NO advance the FK out of 22

[crossref]

Which is exactly the same approach as you took with the original qu....

well, sort of. I thought it would be fun to see what SA Refs said, but I don't claim their answer is definitive. It's never even clear on that site whether the answers are the views of SARFU, or merely the personal opinion of the ref who happens to be on duty. (I imagine the latter)

He half answered. He said you can take it back and he is correct, he ignored the gain in ground part.

I don't think we can imagine he ignored it -- it was the whole point of the question, and I think the question was pretty clear.

Personally : I think the general consensus is that JVH's response is wrong, and if the mark is moved outside the 22 it's bad luck and you've lost gain in ground. So if I was reffing I'd try and think of every excuse I could to NOT advance the FK 10m.

 

[winchesterref]

I'd probably consider advancing and calling it a deliberate offence, therefore penalty. Unsure though!

 

[ChrisR]

Advancing 10m is not a precise measure. I'd recommend advancing to just short of the 22 and making a new mark.

 

[crossref]

Advancing 10m is not a precise measure. I'd recommend advancing to just short of the 22 and making a new mark.

I have done that once! When the distance was probably, in reality, about 8m.

but if the original mark is 2m from the 22m, that's not going to work

 

[Ian_Cook]

Perhaps we should have something like the NFL rule that allows a team to decline a penalty if accepting it disadvantages them.

 

[Dickie E]

so a full PK upgrade wouldn't be that equitable for a technical transgression.

if you are where you are not supposed to be and interfere with play at almost every other phase of the game (scrum, ruck, maul, lineout, general play) you get stung with a PK. Why is a FK different?

 

[TheBFG]

I think an upgrade to PK for deliberate offence covers it and it's an easy one to sell too :wink:

 

[Browner]

Kicking inside the 22 operates an exception to the general rule (that you can't kick the ball directly over the touch line and gain ground) and is there to act as a 'territory relieving' permission.

A free kick is a restarting of play , Therefore Law shoudn't provide any encouragement to kick a PK awarded (or re-awarded) outside the 22 after it is voluntarily** taken back into the 22 in order to kick it off the pitch and then require another restart of play having just restarted play)

** this voluntary action is the key consideration, as it matches all other voluntary "taken back=no benefit" laws.

IMO 21.8 a,b,c,d are outranked by the PK sanctions contained in Law10. Therefore applying L10 upgrades the FK to a PK, which is a better deterrent.

Unless someone can convince me that 21.8 abc or d offences are C&O unintentional, unlikely they will.

 

[crossref]

the problem with awarding a PK - logical and attractive as it may be - is that it's a clear (and deliberate) error in Law.

So I guess we can understand why NO did what he did : it's the referee's job to apply the Laws as written, not the Law he'd like to have.

[LAWS]21.8 What options the opposing team have at a free kick
(a) Must run from the mark. The opposing team must immediately run towards their own goal line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark for the free kick, or until they have reached their goal line if that is nearer the mark. If the free kick is in a defending teams in-goal area, the opposing team must immediately run towards their own goal line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark and not nearer than 5 metres from the goal line.
(b) Must keep running. Even if the free kick is taken and the kicker’s team is playing the ball, opposing players must keep running until they have retired the necessary distance. They must not take part in the game until they have done so.
(c) Kick taken quickly. If the free kick is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retire, they will not be penalised for this. However, they must continue to retire as described in 21.8(b) above or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has run in front of them, before they take part in the game.
(d) Interference. The opposing team must not do anything to delay the free kick or obstruct the kicker. They must not intentionally take, throw or kick the ball out of reach of the kicker or the kicker’s team mates.
(e) Charging the free kick. Once they have retired the necessary distance, players of the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the kick being taken. They may charge the free kick as soon as the kicker starts to approach to kick.
(f) Preventing the free kick. If the opposing team charge and prevent the free kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.
(g) Free kick taken in the in-goal. If a free kick has been awarded and the player retires into in-goal to take it and the opponents charge and prevent the kick from being taken, a 5-metre scrum is ordered. The attacking team throws in the ball. If a free kick is taken in the in-goal, an opponent who legitimately plays it there can score a try.
(h) Charged down. If opponents charge down a free kick in the playing area, play continues.

