torture this into a different meaning for each Law. The application of advantage is identical for both; grounding the ball is not advantage over, its the end of play and a restart is required.

You restart with a scrum because that is what both laws tell you to do!

 

[OB..]

I passed this up the chain of authority and it reached Laws@rfu.com (Dave Broadwell)

It can only ever be a scrum one way or another.

Obviously this does not necessarily apply outside England, but I will now have a clear conscience in classifying it as a law error if I come across any errant referees.

 

[crossref]

I passed this up the chain of authority and it reached Laws@rfu.com (Dave Broadwell)


Obviously this does not necessarily apply outside England, but I will now have a clear conscience in classifying it as a law error if I come across any errant referees.

so what was the question that you asked him? Unless we know that the answer is menaingless.

and did he provide any Law reference or other argument, or is that the whole answer?