France v Italy - potential spoiler

[crossref]

Everyone seemed to get confused between a conversion and a penalty kick. They are professional players, they should know the laws. The ref is a professional ref, he should know the laws. I know TV rugby is supposed to be different but I wish it wasn't.
Yet another rod for the back of the grassroots ref.

absolutely disagree!
None of the French were confused in the slightest, they were trying to distract the kicker and put him off. The ref in turn knew what they were doing but decided to let it go

 

[Flish]

I think we need to look at the sanction. It seems to me that the sanction is a bit harsh making refs reluctant to apply it.

perhaps the sanction for moving should be - immediate whistle, time is off, shot clock is off, kicker can resettle and kick in his own time.
(kinda how we might actually manage it on a wet Saturday afternoon in the sticks)

Exactly what I would do in my game, take away the time pressure, let the defenders know exactly what and where I expect them to be, and let the kicker take his kick - however I have no doubt that wouldn’t be accepted in the Elite game, and I have sympathy for Christophe, which ever way he went he was going to get it in the neck.

Kudos to the Italians for their reaction (or lack of) to it all

 

[Locke]

I feel it was very clear. As others have said, French players, inexplicably, attempted to charge the kick twice. But it’s a penalty kick, not a conversion. You can’t charge at all. You have to stand still. They were also noticeably closer than 10 meters.
It was clear and obvious. At the very least, Garbisi should have gotten another chance to take a kick without an opponent, starting 7 meters away, running toward him as he makes his approach. It was an easy call.

 

[BikingBud]

I think we need to look at the sanction. It seems to me that the sanction is a bit harsh making refs reluctant to apply it.

perhaps the sanction for moving should be - immediate whistle, time is off, shot clock is off, kicker can resettle and kick in his own time.
(kinda how we might actually manage it on a wet Saturday afternoon in the sticks)

So you'd ignore 8.27? How would you explain to the captain of the kicking team?

 

[BikingBud]

absolutely disagree!
None of the French were confused in the slightest, they were trying to distract the kicker and put him off. The ref in turn knew what they were doing but decided to let it go

So you think the sanction is too severe but after determining the opposition were fully aware of their actions and their desired outcome had materialised, ie Italy did not win the game due to deliberate infringement you would shy away from enforcing the appropriate sanction

Cheating's OK then

 

[BikingBud]

What about the water carriers?

Why is that occurring and was not penalised?

 

[SimonSmith]

I do get what you're saying but maybe if a few more refs DID apply the sanction sides might actually stop transgressing...
cos the stop, go back, reset and go again doesnt really make any difference to a side not transgressing ie they dont lose anything by doing so.

This. The power of incrementalism.

 

[crossref]

So you'd ignore 8.27? How would you explain to the captain of the kicking team?

Not when I next ref a 6N game.

Down in the sticks, yes most likely, I think

I would explain it along the same lines as the apologists for France above. Situation was confused, motion was not material, the guy who charged is most likely new to rugby and didn't understand.

I think that would most likely be appropriate approach in the sort of games I ref.

(But not necessarily... All situations are different)

How would you most likely handle it ?

 

[Phil E]

I have given two retakes at penalties this season for defenders waving their arms above their heads.
In both cases the kick missed and I gave a retake 10m forward.

Players were perplexed; their coach wasn't and gave them a bollocking.

 

[crossref]

Waving arms definitely something to take account of, and aggravates the offence

Shouting also (shouting isn't even allowed at a conversion)

 

[didds]

I have given two retakes at penalties this season for defenders waving their arms above their heads.
In both cases the kick missed and I gave a retake 10m forward.

Players were perplexed; their coach wasn't and gave them a bollocking.

well done that coach!

 

[Volun-selected]

I have given two retakes at penalties this season for defenders waving their arms above their heads.
In both cases the kick missed and I gave a retake 10m forward.

Players were perplexed; their coach wasn't and gave them a bollocking.

Same, except the lightbulb came on for the players (U19) when I told (reminded) them they can’t attempt to distract on a penalty.

If the ref had marched the touch forward 10m and stated “the law is clear, for a penalty you cannot move until after the kick, restart the shot clock” then the commentators would likely have gone “oh yes, we don’t see that law used very often” as this seems to be a law that’s so rarely required at the pro level they need to be reminded.

If they then moan about the law being too harsh, different conversation.

 

[BikingBud]

Not when I next ref a 6N game.

Down in the sticks, yes most likely, I think

I would explain it along the same lines as the apologists for France above. Situation was confused, motion was not material, the guy who charged is most likely new to rugby and didn't understand.

I think that would most likely be appropriate approach in the sort of games I ref.

(But not necessarily... All situations are different)

How would you most likely handle it ?

