[In-goal] boot to ball

[Dickie E]

thoughts on this one?

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-boot-to-ball/2830631/

I'll go first. I think the ref got it wrong.

 

[Flish]

Gut reaction is ref got it wrong, and that's not a kick - but, if the laws quoted by sarefs are correct, that intention is no part of it, then seems he was right, even if it feels wrong

 

[Dickie E]

I don't accept the contention that intent (aka deliberate acts) is not an important distinction in rugby and to suggest otherwise (by SArefs) is weasly.

The way I saw it, the ball carrier was as much at fault by placing the ball onto the foot of the defender. Ball & foot incidentally ended up at the same place, at the same time. IMO.

 

[menace]

I'm quite surprised you think that the ref got it wrong?

To me it was quite clear, especially from the front on view, that the player thrusts out his leg/foot to prevent the try. Although it was more instinctive than anything but he took a risk using his leg to stop a try and lost. If you don't want to be accused of kicking the ball out then don't defend with your legs. I feel the YC seemed a bit harsh but the law is quite clear that it had to be YC.

 

[RobLev]

I'm quite surprised you think that the ref got it wrong?

To me it was quite clear, especially from the front on view, that the player thrusts out his leg/foot to prevent the try. Although it was more instinctive than anything but he took a risk using his leg to stop a try and lost. If you don't want to be accused of kicking the ball out then don't defend with your legs. I feel the YC seemed a bit harsh but the law is quite clear that it had to be YC.

I agree entirely. The defender doesn't just put his foot "down on the ground" - he stretches out at best to put it underneath where the ball will be placed, and in so doing knocks the ball from the attacker's hand.

 

[crossref]

i thought the TMO and ref got it right -- ball kicked out of hand = PK = PT = YC.

The YC was harsh, but mandated when there is a PT (that's the Law that should change, ref should have discretion to not give YC in unusual circumstances, like this)

 

[Andrew1974]

To my mind the only decison to make is was it ball to foot or foot to ball. If it is the first then play on (a defender cannot control where the attacker chooses to place the ball after his foot is planted), if is the second then decison as given by the ref.

For me it was boot to ball, the defender stretches his leg to get his foot to the ball, therefore IMHO correct decision, although I can accept that others may seeit differently.

 

[Rich_NL]

I don't see any problem with the ref's call at all, given the laws as they are. The defender didn't dive to rip the ball, he took a long step to cover the tryline.

 

[Phil E]

I think the ref got it absolutely right.
Too many times this kicking the ball from a scoring players hands is ignored.

The YC was harsh, but mandated when there is a PT (that's the Law that should change, ref should have discretion to not give YC in unusual circumstances, like this)

The YC is NOT mandated. The ref does have discretion.

[LAWS]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

[aside :good example of where the referee is absolutely required to judge intention]

So perhaps the ref could have eschewed the YC in that circumstance. My view was that while kicking the ball from the hands is generally speaking dangerous, in that particular instance it wasn't, and I felt he was more instinctively trying to get his foot in the way than really thinking : I'll bloody well kick it out of his hands....

 

[Dickie E]

Too many times this kicking the ball from a scoring players hands is ignored.

See it a bit, do you?

 

[crossref]

See it a bit, do you?

In the last few years I have seen it once -- and I gave a YC.

 

[Phil E]

See it a bit, do you?

Only on the TV :biggrin:

 

[DocY]

Definitely a PT for me, but I didn't think it was C&O intention, so if a YC is only to be given for intentional offences (I must have missed that clarification - never liked the idea that a PT automatically means a YC, though) then it seems harsh to me.

 

[Phil E]

Definitely a PT for me, but I didn't think it was C&O intention, so if a YC is only to be given for intentional offences (I must have missed that clarification - never liked the idea that a PT automatically means a YC, though) then it seems harsh to me.

The clarification came out in 2004.

 

[DocY]

The clarification came out in 2004.

Ah - I wasn't even reffing then! I thought the PT=YC directive was much more recent (circa 2014), but I can't anything from that time. I'm glad the 2004 clarification still holds!

 

[tim White]

In may not have been the intention to kick the ball -but kick it he clearly did while still in the hand of the attacking player. Clear and Obvious Penalty try from the in-goal camera angle. Well done the TMO.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree with the PT decision . The player clearly thrusts his foot out a lot further than looked natural for someone merely planting it for balance. I thought the YC was a bit harsh.

However, it does seem odd to me that kicking the ball out of a player's hands is an infringement, but kicking a ball which is on the ground and about to be forced for a try is not. IMO the latter is potentially more dangerous than the former.

 

[beckett50]

To me the boot is on the ground before the ball arrives at that grid reference. The player that received the YC had got into position and placed his foot, and he could not have known that that was the exact grid reference that the ball carrier would attempt to reach forward and ground the ball.

IMO wrong call, but I understand the explanation just think that it is trying to justify the wrong call.

 

[OB..]

To me the boot is on the ground before the ball arrives at that grid reference. The player that received the YC had got into position and placed his foot, and he could not have known that that was the exact grid reference that the ball carrier would attempt to reach forward and ground the ball.

IMO wrong call, but I understand the explanation just think that it is trying to justify the wrong call.

It looks to me as if he intended to use his foot to prevent the grounding. I see it as an attempt to kick the ball that he misjudged. Believing that you can prevent grounding by getting a foot under the ball is unrealistic. If the ball had simply been lying on the ground, his action would surely have been regarded as a kick?