Charging the conversion from a penalty try

[Pegleg]

I'd be wary of this approach - if you disallow the charge as a penalty for not retiring, then you have effectively given them options (retire and charge or don't retire and don't charge) and in doing so given them permission not to retire.

They may well decide its a great bargain - give up the right to charge (a virtually pointless activity anyway) and they can gather on the half way line planning a rapid restart.

If they don't retire then they don't get the chance to take an quick restart. It's about game management. They should (MUST) go behind the goal line 9.4 (b) if they don't then they lose the rights that compliand gives them. So no charge and no quick restart.

 

[crossref]

that's not really my point.
if you offer them the choice -- "if you are not all behind the line, you don't get to charge, and I'll slow you down at the restart" they may well say "That's fine, in that case we'll all 15 of of us rest at the centre line then -- and no problem waiting for you to give the nod on the restart"

and now you have all the team middle while the conversion is taking place, which looks all wrong, and you're possibly wishing you hadn't offered them the choice, and just made them get behind the line like they are supposed to.

 

[Pegleg]

that's not really my point.

Is it not?

They may well decide its a great bargain - give up the right to charge (a virtually pointless activity anyway) and they can gather on the half way line planning a rapid restart.

The point is you manage the game. A player left behind waiting for a normal restart is really not a problem unless you are a jobsworth. a team trying to sneak a quick restart with no one back in the other half is a problem.

Are you really telling me that at "no side" you'd make a player trudge 100 yards back to stand behind the posts following a break away try? Use common sense. Don't let their non-complience lead to an advantage for them. If you like adopt the principle of "material effect".

 

[crossref]

you are missing my point. What I don't agree with is this made-up sanction of not-charging.

no, of course it's not necessary for every single knackered player trudge back 100m after a break away try. It's not important.

But what I wouldn't do, if one or two are missing, is impose a completely made-up sanction on the team, and tell them they can't charge.

I mean WTF! If you think the missing trudgers are important, then make them hurry up, and make everyone else wait. If they are not important then just ignore them. You can't start making up alternative sanctions of your own.

And illustrating the danger of made-up punishments (over and above just being dreadful thing in itself), you punishment invites all the other 13 players to also not bother next time. They simply might prefer not to.

 

[Pegleg]

So instead you slow the game down? They have to get back if the don't comply as a team the team is sanctioned. A little common sense is required here

The correct sanction is:


Sanction: (a)-(c) If the opposing team infringes but the kick is successful, the goal stands.

If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker may take another kick and the opposing team is not allowed to charge.

So why not cut to the chase? You way we allow the kick and if he misses we go through the process again. Why waste time? Let's apply the laws with common sense.

 

[crossref]

if there are a couple of trudgers I reckon the sensible ref has a few choices

1 - ignore them completely as not material and the kick stands/fails
2 - manage everyone to ensure - one way or another - they are behind the line before the kick is taken
3 - as you say above, you allow the kick and if it misses, follow the letter of the Law, and give the kicker a second chance

In different circumstances I have done both (1) and (2).
I wouldn't completely rule out (3), never say never, perhaps there are scenarios where that's the right method, but can't really think of one and that's my least favoured option.

I DON'T think there is a 4th option : allow the trudgers to remain where they are and make up your own special sanction that's not in the Law book 'in that case, boys, if those two are going to carry on trudging, I am going to say : no charging' . I just don't think you can do that. What will you do if the captian looks you in the eye and charges anyway? YC him?
you are putting yourself in a tricky situation when you make up Laws.

 

[Pegleg]

Make it clear to him that if he charges you will allow a retake. Or he gets his team complient. His call.

 

[crossref]

Make it clear to him that if he charges you will allow a retake. Or he gets his team complient. His call.

so let's say he say 'fine, we won't charge' and they don't charge; the kicker misses and his captain cannily demands to re-take the kick as the opponents weren't behind the line and weren't compliant. So he's entitled to re-take as per the Law you just quoted.

what are you going to do now?
- you can hardly say it wasn't material, as a moment ago you made clear that it WAS material
- the fact that you offered a no-charging deal to the oppo is neither here nor there, that's not in the Laws, the kicking captain doesn't want to hear anything about that.


as soon as you make up Laws you set off down a path where there is nothing but trouble.

 

[didds]

I've not thought or heard of this before. There seems to be some basis in law but I am generally not an advocate of "if player A doesn't comply then I'll punish player B". Anyone else do this?

We quite often read here of referees that suggest carding the captain for his players' misdemeanours?

didds

 

[didds]

So instead you slow the game down?

Stop the clock and restart it at KO?

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

you are missing my point. What I don't agree with is this made-up sanction of not-charging.

no, of course it's not necessary for every single knackered player trudge back 100m after a break away try. It's not important.

But what I wouldn't do, if one or two are missing, is impose a completely made-up sanction on the team, and tell them they can't charge.

I mean WTF! If you think the missing trudgers are important, then make them hurry up, and make everyone else wait. If they are not important then just ignore them. You can't start making up alternative sanctions of your own.

And illustrating the danger of made-up punishments (over and above just being dreadful thing in itself), you punishment invites all the other 13 players to also not bother next time. They simply might prefer not to.

[my bold] As soon as you allow them to not go to the goal line, you're in the territory of MSU. Once you allow that, then the 'no charge' idea has equal validity. The principle is the same, and I'm not sure that the degree of difference is all that big.

 

[crossref]

[my bold] As soon as you allow them to not go to the goal line, you're in the territory of MSU. Once you allow that, then the 'no charge' idea has equal validity. The principle is the same, and I'm not sure that the degree of difference is all that big.

no, if you ignore a couple of trudgers you are in the territory of not material, which is different.

if you think it is material, and it may well be, then get them all behind the goal line.
But don't offer them a deal : "those two can stay up field as long as the rest of you don't charge"

 

[ChrisR]

Personally I'd advocate a law change to require players from the scored upon side to move either to the goal line or the 10m line. Players on the goal line may charge the kick. This would facilitate restarts.

 

[Taff]

.... of course it's not necessary for every single knackered player trudge back 100m after a break away try. It's not important.

They don't have to be "knackered". I had a conversion last weekend, where there were 2 injured players being treated nearby - but not close enough to be material. The kicker wasn't bothered by them, so if he's happy, I'm happy. One of the injured players had a mate with him, so that made a total of 3 players well in front of the goal line.

Some of the players behind the goal line charged; the ones in front either couldn't ... or had enough common sense to not even try.

 

[Simon Thomas]

An Assessor told me that the retreat back to the goal line was part of the punishment for shipping the score.

YMMV

which side of the Atlantic was he from ?

bit harsh.....yes at 1st XV league match levels behind the posts please, but in more social levels of rugby mange it - we are there to help the players get enjoyment from the match.

 

[Taff]

which side of the Atlantic was he from? bit harsh.....yes at 1st XV league match levels behind the posts please, but in more social levels of rugby mange it - we are there to help the players get enjoyment from the match.

Exactly. There's no point being too fussy about it. It's not really important is it?