Apply the sanction.

But you did not answer the second quote and this is the bit I do not get, you state the French acted wilfully to prevent Italy winning the game yet the sanction is too severe. It just doesn't balance!

Look at another Law and draw the comparison:

A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

If a try would probably have been scored but for foul play results in a penalty try, why do you have an issue with this sanction especially as you accept it was a deliberate act?

absolutely disagree!
None of the French were confused in the slightest, they were trying to distract the kicker and put him off. The ref in turn knew what they were doing but decided to let it go

Waving arms definitely something to take account of, and aggravates the offence

Shouting also (shouting isn't even allowed at a conversion)

You really confuse me sometimes in what Laws you are keen to apply and what you may wish to ignore.

Interesting reflection about the differing sanction retake of a conversion v award of a new penalty:

The team must not shout during a conversion attempt.

1. Sanction: If the opposing team at a conversion attempt infringes but the kick is successful, the goal stands. If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker retakes the conversion and the opposing team is not allowed to charge. When another kick is allowed, the kicker may repeat all the preparations. The kicker may change the type of kick.

Penalty Kick

22 - If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked​

26 - A defending player must not shout during a penalty kick at goal.​

27 - If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands and a further penalty is not awarded. If the kick is unsuccessful, the non-offending team is awarded a penalty 10 metres in front of the original mark. Sanction: Penalty.​

I can only interpret therefore that the ability to undertake all preparations again are not included in the penalty kick sanction as award of a new penalty resets the whole process not just the shot clock.

 

[crossref]

All situations are different @BikingBud
But happy to play this game .. it's how I roll !

So, give me a specific scenario - paint me a picture - and specify the level of game, and I will tell you what I would most likely do .. on condition you then tell me what you would do

 

[crossref]

Interesting discussion by Richard Every and Steve Lander

Including quite a lot about how ARs take up positions where they can't really see if a.kick is good or not (something we discussed a lot a few threads ago )

 

[Rich_NL]

Law seems pretty clear.

8.22 If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick [a penalty] at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.

France didn’t. Twice.

You bolded the end time, but not the begin. Garbisi hadn't started his approach to kick, with resetting the ball. By the time he did, I believe the chargers were all back and settled.

 

[crossref]

You also need 20.12
They broke this as they didn't stay 10m away

When a penalty or free-kick is awarded, the opposing team must immediately retreat 10 metres towards their own goal line or until they have reached their goal line if that is closer

 

[BikingBud]

All situations are different @BikingBud
But happy to play this game .. it's how I roll !

So, give me a specific scenario - paint me a picture - and specify the level of game, and I will tell you what I would most likely do .. on condition you then tell me what you would do

Yep all situations are different so the answer will always be it depends. And at this point you then try and think of ever more bizarre scenarios, live dogs, sleeping dogs that weren't allowed to lie, dogs eating bones, dogs eating small children, dogs with their lipstick out and possibly even dead dogs, to try and determine exactly what may happen if every single event in this and other universes were to occur.

Hence I would always try to apply the Laws to the best of my understanding and with the evidence that I see.

The only time I would knowingly not apply the laws would be in a trial type game where penalty kicking would likely not occur anyway so the hypothetical of this happening in a non-game is miniscule.

And we are back to applying the Laws and the sanctions depending upon the unravelling reality in front of me.

That is the referees role:

The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management.

 

[BikingBud]

A lot of sense from Steve Lander I found the stats at the end quite telling:

• Ireland most penalties (37 )nearly twice as many as England (20) - Who'd have thought it!
• Ireland v Wales 25 PK, England v Wales 12 PK - Again who'd have thought it?
• Quick breakdown Ireland get 62% of their breakdown ball within 3 secs England only 54 % - Kick indicator.
• Quick breakdown for opposition Ireland allow opponents 55% of their ball within 3 secs and Eng only 46% - England getting away with killing ball?

Comment from Lander "A good referee because he has a full awareness of illegally slowing the ball down and just taking half a yard on the back foot and how that massively affects the flow of the game" and "If you don't get a handle on those two areas, unless one side is massively superior to the other at breaking the gainline you won't have a dynamic enjoyable game"

The only current observation below the video is quite telling:

The sad reality is that a referee who properly manages all those distances, gesticulations, non-players is going to be deemed pedantic

Ireland breaking the gainline and giving away most penalties is seen as good rugby? Or acceptable cheating to assure the product?

 

[crossref]

Hence I would always try to apply the Laws to the best of my understanding and with the evidence that I see.

Not sure it's always that simple

Going back to the OP scenario.. at what point exactly should Christoph have first intervened, do you think ? (You could give the time reference on the Every video above) ..and what should he have done at that point