[Law] Deliberate knock on to get the (on comming) penalty fast

[dhammikaheenpella]

Playing at 10m line, referee indicates advantage for a penalty against the defending team. Noticing that the defenders were slow to back 10m, the scrumhalf of the attacking team, takes the ball and knocks it forward deliberately in order to get the (on comming) penalty fast. But referee warns him saying that the advantage was given only to continue the play but not otherwise.

My question is that, is the scrumhalf's action, against the rules of the game? Is the referee right in his decision?

 

[didds]

I seriously dislike this deliberate knock-on thing - but understand why it is done.

The ref whatever I think was incorrect - unless (arguably) he actually them PKd the scrumhalf for a deliberate knock-on ... and would be the first referee ever in the history of the game in the entire universe to do so for this use of a deliberate knock-on.

I blame George Gregan.

didds

 

[DocY]

I blame George Gregan.

It was a South African stand off who is recorded as starting it, I think. It was referred to as so-and-so's gambit, though I forget his name. A few years before Gregan (before Stransky, IIRC).

I really don't like it either and will generally have a stern word with any player doing it.

 

[didds]

Purely OOI DocY, what protocol do you use with players that want the PK immediately and no advantage to be played?

didds

 

[DocY]

Purely OOI DocY, what protocol do you use with players that want the PK immediately and no advantage to be played?didds

I prefer to have the captain ask for advantage - that's usually the basis of my 'stern words' - it somehow feels better than the deliberate knock-on.

I try quite hard not to get into these situations though (mostly successfully, though I have had a couple of clangers). If it's that obvious to the half backs that they'd want a penalty rather than advantage, it's usually obvious to me and I blow up.

Something I am quite strict on is the deliberate knock-on followed by a quick tap - hard to see that coming and I'd always bring that back and have the penalty re-taken.

 

[crossref]

Something I am quite strict on is the deliberate knock-on followed by a quick tap - hard to see that coming and I'd always bring that back and have the penalty re-taken.

you are OK with them asking you for the PK -- and then doing a quick tap?

 

[DocY]

you are OK with them asking you for the PK -- and then doing a quick tap?

I can't remember that coming up, at least not in a trying to milk a penalty sense, but I think I'd be okay with it. Not sure how I'd justify the difference though.

The situation I was referring to was the very quick tap (sometimes even before I've blown my whistle), but I guess the outcome can be the same if they've asked for a penalty.

Maybe a better distinction would be whether the tapper has the ball in his hands (cleanly) when the penalty is awarded - if he does, no quick tap.

 

[dhammikaheenpella]

DocY,

Thanks - that's your opinion and preference. I guess scrumhalf's action is covered in the law book, but where does this action of referee justify (or warrant) in the law book (law No)?

 

[DocY]

DocY, Thank you.Where does the action of the referee justify (or cover) in the law book (law No)?

I don't think it does, other than 6.A.8(b) (the referee can stop play at any time) - by the letter of the law the deliberate knock-on is perfectly legitimate and you should blow for the first infringement (8.5), but to me it's not in the spirit of the game, so should be discouraged.

 

[dhammikaheenpella]

Thanks DocY, makes perfect sense.

 

[Dixie]

dhammikaheenpella (can we shorten that to DH?), I think much depends on exactly how the referee handled the situation. If he observed the deliberate knock-on, awarded the PK to the attackers (whose #9 had knocked on) but prevented the quick tap in order to have words with the #9 regarding how he wanted things to be done in future, that to me is fine. Attack got the PK they deserved, Ref gets the compliance he desires and #9 gets advice about how to avoid a Yellow Card for future repeated deliberate offending.

If, however, he restarted with something other than a PK to the attack then I think he probably could have handled it better. A ref who has issues with this very common practice (common but illegal - those who say it's perfectly legitimate to deliberately knock on have not properly read the Foul Play laws under 10.2) is probably well advised to cover the issue in his pre-match brief.

[LAWS]10.2(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

Maybe a better distinction would be whether the tapper has the ball in his hands (cleanly) when the penalty is awarded - if he does, no quick tap.

It's a serious question and I throw it open for discussion.

you signal PK advantage to white, and white scrum half - as requested - verbally asks for the PK, please.

as soon as you blow, he takes a quick one. Is that OK?

my view is that it is, OK.

DocY, your answer is that if the SH has the ball in his hands already, it's not OK, but if the ball was at his feet, then it is OK (?)

 

[OB..]

Playing at 10m line, referee indicates advantage for a penalty against the defending team. Noticing that the defenders were slow to back 10m,

The penalty has not yet been awarded, so the players do not yet have to retreat 10m.

 

[DocY]

It's a serious question and I throw it open for discussion.

you signal PK advantage to white, and white scrum half - as requested - verbally asks for the PK, please.

as soon as you blow, he takes a quick one. Is that OK?

my view is that it is, OK.

DocY, your answer is that if the SH has the ball in his hands already, it's not OK, but if the ball was at his feet, then it is OK (?)

Perhaps that wasn't a good determining factor either! I'd say if one was okay, then so was the other (no harder to take a tap by kicking it along the ground)

The point I was trying to make is that awarding a penalty when one team has immediate access to the ball at the place of infringement could make a quick tap overly advantageous - the defending team would have literally no time to retreat and any reasonable scrum half should be through the line and clear before they can legally lay a finger on him.

I can understand if others think this is fine, but it doesn't sit too squarely with me. I'm not sure how I'd deal with it if (when) it happens, mind!

 

[dhammikaheenpella]

True, what I wanted to say was that SH wanted the PK fast

 

[dhammikaheenpella]

Thanks Dixie, this answers my question. So under this rule, the ref can justify his action.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Dixie, this answers my question. So under this rule, the ref can justify his action.

 

[chbg]

What we have to watch out for is if the offending team are drawn into defending the advantage e.g. moving to tackle the SH, who then calls to use the QT, rather than being able to react to a PK whistle. The quicker the request is made, i.e. without delay after advantage indication, the better; after starting to use the advantage, then a QT can be too quick and inequitable. I would probably be 'slow' to react to a deliberate KO: they cannot take the PK until the whistle has been blown and primary signal given.

 

[L'irlandais]

Dhammika Heenpella,
Good to see you posting more questions.
How is the U19 going in Sri Lanka this season? Wonder if Robbie is planning some new flags any time soon?View attachment 3417

 

[chrismtl]

From memory, there was one of those mysterious WR memos a year or 2 ago, or maybe it was an associations GMGs, but if a SH intentionally ko's for a penalty or if they ask for the penalty, you award the penalty, but don't let them go quick. If you do that the first time, they won't do it again.

As a SH, I'd usually try it just to win a free 10m every single time. I only ever had 1 ref threaten to reverse the penalty because of the intentional ko. The game was also reffed a bit differently a few years ago though.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It was a South African stand off who is recorded as starting it, I think. It was referred to as so-and-so's gambit, though I forget his name. A few years before Gregan (before Stransky, IIRC).

Johan Roux, a scrumhalf IIRC

I really don't like it either and will generally have a stern word with any player doing it.

Really, the SH or Captain should simply be able to say "declined" any time he wants to take the PK instead of advantage.