Yes. Under 9.7.apenalize - ie by reversing the PK ?
I think if I make a side re-take the kick I'd be thinking they can "tap and go" or Kick for the corner. Clearly the law specifies that if you choose a kick at goal then a kick at goal it must be. But in terms of tap and go or kick to the corner thelaw is silent. so what do we do? Equity applies I feel.I'm curious - what basis in law do you have that says they can't change their kick type (eg go for posts/punt for LO?) . Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean?
I would not advocate that they can change from a reset scrum to then a tap/kick. But that's on the basis that they have successfully restarted with the first scrum - so the PK is now done and "won" (over). The reset scrum is for another reason, so you're now stuck in that phase of play until it is successfully over - and can't go back to a PK option.
This.I think if I make a side re-take the kick I be thinking the penalty. Clearly the law specifies that if you choose a kick at goal then a kick at goal it must be. But in terms of tap and go or kick to the corner thelaw is silent. so what do we do? Equity applies I feel.
I'm not let it be a "quick tap" and go. Why reward the guy for his cock up? But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" if you we kicking for the corner I'd let you take a tap but not "quick" instead and vice versa.
So you agree that there is no law that says you can't change PK option (unless they were going for posts or had already had a scrum). That was my point to the previous poster that would not allow them to change. Because it is silent in the law - it means they can do it.I think if I make a side re-take the kick I be thinking the penalty. Clearly the law specifies that if you choose a kick at goal then a kick at goal it must be. But in terms of tap and go or kick to the corner thelaw is silent. so what do we do? Equity applies I feel.
I'm not let it be a "quick tap" and go. Why reward the guy for his cock up? But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" if you we kicking for the corner I'd let you take a tap but not "quick" instead and vice versa.
Agree. ie "game management" - you're not making up your own law to prevent them changing their kick.This.
If I bring it back, I'd be telling him he can't go until the opposition have had a chance to reorganize due to the change in circumstances
In this sort of scenario I think the restart kick is absolute - ie no advantage can be played. Correct ? Becasue theoretically the game cannot have restarted yet - that right?Scenario
Red kick for touch
You blow as the kick is in front of the mark
The kick wasn't very good, fails to make touch, and is caught by blue 15
I suppose possibly in a chopperesque scenario the tap was taken quickly because there was a 5 man overlap and a likely 7 points. After the call back and retake. that's now off the cards, and 7 is no longer probable, but the 3 points is a banker. Again, not a hill i would die on but that seems a reasonable enough and not really totally unlikely scenario......
Blue bring the ball back to the mark
Red elect posts and score 3pts
Good game management? Poor game management? Shrug, it is what it is, don't blame me?
But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" Says that yes. The not letting them take the re-take quick is game mnagement and comes under equity (fairness); they can't gain by breaking the laws.So you agree that there is no law that says you can't change PK option (unless they were going for posts or had already had a scrum). That was my point to the previous poster that would not allow them to change. Because it is silent in the law - it means they can do it.
What you're doing/suggesting by preventing a QT is not changing the kick - but 'management'.
Agree. ie "game management" - you're not making up your own law to prevent them changing their kick.
That's not uncommon though, when a quick tap is brought back it's clear they now have their second best optionI suppose possibly in a chopperesque scenario the tap was taken quickly because there was a 5 man overlap and a likely 7 points. After the call back and retake. that's now off the cards, and 7 is no longer probable, but the 3 points is a banker. Again, not a hill i would die on but that seems a reasonable enough and not really totally unlikely scenario...
That is the fault of the player who did not take the tap and go within the laws of the game. Blame him not me!I suppose possibly in a chopperesque scenario the tap was taken quickly because there was a 5 man overlap and a likely 7 points. After the call back and retake. that's now off the cards, and 7 is no longer probable, but the 3 points is a banker. Again, not a hill i would die on but that seems a reasonable enough and not really totally unlikely scenario...
yes ... but as others have said the alws dont actually stop him changing his mind anyway. and that would be a real reason for doing so. And notwithstanding he hasn't actually broken any law 9which is why there is not a penalty for foing so). he's just not actually restarted the game as required by law. And forcing him/her to retake a tap when now there is nothing in it merely rewards the orgainal transgressor that gace away the PK in the first placeThat is the fault of the player who did not take the tap and go within the laws of the game. Blame him not me!
I'm not in a knot! My view is clear : after a PK to touch that was in front of the mark : I would never bring them back and give them another gohey ho
Id suggest it is just what it is. Don't you guys tie yourself in knots over it
I think we are both in violent agreement?But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" Says that yes. The not letting them take the re-take quick is game mnagement and comes under equity (fairness); they can't gain by breaking the laws.
which is why we don't want to bring them back and take the kick again : they very well could.equity (fairness); they can't gain by breaking the laws.
I'm not forcing him to do anything. A said the law does not prevent a change of action other than prohibiting (for clear reasoning) as side changing from a Kick at goal to running the ball etc.yes ... but as others have said the alws dont actually stop him changing his mind anyway. and that would be a real reason for doing so. And notwithstanding he hasn't actually broken any law 9which is why there is not a penalty for foing so). he's just not actually restarted the game as required by law. And forcing him/her to retake a tap when now there is nothing in it merely rewards the orgainal transgressor that gace away the PK in the first place
If he fluffed the kick badly I'd probably manage it by playing on and telling him to kick from the correct mark next time. (he tried to cheat and failed. Tough luck on!)yep. But even if the kick to touch remains you could get the scenario of a fluffed kick to touch that makes 15m off the side of the boot, is brought back, and the next touch kick makes 50m instead bang into the corner for a 5m lineout.
I'd say the "penalty" is they have lost the opportunity given by the overlap situation and being brought back. There is clearly a sanction all be it a fairly minor one. The loss of the momentum.yes ... but as others have said the alws dont actually stop him changing his mind anyway. and that would be a real reason for doing so. And notwithstanding he hasn't actually broken any law 9which is why othere is not a penalty for foing s). he's just not actually restarted the game as required by law. And forcing him/her to retake a tap when now there is nothing in it merely rewards the orgainal transgressor that gace away the PK in the first place