Question to clarify ruling in Ireland vs Samoa match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OtPcNQ0X4c&feature=youtu.be

Watch the first restart in this match at 16 seconds into the video. The Samoan restart doesn't travel 10 metres. Regardless Ireland try and play it and knock it on. Referee Walsh awards Samoa the scrum for an Irish knock on. Does the fact that Ireland touched it nullify the fact that the Samoan restart didn't go 10 as that would obviously result in an Irish scrum?? Is Steve Walsh right in this?

There was another similar incident later in the match. A Samoan box kick didn't go 10 so it would have been an Irish penalty as the Samoan's didn't retreat. But again Ireland played it and I think knocked on - Samoan scrum given.

Can anyone clear this up?

Sorry about the font, I posted this on a FB group as well and just copied it to save me typing it again.

The way I understand it there is only advantage to Ireland if Samoa plays the ball first, the moment Ireland plays the ball the advantage disappears.

The fact that they knock the ball is secondary to the first advantage that has been called over (Even if the referee says nothing)

The reason this rule is in the laws is that it can be argued that the ball may well have travelled the requred ten metres but was prevented from doing so by the "receiving" team.

The principle with restarts is similar to tennis - basically, if you leave it alone and it goes out, you get the benefit of the decision. If you decide to play it, it' your lookout.

England had a very similar situation in the game last year against SA, where the final restart was going out (which would have meant scrum on half way, and quite possibly a kickable penalty to win the game), but Mouritz Botha (Eng, for the avoidance of doubt) played it, at which point there was no longer any issue with the restart.

I understand the reasonings used to date...but in a way, the nature of the law that chooses to punish the receiving side for mistakenly playing a ball that was about to be penalised itself...............
.........well, to be mischevous about it, you might as easily say that if a defending player knocks on when battling to protect his try line but quickly picks up the ball again and passes this time correctly - an attacking player who intercepts that unlucky and lawful pass   should be let keep the subsequent try.  The defending player should suffer the consequence of re-touching a knocked on ball that was about to be penalised.

SecretFly wrote:I understand the reasonings used to date...but in a way, the nature of the law that chooses to punish the receiving side for mistakenly playing a ball that was about to be penalised itself...............
.........well, to be mischevous about it, you might as easily say that if a defending player knocks on when battling to protect his try line but quickly picks up the ball again and passes this time correctly - an attacking player who intercepts that unlucky and lawful pass   should be let keep the subsequent try.  The defending player should suffer the consequence of re-touching a knocked on ball that was about to be penalised.

Two different scenarios. In the kick off scenario, the players have to judge whether the kick off is going to be legal - and if not, leave well alone. If they get it wrong, they run the risk of the oppo regathering, but that's their judgement call.

Your scenario is down to the ref not applying the advantage law appropriately. If he doesn't blow up immediately, he should play a long enough advantage to see if anything emerges. Blowing up on the pass and before the interception is complete is a silly time to blow and gives him two options - "Sorry lads, my mistake. Scrum 5 to the attacking team" or hastily pretending that he was blowing for the try and not for the knock on.