Sanction: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second free kick, awarded 10 metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the goal line. Any player may take the kick. If the referee awards a second free kick, the second free kick is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the free kick.[/LAWS]

In the original example the offence was not retiring 10m, and the Law could hardly be clearer.

 

[TheBFG]

but surely 10.2 a gives you a get out! :wink:

 

[irishref]

if you are where you are not supposed to be and interfere with play at almost every other phase of the game (scrum, ruck, maul, lineout, general play) you get stung with a PK. Why is a FK different?

Because we're talking about any infringement from the defending team committed after a FK has been awarded - covered under law 21 - and the subsequence thereof.

A free-kick awarded for foot-up in the scrum on the defending team's 22m line should not be automatically upgraded to a PK.

 

[Dickie E]

Because we're talking about any infringement from the defending team committed after a FK has been awarded - covered under law 21 - and the subsequence thereof.

What I am saying is the law is wrong because it is illogical and inconsistent with other practices.

If I don't retire to the offside line at a ruck, maul, scrum, lineout or penalty I get hit with a penalty.

If I don't retire at a FK I get hit with another FK.

 

[didds]

i do agree with Dickie, but I guess the rationale is that the FK is replaced by another FK but with 10m territorial loss.

This is no doubt a historical hang over from the days prior to FKs (marks aside) further muddled by the move wrt carrying back. As I oft remark, a FK between the 22s is virtually toothless/meaningless, and even in the oppo 22m its a moot point that its really a "penalty" against the offending team. A tap is about the only real option with the defenders 10m away (or on their goal line as the case may be). Otherwise its a scrum and the "penalty" is on a par then with a simple error like a knock on. In one's own 22 it does provide breathing space with a direct kick to touch, but that of course merely tirns the ball over.

Clearly this requires a law clarification, or just a law amendment to say an advance FK retains all benefits of the original FK - or drop the advanced FK and it becomes a PK on infringements. A matter of moments.

didds

 

[FlipFlop]

Just allow FKs to gain ground from anywhere on the field, but loss in possession. I honestly don't see why this would cause any issues, and wouldn't be used much anyway.

And I would also like to see a ban on Scrums taken from FKs given at the scrum.

 

[didds]

And I would also like to see a ban on Scrums taken from FKs given at the scrum.

frankly I see that as a benefit for the offenders. FKs are a waste of space 0- see above. The scrum from a FK is about the only meaningful thing that can be done with them between the two 22s.

didds

 

[crossref]

frankly I see that as a benefit for the offenders. FKs are a waste of space 0- see above. The scrum from a FK is about the only meaningful thing that can be done with them between the two 22s.

didds

Danny Care has been known to make good use of the quick tap ...

- - - Updated - - -

What I am saying is the law is wrong because it is illogical and inconsistent with other practices.

If I don't retire to the offside line at a ruck, maul, scrum, lineout or penalty I get hit with a penalty.

If I don't retire at a FK I get hit with another FK.

I agree that that Law is wrong -- but does that mean that I can ignore it? There are other Laws that I think are wrong as well ...

 

[Dickie E]

I agree that that Law is wrong -- but does that mean that I can ignore it? There are other Laws that I think are wrong as well ...

No, of course not. But feel free to debate. Isn't that we do here?

 

[didds]

Danny Care has been known to make good use of the quick tap ...

IF... its on....

didds

 

[OB..]

What I am saying is the law is wrong because it is illogical and inconsistent with other practices.

If I don't retire to the offside line at a ruck, maul, scrum, lineout or penalty I get hit with a penalty.

If I don't retire at a FK I get hit with another FK.

If you don't retreat at a PK, the mark for the PK is moved 10m forward.
If you don't retreat at a FK, the mark for the FK is moved 10m forward.

That looks consistent to me.
The problem of course is the effect of the 22m kicking restriction.

The simplest solution is allowing any FK direct to touch being a gain in ground but loss of the throw. An exception for a FK originally awarded inside the 22 is messier but feasible.

 

[The Fat]

This from SArefs.
Discuss.

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830759/

Then you may wish to comment on this one