[Law] Approaching a kick

[TheBFG]

Can't see if this has been done........

9.B.4 The opposing team
(a)
All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal line and must not overstep that line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions.

What if once the kicker is "set"; their first movement is backwards? Would people allow the non-kicking team to charge at that point?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Can't see if this has been done........

9.B.4 The opposing team
(a)
All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal line and must not overstep that line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions.

What if once the kicker is "set"; their first movement is backwards? Would people allow the non-kicking team to charge at that point?

Yes I would.

 

[chbg]

So would I.

If you wanted to be pedantic, the wording is "begins the approach", not "starts to approach". The approach begins when the kicker starts to move from a static position.

 

[Pegleg]

Sorry but the wording is:

"9.B.4 THE OPPOSING TEAM
(a) All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal line and must not overstep that
line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this,
they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other
players in these actions."

Exactly as in the OP..

So back to the question. A movement in any direction can be interpreted as "...begins the approach to kick or starts to kick..." . I'd allow the charge

 

[Dickie E]

Good question. What if the step backwards is not the start of a fluid movement towards the ball and is just the kicker rearranging his distance & angle from the ball? Chargers are often confused by this.

 

[Decorily]

Chargers are often confused by this.

Indeed.. and kickers often do this to confuse chargers!!

 

[Pegleg]

Good question. What if the step backwards is not the start of a fluid movement towards the ball and is just the kicker rearranging his distance & angle from the ball? Chargers are often confused by this.

The ref decides what the intent any movement is and depending on his / her view may allow the charge, disallow or just reset and "manage".

 

[chbg]

Good question. What if the step backwards is not the start of a fluid movement towards the ball and is just the kicker rearranging his distance & angle from the ball? Chargers are often confused by this.

First time they are likely (by me) to be given an opportunity to understand the kicker's prepartion, and therefore allowed to re-charge. Thereafter they have to be quick learners.

 

[DocY]

Aaron Cruden leaps to mind - about 4:50 in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV5zndjlv7w To be fair - he'd been doing it all game.

On a related note, would anyone penalise in this situation:
As above, green start to charge and realise they shouldn't, but then go and stand right in the way of the kicker to make damn sure he misses his first attempt.
I'd be inclined to just let the kicker re-take the kick, but I can see a case for intentional offending.

And to be really controversial, if you did decide it was penalisable, would you restart with the PK, or just blow for full time?

 

[crossref]

I thought that was really tough on Ireland.

Seeing as the whole thing depends on the referee's interpretation of a very subtle movement - it would be better all round if the referee watched the kicker and gave a signal to indicate when the charge can begin.

This would be completely in line with other signals that we give : eg that the line out is over and backs can advance, or when we shout 'tackle only' or 'ruck' or 'maul' to let players know what phase we are are in.

The signal could be exactly as we do for a line out -- when the kicker starts to address the ball the referee raises his arm, and when when the kicker begins the approach to kick, the referee drops his arm, indicating they can charge. (Nigel Owens almost invents this on the fly, but not quite)

 

[tim White]

To be fair, the kicker used exactly the same 'stutter' before he moved forwards in both kicks

 

[crossref]

To be fair, the kicker used exactly the same 'stutter' before he moved forwards in both kicks

but to be fair - that stutter makes it very hard for the defending team - who need to work out, with no clues, whether or not the referee believes the stutter to be the start of the approach.

 

[DocY]

but to be fair - that stutter makes it very hard for the defending team - who need to work out, with no clues, whether or not the referee believes the stutter to be the start of the approach.

IIRC they were pinged for the same thing earlier in the match.

I like your idea of signalling when they can approach, though. I'll keep that in my back pocket for next time I'm refereeing Aaron Cruden

(or, perhaps more likely, another kicker who does a funny shuffle)

 

[crossref]

IIRC they were pinged for the same thing earlier in the match.

were they? I don't remember that

So, if they had thought of it, they could have asked NO, on that last kick, please could he give a signal .

Even though it would have been a novel request, it's so eminently reasonable, and NO is so pragmatic, I bet he would have done it.

 

[DocY]

were they? I don't remember that

Actually they weren't actually pinged - they charged too early after the second try, but he made the kick anyway (the full game is on youtube and it's a slow day at work).

 

[SimonSmith]

Other than Ronan O'Gara getting charged in front of the sticks, when was the last time a conversion was charged, at any level?

In my world - never

 

[crossref]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?cli...KEwigicKDlqHPAhXsFZoKHRXMBH4QBQglKAA&dpr=2.63