[Law] 21.4 d Why is this a law and when should and shouldn't be called

[bennyboy]

Hello I am new to the forum but have a question I would like to get feedback on.
Law 21.4 d regarding restarting after a penalty is awarded.
Why does this law exist and should it be enforced/called. If so when/where?
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A clear kick. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark.

[/FONT]Scenario: Provincial high school rugby finals, two of the best schools in the province, in a quarter final match. Approximately 6 minutes remaining score is 12-5. White is inside Reds 22 m with decent pressure. White is awarded a penalty on the 5 m for red not rolling away. White forward (#8 I believe) tries to quick tap (ball does not leave his hands) dives down and scores. I blow the whistle and return to the 5 m for a red scrum.

Looking for some thoughts on this one.

 

[Dickie E]

Why does this law exist and should it be enforced/called. If so when/where?

Hi Benny,

I think this is a sensible law as it leaves everyone in no doubt that the kick has been successfully taken. Compare to rugby league where waving the ball in the general vicinity of boot is allowed.

In the scenario you outlined, I would normally disallow the try but bring white back to take the penalty again. The "punishment" of losing the element of surprise is sufficient.

 

[crossref]

[/FONT][/COLOR]Scenario: Provincial high school rugby finals, two of the best schools in the province, in a quarter final match. Approximately 6 minutes remaining score is 12-5. White is inside Reds 22 m with decent pressure. White is awarded a penalty on the 5 m for red not rolling away. White forward (#8 I believe) tries to quick tap (ball does not leave his hands) dives down and scores. I blow the whistle and return to the 5 m for a red scrum.

Looking for some thoughts on this one.

quite right.
they know how to take a kick properly

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hi Benny and welcome to Rugbyrefs.com

Nothing wrong with what you did, but I like DickieE's sympathetic approach to this, especially at school level.

First time it happens, make them retake the tap kick (loss of surprise is sufficient sanction). If they keep doing it however, then scrum at the mark, opposition ball.

 

[crossref]

beyond the age of twelve, when kicks first come in, school players know perfectly well how to take a kick

The only reason that you see school teams do it often is that, most often, there is nothing to lose. The ref may ignore it or not notice, and if he does notice then you get to take the PK again anyway...

 

[SimonSmith]

I disagree with the 'take it again' approach.

This happened to an U23 team that I coach. We were penalized, and the opposing 9 tried a quick tap and the ball didn't leave his hands. Ref spotted it, and called him back. I was shouting at our skipper to ask for the scrum.

Ref instead allowed them a do over, and they scored from their kick at goal.

Sympathetic misapplication of law has consequences.

 

[chbg]

When it occurs during the first quarter of a match I will be tempted to feel lenient and allow a re-take, on the possible basis that their previous referee may have allowed it (grrr). But it will be a very public warning to BOTH teams - they don't both get one chance.

In a QF, with "two of the best schools in the province", and in the last quarter, my sympathies do not exist. Scrum to oppo.

I'm with Crossref - they were trying it on with only the element of (unfair) surprise to lose.

 

[crossref]

When I referee youth matches at levels like U17-U16-U15 I do give them a warning --- I give it in the Pre Match Brief.

 

[Phil E]

In a QF, with "two of the best schools in the province", and in the last quarter, my sympathies do not exist. Scrum to oppo.

Spot on.

It's a basic skill like passing backwards. You wouldn't let them have another go if they knocked on at this level.

 

[crossref]

there's an anomaly in the Law here - I'm not really sure why taking the PK in the wrong way means a scrum, but taking it in the wrong place simply means that you get another go.

 

[leaguerefaus]

When it occurs during the first quarter of a match I will be tempted to feel lenient and allow a re-take, on the possible basis that their previous referee may have allowed it (grrr). But it will be a very public warning to BOTH teams - they don't both get one chance.

In a QF, with "two of the best schools in the province", and in the last quarter, my sympathies do not exist. Scrum to oppo.

I'm with Crossref - they were trying it on with only the element of (unfair) surprise to lose.

If you're giving one team the chance to retake it, the same must be given to the other team or that is inequitable. Either give both a chance or none a chance, your way is just asking to be accused of double standards.

 

[Dickie E]

Spot on.

It's a basic skill like passing backwards. You wouldn't let them have another go if they knocked on at this level.

depends if he knocks on before or after taking the kick.

To be a kick it needs to leave hands. Until that happens ball remains dead and PK has not been taken.

 

[bennyboy]

Thanks everyone for your respective comments and thoughts. The CMO's on the day did not agree with the call and insinuated that I am putting myself in a difficult position with that call. lose lose situation and we agreed that the best outcome would be to simply award the try and move on.
White had been working hard and pressuring red and red was let off the hook on a technicality. From their perspective the call was inappropriate for the time and location. My feeling is that if you are going to have a law in place then it shouldn't matter the time or location. Also why should white be rewarded for not following the laws of the game when red is.
It is a harsh call but if we are to hold ourselves to high standards then don't we owe it to the players to make that call?
That being said I don't know if I would make the call again given the grief it created.

