22 Drop Out - Not taken properly

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
From my game on Saturday, 22 Drop Out awarded to red, red captain picks up the ball inside the 22, sort of taps it then flings it with no great urgency to a team mate 5m away (at this point I'm thinking this is where they throw it back and forth a bit before deciding where to drop out from) except team mate then runs it out of the 22. So peep from me, what's the correct next step?

FWIW I just called '22 *drop kick* lads, go again' which they did, Green captain queried it a bit later asking if it should be a scrum (which got me thinking of the incorrect penalty thread and probably influenced my thought process). I checked under the restart section of the laws after the game and saw nothing - but have a nagging feeling I was wrong, is a specific answer buried somewhere?
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Think the relevant law is 12.12c - A 22 metre drop-out must cross the 22-metre line. sanction: The non-kicking team has the option of the kick being retaken or a scrum.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Think the relevant law is 12.12c - A 22 metre drop-out must cross the 22-metre line. sanction: The non-kicking team has the option of the kick being retaken or a scrum.

I saw that, but we didn't get as far as taking a drop out, let alone crossing the line!
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
I had exactly the same yesterday. No drop kick, so I whistled it back again to be taken.

It seems odd that if you can't even do the right thing badly you get another go, but if you can do the right thing badly it's turned over for a scrum.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
It seems odd that if you can't even do the right thing badly you get another go, but if you can do the right thing badly it's turned over for a scrum.

Yeah, if I have a fresh air swing playing golf I always claim it was a warm up swing :)
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Argh, stupid law book, I hate this inconsistent re-organisation, the correct answer is Scrum green, the answer being buried under 19.1 (Scrum);

An incorrect kick-off or restart kick (scrum option).At the middle point of the half-way line or 22-metre line if the restart kick was a 22 drop-out.The non-kicking team.

Basically you need to know that there is a sanction, and what the sanction is, and look there first!
 

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38
Argh, stupid law book, I hate this inconsistent re-organisation, the correct answer is Scrum green, the answer being buried under 19.1 (Scrum);

An incorrect kick-off or restart kick (scrum option).At the middle point of the half-way line or 22-metre line if the restart kick was a 22 drop-out.The non-kicking team.

Basically you need to know that there is a sanction, and what the sanction is, and look there first!
Law 12.1 tells you there is a sanction ;)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Actually 12.12.c says there is a sanction

12.16 tells you that you can play advantage

But in the incident in the OP it wasn't clear that any red player ever actually attempted a kick, it seems like there was some misunderstanding or confusion .. so for me it was handled correctly
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Actually 12.12.c says there is a sanction

12.16 tells you that you can play advantage

But in the incident in the OP it wasn't clear that any red player ever actually attempted a kick, it seems like there was some misunderstanding or confusion .. so for me it was handled correctly

In the context of that game, weather, score line, standards I would have won jobsworth of the day if I’d punished them, however I was wrong in law in my head at least. They all wanted to go home at this point
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
In almost any game I think
They had a 22 they didn't actually take.... It's a massive thing to convert that into a scrum to the oppo, on the 22
 

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38
Actually 12.12.c says there is a sanction

12.16 tells you that you can play advantage

But in the incident in the OP it wasn't clear that any red player ever actually attempted a kick, it seems like there was some misunderstanding or confusion .. so for me it was handled correctly
12.12.c assumes a drop-kick was done (but failed to leave the 22m). The OP said it was a tap kick, which is why I referenced 12.1
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
what's interesting for me in this sceanario is the concept of 'intent'.

If the Red captain had intended to take the drop out then an opposition scrum would be justified.

However it appears that he didn't so a retake makes sense.

But the actions of the receiving Red player then muddy the water.

Consider this:
a player with ball in hand shapes to take a quick throw-in. He decides against it, and nonchalantly tosses the ball to his hooker who is trotting up to the touchline. Has he taken the quick throw? I'd say 'no intent' and go with the lineout.

BUT what if, having caught the ball, the hooker steams off towards the opposition goal line. Play on? There was no intent by the throwing player but the hooker has suddenly created that intent. Is that fair play?

And if the throw to the hooker didn't go 5 metres ... just take the lineout or FK to opposition?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I offer it as a comparison only regarding 'intent'

One important consideration in both scenarios is the situation where someone is holding the ball, thinking the ball is dead, while an opponent is legitimately thinking the ball is live.

Blow your whistle in that instance , that's dangerous
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
Consider this:
a player with ball in hand shapes to take a quick throw-in. He decides against it, and nonchalantly tosses the ball to his hooker who is trotting up to the touchline. Has he taken the quick throw? I'd say 'no intent' and go with the lineout.

BUT what if, having caught the ball, the hooker steams off towards the opposition goal line. Play on? There was no intent by the throwing player but the hooker has suddenly created that intent. Is that fair play?

We've covered actual game footage of this albeit the underarm toss to the running player was a deliberate ploy...

didds

- - - Updated - - -

One important consideration in both scenarios is the situation where someone is holding the ball, thinking the ball is dead, while an opponent is legitimately thinking the ball is live.

Blow your whistle in that instance , that's dangerous

and sometimes people don't hear the whistle and end up with the ball holder going to hospital.

*sheepish*

didds
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I played in a game years ago where following the award of a 22 drop-out our hooker actually tackled the player who was running with the ball to take it quickly. Afterwards the hooker said he couldn't explain his actions but just saw the player running with the ball, had a complete brain fart and tackled him. The ball carrier obviously wasn't expecting the tackle and was hurt in the process although I seem to remember he stayed on the pitch. A bit of a melee ensued before the game was restarted.
 
Top