A referee's pub debate

[FightOrFlight]

I was at a gathering of refs recently when an old campaigner long retired put a question to a few of us.

It goes like this:

PK awarded and the team go for the posts. Kicker kicks it but through some misfortune be it wind, off the post or other the ball goes into touch.

What happens?

It's an interesting one

 

[pwhaling]

Irb clarification 2 2006

If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in.
Law 21.4(d).

 

[Dixie]

If we are confident it's just misfortune, there is no reason to treat it as the wrong kind of kick. Consequently, it's a throw-in. The question is where and to whom?

The answer is that it is a throw-in to the defending team. As to where - that is rather more open to question. Out on the full, it should be in line with where the ball was kicked.

[LAWS]Clarification 2 2006

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling

2-2006


Union

FFR


Law Reference

19,21


Date

10 January 2006


Request

Law 19.1 (e) stipulates: “Penalty kick. When a player kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing area, the throw in is taken from where the ball went into touch.”

Law 19.4 (Exception) has the following precision. “When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw in is taken by the player of the team who took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch.”

Finally, Law 21.4 (d) requires for “kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch.”

Following a penalty kick and after the ball was kicked, the ball hits the goal post and goes into touch without having been touched by another player.
What decision should the referee give?


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in.
Law 21.4(d).

If the penalty kick is for touch, therefore no place kick, then it is a lineout attacking team to throw in.

The lineout in either of these situations may not be closer than 5 metres from the goal line. Law 19.4 Exception.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

I have never understood the logic behind that ruling. It followed an incident where the ball hit a post and went into touch. It is therefore obvious that the player was not intending to place kick the ball into touch. The law says he "must not place kick for touch." He didn't. He place kicked for goal.

Perhaps they meant to say he "must not place kick into touch", but they didn't.

The only sanction under law 21.4 (d) is a scrum at the mark, opponents to throw in, so why do they rule a lineout?

My view is that depriving a team of any value from the penalty as a consequence of a freak occurrence is unfair. I would like the team to be allowed the lineout.

(If the ball is badly sliced across the posts, the situation is tricky, since that could be a ploy to get round the law.)

 

[Dickie E]

As to where - that is rather more open to question. Out on the full, it should be in line with where the ball was kicked.

Disagree. Lineout is where ball crosses touch. Altough very unlikely to occur.

 

[Dickie E]

I have never understood the logic behind that ruling.

Logic is sound. Kicking team have had their one bite of the cherry and messed it up. They shouldn't then get gain in ground AND the throw.

If the ball had hit the post and gone TiG, I think we would all be comfortable with a 22 drop out.

 

[Dixie]

Disagree. Lineout is where ball crosses touch. Altough very unlikely to occur.

[LAWS]19.1(i) Penalty kick. When a player kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing
area, the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]21.4(e) Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place
kick for touch.[/LAWS]

Dickie, the combined effect of these two laws indicates to me that because the penalty taker cannot place kick to touch, the exception on gain in ground granted for a penalty kick to touch cannot possibly apply here.

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]19.1(i) Penalty kick. When a player kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing
area, the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]21.4(e) Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place
kick for touch.[/LAWS]

I distinguish kicking "for touch" from kicking "into touch". I agree it is possible to view them as being the same, but you don't have to.

The ruling implies that once the ball has hit the post, it no longer counts as a penalty kick. It follows that if the ball hits the outside of the post and goes dead through in-goal, the opposition should have the option of a 22 or a scrum back.

There is also the problem that the sanction for kicking "for touch" is a scrum to the opposition at the mark, not a lineout. That surely applies even if you equate "for" with "into".

 

[The Fat]

Wasn't the clarification from 2006?
Has the law been rewritten since then and superseded the clarification?

 

[Dixie]

I distinguish kicking "for touch" from kicking "into touch". I agree it is possible to view them as being the same, but you don't have to.

The ruling implies that once the ball has hit the post, it no longer counts as a penalty kick. It follows that if the ball hits the outside of the post and goes dead through in-goal, the opposition should have the option of a 22 or a scrum back.

There is also the problem that the sanction for kicking "for touch" is a scrum to the opposition at the mark, not a lineout. That surely applies even if you equate "for" with "into".

For me, the issue is less the distinction (if any) between Kicking for Touch and Kicking Into Touch, but rather it has more to do with the very special status of kicking for goal.

This type of penalty kick has to be notified to the referee ahead of time. It brings with it its own special rules as regards (for example) the restart in the event of going beyond the DBL; and indeed going over the posts. It seems to me that the decision in the ruling has more to do with the outcome of the very specific type of kick chosen, than the simple fact that it ultimately went into touch. If the kicker had NOT elected to kick at goal, but had rather aimed his place kick as an up'n'under towards the posts for his wingers to chase, then it is possible that the Committee might have decided the outcome of the case differently.

 

[RobLev]

I distinguish kicking "for touch" from kicking "into touch". I agree it is possible to view them as being the same, but you don't have to.

The ruling implies that once the ball has hit the post, it no longer counts as a penalty kick. It follows that if the ball hits the outside of the post and goes dead through in-goal, the opposition should have the option of a 22 or a scrum back.

But 22.4 expressly provides for that situation:

[LAWS]If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the defending team has two choices:[/LAWS]

There is also the problem that the sanction for kicking "for touch" is a scrum to the opposition at the mark, not a lineout. That surely applies even if you equate "for" with "into".

 

[The Fat]

Anyone have a copy of the 2006 law book to see how this law read back then?

 

[OB..]

Anyone have a copy of the 2006 law book to see how this law read back then?

Law 21.4 (d) in 2006 is now Law 21.4(e) because Law 21.4 (b) has been inserted. The wording is identical, as is the sanction.

Even if you think that kicking "for" touch should include a kick that accidentally goes into touch, the sanction is surely a scrum, not a lineout

The prohibition was introduced to speed up the game, since players were taking a lot of time over place kicks, arguing that they were more accurate than punts.