Drop Kick Conversions

[Davet]

Read what I write, and comment on that - not on what you think you read.

I would not give the knock on, I've said so in every post - why do you keep telling me that to do so would be wrong in Law? I know that. It's what I keep saying.

And I do not often see a player bounce a ball, catch it and then drop kick it, and I would suggest that doing so as part of a routine is "addressing the kick", but in a rather deliberately showoff manner, and while showing off is not illegal, I think that anyone charging at that point would be legal.

If the ball was live then the bounce would be a knock on.

 

[Account Deleted]

This is what you wrote:

"The reason for being tempted to do so is that he is simply farting around and it irritates me when people do that - but I would, as I said, have resisted the temptation."

So you would be tempted because he is "farting about". Well sorry you would be wrong. I am never tempted to ping a player because I don't like the way he runs or passes or anything else. In the scenario as given, he is doing nothing wrong.

If you have never seen a player drop the ball on its point before dropping out / re-starting I would suggest you watch little rugby.

That you would be tempted worries me as to your judgment. As you are an assessor it worries me even more.

A bit of empathy with the players might not go amiss.

 

[Davet]

I watch rather a lot of rugby.

Yes, I see players bounce the ball before a restart drop kick, often 2 or 3 times - though there is generally a significant pause before taking the actual drop, and even an adjustment of position / feet.

I cannot recall seeing a player bounce the ball, catch it and then drop kick immediately - generally his feet are in the wrong position tostart the drop kick instantly on catching the rebound.

I would expect a player taking a conversion who does the bounce-catch-steady/adjust-dropkick routine to be wide open to being charged - given he is probably only a dozen or so metres out and given that the charge can start the moment he drops the ball forward to bounce it. (or even as he steps forward to begin the bounce process).

The tempatation arises from the fact that in open play this would be a knock on - the fact that the temptation would be successfully resisted is down to the fact that as a conversion the ball is not live. The temptation is compounded by the fact that the player is probably not aware that unlike at a 22 drop out or a restart on halfway he can be charged the moment he begins to bounce the ball - again successfully resisted, but with a quiet satisfaction if the charge does prevent the goal - as this might bring home the lesson, "don't prat about - just play rugby".

PS -

The tenet that a referee is the sole arbiter of fact and law, allows me to be wrong, not stupid.

Actually that bit of Law prevents you being wrong.

 

[Account Deleted]

Actually that bit of Law prevents you being wrong.

No it does not!

I can be wrong! But my decision is what goes during the game right or wrong!

My assessor, and thankfully we have some good one here in Cardiff, will tell me what I got wrong after the game!

I think people need to understand what the law is trying to achieve in order to interpret it well. Sadly those who have no feel for the law make poor refs / assessors. common sense is required. There is a big difference between a bounce and a player farting about. If you can't see it then God help the people you assess.

The important fact in the scenario is it is NOT open play so the basis for your temptation is nonsense. I could suggest what it is based upon, but I guess I best not.

 

[Dixie]

He told me to 'F*ck Off'.

Blimey! You've been getting the same response to your questions for 25 years! Obviously, the Laws haven't changed as much as we think. :wink: :biggrin:

Sadly those who have no feel for the law make poor refs / assessors. common sense is required. There is a big difference between a bounce and a player farting about. If you can't see it then God help the people you assess.

Come on, Guys! Play nicely. There's a big difference between this forum and Planet Rugby, characterised by mutual respect (even when irritated). Let's do everything we can to try to retain that aspect, which is what we'd all hope for from the players in our games.

 

[Account Deleted]

Sorry when Chopper talks guff he gets it in the neck. .Why should an assessor be any different?

 

[Davet]

ATTR I rather think you've taken the mention of temptation far too seriously - I have said all the way through that such temptation would be denied, you appear to want to make something bigger out of it.

One last try to see if you understand - don't be tempted to blow the bounce as a knock forward as the ball is not yet live, and even though in open play it would be a knock forward, in this case it isn't. The player is taking a big risk and the kick should be easily preventable by anyone who is sufficiently compos mentis to charge as he prats about bouncing the ball. Perhaps my view that such pratting about deserves all it gets is what sticks in your craw - however I am not a fan of stupidity on the rugby field.

If you don't consider bouncing the ball and thus inviting a rapid charge to prevent the conversion as pratting about then maybe you can say in what way it is a smart move?

As to your sign off, the idea that you are the sole arbiter of Fact and Law in no way prevents you being stupid - that's a straightforward non-sequitur. During the game you have a form of Papal Infallibility, but even that doesn't doesn't prevent him being stupid. It just means that however stupid he's never wrong.

 

[crossref]

I think this is an empty discussion - there's no real answer, we are all asked to imagine a sequence of actions and then judge, in our imaginary sequence, when the imaginary charge could have start.

Well of course we all imagine it differently - I imagined a player in a hurry bouncing stepping kicking in one fluid motion and thought 'beautifully done, great kick.' Davet evidently imagined someone farting about and thought 'prat'

In real life you watch the kicker and make your own judgement 'NOW' at the moment they can charge. That's the moment they can charge. You know it when you see it.

It might well be the exact same moment that you think 'prat'

Now, can we go back to the leggings...

 

[Account Deleted]

ATTR I rather think you've taken the mention of temptation far too seriously - I have said all the way through that such temptation would be denied, you appear to want to make something bigger out of it.

One last try to see if you understand - don't be tempted to blow the bounce as a knock forward as the ball is not yet live, and even though in open play it would be a knock forward, in this case it isn't. The player is taking a big risk and the kick should be easily preventable by anyone who is sufficiently compos mentis to charge as he prats about bouncing the ball. Perhaps my view that such pratting about deserves all it gets is what sticks in your craw - however I am not a fan of stupidity on the rugby field.

