Welcome to episode 24 of the Advantage Over podcast.
This is the first of series of shorter podcasts aimed at keeping your refereeing mind ticking over – especially given the events we’re all living through all over the rugby globe.
Today, we’re looking at in-goal. Why? Well, it’s the most queried area of the game in our community discussions over on Facebook. It’s such an important area, and without fully thinking it through, could have big repercussions on the game if we get it wrong!
So, in the podcast, we go through:
- The Law – what is dead, and how the law is written about restarting:
- What that means for restarting – hint: it’s all about who puts the ball into in-goal!
- Charge downs which go dead
- Knock ons into ingoal
We hope you enjoyed this shorter form podcast. We’ll have a few more like this in the near future, as well as the longer form ones in the pipeline too.
If you have any law queries or specific things relating to refereeing, you can drop us an email at keith@rugbyreferee.net or you can voice record your question and send that as well and then you can be part of the podcast too!
We’d always appreciate your ratings and views wherever you found this podcast – and if you really want to support RugbyReferee.net to allow me to keep bringing you great content like this, you can buy me a coffee (or a few coffees) by heading to rugbyreferee.net/coffee
Enjoyed the shortened podcast on ‘in goal’
My I ask another re ”advantage ?
There are occasions when the defending side, under pressure, commit a yellow card offence, but play continues with advantage..a try results.. but then this appears to absolve the player committing the yellow card offence and no action is taken ?? If there had not been a score,a penalty and card would be the outcome. Explain please Thanks
With regard to the in-goal podcast, you say that the latest rule book does not cover the issue of a knock-on by the attacking side where the ball crosses into in-goal and is grounded by the defending side. You invoke the “unfairness”of an outcome where a 22 dropout was hoofed up field thereby gaining say 70 meters for the defending side. This is difficult to empathise with. There are other “unfair” rule outcomes in rugby which you seem less concerned about but which have a greater negative effect on the spectators, I think, than this one.eg. the lack of any real ability of the defending side to oppose the rolling maul-used for many a try off a lineout. The physics involved in the rolling maul – the exercising of pressure by the attacking eight on a very confined pressure point – already markedly favours the attacking side but the “committee” that is concerned about fairness in relation to the knock-on situation seems unconcerned by the fact that the rules are apparently silent or otherwise permit the attacking team to call in several backs to reinforce their maul – which not only looks more like the Eaton Wall Game than anything to do with rugby but is also grossly unfair in an already unfair situation (clearly, for defensive reasons, the defending team cannot do the same and it would be even more absurd and “un-rugby”if it could. So why the cry of “unfair” where the attacking team has mishandled – just as in any other position on the field? Why should they not face the consequences fully? A knock-on is a knock-on – with an advantage to be availed of by the defending side – whatever the extent of that advantage.
Because those who make the rulings have said otherwise. I don’t disagree with your analysis but as we’ve said before, we don’t make the laws…
Just listened to your short ‘In goal’ podcast, mostly nicely clear and concise.
I cannot however appreciate the very last item concerning the maul and, like Anthony Abrahams comments regarding fairness and the ‘Advantage’ podcast (to which I haven’t listened) how ‘fairness’ comes into the equation.
As a referee with an accrued maul eg in the 5M zone, we usually know who is in possession. If it’s the attacking team they (presumably) opt to drive for in-goal and work a try and once the ball has crossed the goal line the maul is over. If the attacking team fail to ground the ball (held up is one outcome) the Law currently gives them a second bite with a 5m scrum put-in; what about if the defending team ground the ball (it’s then dead) – taken into goal by attacking team = 22 drop out!
Or a less probable scenario (ie a short in-goal area or maul in the corners) the maul (..that isn’t) remains ‘up’ and is taken over the dead ball/touch in-goal line (would that be the first feet over the line or the last feet or the ball?) – is that a 22 drop-out (my preference, the logic being that the attacking team, with possession, chose the drive since they often have the advantage of momentum/numbers to take the maul into in-goal) or would it be a ‘fairness’ decision to award 5M attack scrum (a double reward for the attacking team?).