The crawler would presumably be holding the ball under his body. How would a defender get to it?
I have some sympathy with that, which I why is said "technically" in my initial response. I would not fault a referee who penalised the player. If the referee allowed the score and did not speak to the player, I would query that.
I would.
Id say The purpose of this law is to ensure fair access to the ball IF an opponent is seeking it
Definition says [LAWS] [LAWS
][FONT=fs_blakeregular] Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team[/FONT][/LAWS]. [/LAWS]
If none of the defenders are within 50m, then the BC can't have made it unplayable to them , as they weren't in the vicinity to play it ( if you deem them close enough to do so then its a PK)
If that's your criteria, then it follows ....would you expect a referee to similarly 'have a word' after any immaterial interpretation ??
IMO its better to either Penalise
OR allow,
but not highlight it as a hybrid of both, unless your seeing this as a 'preventative' for next time, in which case 'a word' with all 36 potential participants is needed - to clarify future interpretations ?!!? No, not for me OB, I'd expect to clarify my 'immaterial interpretation' to an enquiring defending captain only.