I do agree that there is a rather large disconnect between the ball not being tapped through the mark, re-kick and not leaving hands, opp scrum.
thanks again.

 

[Dickie E]

we agreed that the best outcome would be to simply award the try and move on.

That's the one thing I wouldn't do.

 

[leaguerefaus]

we agreed that the best outcome would be to simply award the try and move on

I think that's the one thing that everyone here agrees they would not do.
Unfortunately, just like referees, not all assessors are created equal!

 

[Pegleg]

depends if he knocks on before or after taking the kick.

To be a kick it needs to leave hands. Until that happens ball remains dead and PK has not been taken.

The kick has not been taken correctly. It has been attempted and the law has a sanction. A sanction we manage. A KO or forward pass is normally a lack of skill. Failure to take a tap properly, certainly at the level we are discussing, should not be a lack of skill it is lazy or deliberate.

 

[Dickie E]

The kick has not been taken correctly. It has been attempted and the law has a sanction. A sanction we manage. A KO or forward pass is normally a lack of skill. Failure to take a tap properly, certainly at the level we are discussing, should not be a lack of skill it is lazy or deliberate.

I hear you but look at the OP's dilemma. There was so much "grief" with that decision that he has now concluded that he should have awrded the try! Emapathy for the game at hand is needed.

 

[crossref]

Thanks everyone for your respective comments and thoughts. The CMO's on the day did not agree with the call and insinuated that I am putting myself in a difficult position with that call. lose lose situation and we agreed that the best outcome would be to simply award the try and move on.
White had been working hard and pressuring red and red was let off the hook on a technicality. From their perspective the call was inappropriate for the time and location. My feeling is that if you are going to have a law in place then it shouldn't matter the time or location. Also why should white be rewarded for not following the laws of the game when red is.
It is a harsh call but if we are to hold ourselves to high standards then don't we owe it to the players to make that call?
That being said I don't know if I would make the call again given the grief it created.

I do agree that there is a rather large disconnect between the ball not being tapped through the mark, re-kick and not leaving hands, opp scrum.
thanks again.

what I do in youth games - seriously - is talk to the skipper and the scrum half before the game in the PMB (and in youth games usually the coach is present as well) and tell them that I will be enforcing this Law on quick taps, for both teams, so they need to take a quick tap properly. Tell the skipper and the coach that if anyone else in the team is likely to take a quick tap, he should relay this message on to them well.
Then you have given them the warning, everyone knows the position, and it can applied no problem

this is NOT a technicality -- it's MUCH faster, and much easier to control a quick pk if you can take it without the ball leaving your hands!

 

[RobLev]

Thanks everyone for your respective comments and thoughts. The CMO's on the day did not agree with the call and insinuated that I am putting myself in a difficult position with that call. lose lose situation and we agreed that the best outcome would be to simply award the try and move on. ...

What's a CMO?

What about the next referee taking either of these teams who tries to sanction a blatant disregard of the Laws? Where does "award[ing] the try mov[ing] on" leave him/her?

Applying the Laws means that next time they won't try it on - or at least not expect to be rewarded for it; eventually, they will cotton on and comply.

 

[Dixie]

When I referee youth matches at levels like U17-U16-U15 I do give them a warning --- I give it in the Pre Match Brief.

The difficulty with that is the player in question here (#8) may well not have been involved in the brief. At young age group level I have always allowed the retake for the first cock-up - and I see no issue allowing each team one error. But with teams that have been playing for several years, they should know better - and a harsh lesson will be the most effective tool in ensuring they learn the lesson.

I am fortunate never to have reffed in an area where Rugby League may have even impinged on a player's consciousness. Where a player is predominantly a Leaguie but plays occasional Union, I can see an argument for leniency even into senior level - but then you get into the potential for #9 to "play" the ref, so I wouldn't adopt those arguments.

I hear you but look at the OP's dilemma. There was so much "grief" with that decision that he has now concluded that he should have awrded the try! Emapathy for the game at hand is needed.

Yes - the assessors were wrong to criticise the proper application of law, though a discussion around empathy may have been warranted. But where a try was scored following an incorrect kick, I would suggest that every ref ought to have at least disallowed the try. How to then restart is the issue open to possible empathy, but as Simon Smith mentions that could still permit the winning goal kick to be made. If we are prepared to bend the laws in the interests of empathy, perhaps there is a case for bending them further and awarding a scrum to the attacking team. Now THAT would give an interesting discussion with the assessor!