[Line out] 6N Scotland V Ireland

[nhughes]

In the first half of the Scotland v Ireland game yesterday Scotland got a penalty about 7 metres out from the goal line and looked like they indicated that they were going to kick for touch, they then took a quick tap and tried to catch the Ireland defence off-guard.

Luckily for Ireland they were switched on and stopped the attack. My question is that if Scotland indicated a kick for touch aren't they obliged to do so? If Scotland had scored a try it would have been pretty controversial. Don't have a link to the incident but I think the same principle applies that if you indicate a kick for goal you must take it.

Interested to hear opinions.

 

[Decorily]

IMO...there is no obligation to indicate a kick to touch so therefore unless a kick at goal is indicated it's game on!

 

[crossref]

In the first half of the Scotland v Ireland game yesterday Scotland got a penalty about 7 metres out from the goal line and looked like they indicated that they were going to kick for touch, they then took a quick tap and tried to catch the Ireland defence off-guard.

Luckily for Ireland they were switched on and stopped the attack. My question is that if Scotland indicated a kick for touch aren't they obliged to do so? If Scotland had scored a try it would have been pretty controversial. Don't have a link to the incident but I think the same principle applies that if you indicate a kick for goal you must take it.

Interested to hear opinions.

I think it's a good ploy !

 

[L'irlandais]

Good ploy.
[LAWS]Law 20

5. A penalty or free-kick must be taken without delay.
6. Any player from the non-offending team may take it, other than for a free-kick awarded for a mark.
7. The kicker must use the ball that was in play unless the referee decides it is defective.
8. The kicker may punt, drop-kick or place-kick (other than for touch) the ball.
9. The kicker may kick the ball in any direction.
10. Other than the placer at a place-kick, the kicker’s team must remain behind the ball until it has been kicked.
11.The ball must be kicked 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. Once the kick has been successfully taken the kicker may play the ball again.[/LAWS]Nothing in the Laws to forbid hoodwinking the opposition.

 

[Toby Warren]

Good ploy - badly actioned. I said to my mate in the pub they’re running this - he was over exaggerating the signal.

 

[crossref]

I have often imagined a similar ploy ---

From very close in, line up the simple tap to the corner, but instead toss the ball to a teammate who takes the PK as long cross-field kick to the opposite corner, where your wing is ready and waiting..

 

[Decorily]

Not a very unusual ploy.
Had it in an U18s game a month ago...
Captain had asked me before the game was it allowed so I was expecting it and ready to chase cross field.

Reminds me of a scenario I encountered a number of years ago when a captain, with ball in hand, casually pointed to the post and said something like "not going to the posts Sir' and proceeded to tap and go as the opposition set themselves up for a kick at goal.

 

[didds]

You'll find some refs on here world have said"you are now"!

 

[Decorily]

You'll find some refs on here world have said"you are now"!

Indeed.....

I'm one of them?

 

[Arabcheif]

Indeed.....

I'm one of them

I'm curious, why is that. If he pointed at the posts without saying anything then fair enough, but he's specifically said not going for the posts.

 

[didds]

IANAR. But I'll stab a guess at why they think that (and TBH I don;t have an issue with that referee approach either)

Its subterfuge. Nothing wrong with subterfuge in itself.

But... its subterfuge that is at least tacitly involving the referee's complicity. A complicity that leaves the referee in a compromising position.

Maybe the alternative would be to shout "NO POSTS CALLED" instead and let play continue?

didds

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]8.20 If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal.The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of
the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.[/LAWS]
Pointing at the posts is a clear indication. This is also a signal for the ARs/TJs to move round behind the posts and therefore not be available to mark the line of touch.

 

[Arabcheif]

Does the ref not indicate to the TJs/ARs when the decision has been made? If he'd (the player) just pointed at the posts and said nothing else, I'd be with you but the player in this case would've specifically told the ref that he WASN'T going for the posts. If you'd given an option for a scrum or lineout and the player pointed to the place the scrum would be and said lineout please, would you make them scrum down? In the hypothetical example they captain has communicated of the intention not to kick for the posts, and just pointed at the posts as an visual aid. Yes this may well be an attempt to fool the defence but I'd expect the defence to still be alert as the ref hasn't instructed the TJs/ARs to go behind the posts.

 

[didds]

Its still involving the referee in the duplicity. Its unfair to compromise his position as a neutral once he knows of the duplicity that is evident to the opposition.

didds

 

[crossref]

If they tried that with me I wouldnt make them go for posts , but I wouldn't let them quick tap either

If they questioned why I called back the tap, I would say : you confused me as well..

 

[nhughes]

Interesting responses, strange that we don't see it more often. I would disagree on a player indicating for a kick at goal and not taking it as this requires both officials and the opposition to move.

 

[Arabcheif]

But it's not involving the ref. As he can say loudly to the touch judges to stay where they are. Thus giving the defending team the chance to react to the tap/kick for touch.

 

[Arabcheif]

Interesting responses, strange that we don't see it more often. I would disagree on a player indicating for a kick at goal and not taking it as this requires both officials and the opposition to move.

The question is though, that with the verbal communication to the ref, by pointing at the posts, is the player indicating for a kick for goal or not?

Lets flip it. If a player point to touch and says to the ref, I'm kicking for the posts ref/sir. What would you do?

 

[nhughes]

If you are kicking for goal it requires the opposition to retreat which puts them at a disadvantage, if as happened on Saturday it's a quick tap instead of going over the line it's up to the defence to stay switched on so if the player says he is kicking for goal then that's what he is doing.

It would be pretty difficult to accrue an advantage from indicating for touch then kicking for goal so pretty unlikely.

 

[Arabcheif]

But the requirement is for the offending team to be 10m (or on the try line whichever is closer). They don't need to retreat any further than normal, so no disadvantage to the defending team. Unless they didn't react in time to the change.

But to go back to the OP. I don't think there was a signal, he just shaped like he was going to kick for touch then didn't.