If you don't consider bouncing the ball and thus inviting a rapid charge to prevent the conversion as pratting about then maybe you can say in what way it is a smart move?

As to your sign off, the idea that you are the sole arbiter of Fact and Law in no way prevents you being stupid - that's a straightforward non-sequitur. During the game you have a form of Papal Infallibility, but even that doesn't doesn't prevent him being stupid. It just means that however stupid he's never wrong.

Why is it pratting about? IS it pratting about when done before virtually every restart kick? Of course not so why here? Common Sense when officiating that is the most vital ingredient. Manage the situation.

Let me try one last time to make you understand. I'd not be tempted to call it a knock on for the simple reason it is not one. Why anyone could be tempted still escapes me. Unless it is an official who wants to appear clever.

As to my sign off: Again it is quite simple. A referee does not have any form of papal infallibility on the field that is simply papal bull....! Any official can and will be wrong at times. It is the nature of the beast. However, when we are wrong both the players and we have to live with it. That I am (and all referees are) "sole judge" during the game does not make my errors into correct calls. It means I call it as I see it and right or wrong that is what we play by. However, it gives me no right to make calls that are simply BAD. My assessor will deal any such stupidity.

To relate it to the scenario. I could call a Knock on when the ball actually goes backwards, because It looked forward from my position. I can't go making stupid calls in calling Knock-ons in the scenario. One error gives room for discussion on better positioning, fitness etc. The other just does not belong on the pitch.

 

[Davet]

Why is it pratting about? IS it pratting about when done before virtually every restart kick?

Can you spot the vital difference between a restart kick and taking a conversion?

Hint: it's to do with what the opposition are able to do.

Why anyone could be tempted still escapes me.

Perhaps you should concentrate on the bit I keep repeating - don't give in to temptation. I keep saying it, you keep going on about how difficult it is to see how anybody could possibly be tempted - fine lets just agree that you're a virtuous ref who cannot be even tempted, not even just a little.

Unless it is an official who wants to appear clever.

OK I understand that appearing clever is not something you would ever want to do.

How does the fact that a ref is the sole arbiter of fact and law prevent him being stupid?

 

[Account Deleted]

Can you spot the vital difference between a restart kick and taking a conversion?

Hint: it's to do with what the opposition are able to do.

Perhaps you can answer how he is pratting about. If his routine for a "static" drop kick is to bounce the ball he is just following his normal routine in the case of a conversion attempt.

Perhaps you should concentrate on the bit I keep repeating - don't give in to temptation. I keep saying it, you keep going on about how difficult it is to see how anybody could possibly be tempted - fine lets just agree that you're a virtuous ref who cannot be even tempted, not even just a little.

Being tempted to call a non offence an offence Why would a ref want to do that? It is tantamount to cheating! nothing to do with being a virtuous ref. Try HONEST!

OK I understand that appearing clever is not something you would ever want to do.

Not by showing a lack of knowledge of the laws thank you. You might be tempted to play the big "I AM". It's not what I became a ref for thanks.

How does the fact that a ref is the sole arbiter of fact and law prevent him being stupid?

Who said it does? Perhaps you should read more clearly.

 

[Account Deleted]

I suggest that this move to a private discussion if it has any point now, rather than bore the other forum members.

 

[dave_clark]

can't speak on behalf of others, but i'm enjoying it :biggrin: :wink:

 

[OB..]

I'm not. It gets in the way of trying to deal with substantive issues.

 

[Davet]

ATTR
Since - however tempted - I would not have pinged it as a knock on, and have said so throughout, I would suggest your accusation of cheating is somewhat hysterical. As is your insistance that I would be some sport of power trip - I fail entirely to see how not pinging the player for not offending is playing any sort of I AM, big or otherwise.

As to your accusation that I am ignorant of the laws - again, your seem to be unable to grasp the simple logic - I was always aware that this was not an offence, and have never advocated penalising it.

The player who unthinkingly follows his drop kick routine of bouncing the ball - and indeed players often do this 2 or more times before a kick off or 22 - is guilty of pratting around when he does this at a conversion - given that the opposition can close him down very quickly, which they cannot do at any other time. Are you suggesting that playersare best advised to stick to rote moves rather than responding to the circumstances? Probably not, but if not then it unclear what your point actually is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davet
How does the fact that a ref is the sole arbiter of fact and law prevent him being stupid?

Who said it does? Perhaps you should read more clearly.
__________________
The tenet that a referee is the sole arbiter of fact and law, allows me to be wrong, not stupid.

I only read what you write - if that's not what you mean then write better.

 

[Account Deleted]

There is a clear difference. Funny your the only person who's ever had a problem understanding it.

 

[Davet]

Difference in what?

 

[chopper15]

By all means berate each other in open forum, but didn't Flip Flop (#14) give the logical answer to violating DK conversion protocol at the outset?

Perhaps if the two protagonists acknowledge and accept in open forum his suggested management, we can all be sure they're still on the same wavelength regarding common-sense?:hap:

PS. If they're not interested, can somebody please assure me that Flip Flop's management is a sensible solution, please? FWIW, I think it is.:hap:

 

[Phil E]

Only just joined this thread.

Did Davet really say "bouncing the ball before a kick is a knock on"?















:Nerv: :bday:

 

[OB..]

The tenet that a referee is the sole arbiter of fact and law, allows me to be wrong, not stupid.

Law 6.a.4 (a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

Strictly speaking the laws do not "allow" the referee to be wrong, they simply say that if he is, his decision must be accepted.

I don't think the aphorism is intended to be literally true, but I don't think it is a particularly good one either. YMMV.