|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 23:08:20
Posts: 157,
Visits: 288
|
|
| As the law reads today: If an attacking team knocks-on into, or in, goal the defending team is awarded a 5m scrum. The law is clear on this, no advantage applies once the ball is made dead. The law does not take into account whether the ball has been made dead by an attacker or defender. I'm not asking for a debate on the law but on it's equity. Do you believe that an attacking knock-on in, or into, goal should get the defender at 22 drop rather than a 5m scrum? Personally, I believe the law should award the defenders a 5m scrum only if the attackers make the ball dead (thereby denying the defender any opportunity of advantage). If the defenders ground the ball (or make it dead any other way) then they should get the more advantagous 22 drop. I'd really like to hear what you think. Please note if your responding as a player, coach or referee.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 17:19:03
Posts: 634,
Visits: 854
|
|
if teh attackers knocked on from 23m out into the 22m area... what would the likely result be?
I think it is this reason why the law is specific - the 22m d/o is seen as too much of an advantage for an error that elsewhere on the pitch would not gain any similar benefit. Seems OK to me
didds (coach)
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 15/03/2011 11:09:29
Posts: 24,
Visits: 38
|
|
| Why should a knock-on be treated any differently whether it happens 1m out or 51m out? To me, the infringement is a knock-on and if the non-offending team can gain an advantage by either picking it up and running it or kicking it up-field then that is fine. If the defending team chooses to make the ball dead, then it should come back for the scrum with defending team to throw-in. (Coach and referee)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 23/08/2010 17:55:33
Posts: 4,
Visits: 37
|
|
A knock on anywhere on the pitch is a scrum. I am a coach.
The Izz
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 23:08:20
Posts: 157,
Visits: 288
|
|
| The issue that I have with this law is that it doesn't take into account who makes the ball dead. If the attacking side do then they prevented any opportunity for the defenders to play advantage and so a 5m scrum ensues. If the defenders make it dead then I think the kaw should allow the 22 (which it doesn't). In goal is a very different piece of real estate than the field of play. If an attacking player (with ball) steps into touch-in-goal the defender gets a 22, not a line-out at 5m. If the attacker kicks the ball into goal and the defenders make it dead its a 22. So why does the attacking team get a better result from knocking-on into goal, a law infringement? (A throw-forward in/into goal gets the 5m scrum treatment too). This one law that needs to be re-thought. No chance of that happening though.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 17:19:03
Posts: 634,
Visits: 854
|
|
I might be missing something... for the attacking team to make the ball dead following a knock on into in-goal they must have
1) touched down i.e. "scored a try"
2) the ball ran dead or T-i-G
3) kicked it dead or T-i-G
4) somehow contrived to put the ball back into the field of play then put it into touch.
Clearly 1) would have to be a scrum... they can't gain an advantage from their own infringement so the knock-on is the only call. And is in line with a knock-on 51m out that they regather subsequently.
2), 3) and 4) are effectively the same thing, the ball has gone dead. If 51m out a knock-on occurred that went into touch then the scrum would be awarded not the lineout - so I don't see why this should be any different again.
????
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 23:08:20
Posts: 157,
Visits: 288
|
|
didds (23/08/2010)
Clearly 1) would have to be a scrum... they can't gain an advantage from their own infringement so the knock-on is the only call. And is in line with a knock-on 51m out that they regather subsequently.diddsAnd my point being ... Well, I think I have trouble getting my point accross, here and elsewhere. I think I'll make myself up a T-shirt that reads: "They put it in but I made it dead and all I got was a lousy 5M scrum!"
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 18:11:31
Posts: 59,
Visits: 872
|
|
But they didn't put it in legally!
If it had gone into 'in goal' from a kick forward or a player had taken it into goal then a 22m drop out would be awarded. In this circumstance the ball shouldn't have been 'in goal' because of the knock on. therefore scrum 5 as the defending team decided not to take advantage by running the ball out of defence.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 23:08:20
Posts: 157,
Visits: 288
|
|
Jenko (24/08/2010)
But they didn't put it in legally!
If it had gone into 'in goal' from a kick forward or a player had taken it into goal then a 22m drop out would be awarded. In this circumstance the ball shouldn't have been 'in goal' because of the knock on. therefore scrum 5 as the defending team decided not to take advantage by running the ball out of defence.
And this is my point exactly: Why should the attacking team get a better result from a knock-on? Why should they be rewarded for the infringement? If the attacking team take the ball into goal and lose it in a big tackle why should the defenders get a 22 if it goes back but a 5m if it goes forward? See where I'm headed here? The law awards the 5m over the 22 because somebody(s) in the IRB thought a 22 was too much of a penalty for a little knock-on. Well, if the attacker had stepped into touch-in-goal shouldn't we give the defenders a line-out at 5m instead of the 22? I don't think so! Also, shouldn't it make a difference who makes the ball dead after the knock-on? Not as the law reads now. I get the impression that I'm on a one man line break here and nobody in support.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 03/09/2010 12:24:36
Posts: 8,
Visits: 7
|
|
OK, lets assume that the attackers knocked it into the in-goal area.
This is NOT automatically a five meter scrum to the defenders.
As with any part of the pitch where the ball can be played, the defenders have the opportunity to play advantage and can, if they are able, run it out of goal and the length of the pitch if possible.
But as with any knock on in the field of play, if the ball becomes unplayable, advantage is over and goes back to the knock on.
If the attackers attempt to touch the ball down in goal, the ball becomes dead and back to the scrum.
If the defenders touch it down they give up their posibility of advantage.
So there it is. Tough but fair. Laws in rugby usually give advantage to the attacking team, such as when a breakdown cannot be attributed toeither team the scrum goes tothe attackers.
I have reffed games where the last thing the defenders want is to scrum against the team twice their size on their own line but isn't ruigby fun!!
|
|