That’s how I read it. I just feel we need a definition on what ‘a commencement to approach’ means in practice/application.I read it to mean any movement is a commencement to approach
That’s how I read it. I just feel we need a definition on what ‘a commencement to approach’ means in practice/application.I read it to mean any movement is a commencement to approach
I agreeThat’s how I read it. I just feel we need a definition on what ‘a commencement to approach’ means in practice/application.
I think it must be only the movement of the feet that counts
Perhaps it's the action of lifting a foot from the floor
The Referee’s interpretation in this example was correct. The moment the kicker moves in any direction it is deemed that he is ‘approaching to kick’.
From the law clarification link:
I always thought it was when the kicker moved forward, was considered the "approach". This clarification seems more ambiguous to me.
The kicker generally moves ("in any direction") shortly after they place the ball on the tee, when they start backing away from it to get to their spot before moving forward to kick. Obviously we know that would be too soon for a defender to charge, but the clarification seems to imply that would be ok?
After setting the ball the kicker will go through their routine. At some point they will set themselves and become stationary. After that, any movement of the feet, in any direction, will indicate the charge can start.
The video from the clarification shows those distinct parts, we see the pause then the step back, and one might assume given the distinct nature of the kicker's action it was quite obvious to those reviewing the request that this was the kicker's "approach".From a kickers perspective there are two distinct parts to the kick. The set up involving placing, addressing the ball, stepping back and to the side (maybe throwing some grass) then the second part is the actual movement to kick the ball. In my view kickers have a responsibility to ensure the two parts are distinct from each other to avoid confusion. It is of course in their own interest to do (also like asking the referee's permission to advance towards a ball to replace it on the tee after it has fallen over). I have occasionally spoken to kickers after a kick to advise them that their 'routine' could be constured as commencement of the kick earlier than they think.
If the video had shown the kicker stepping back from the ball to the "start position" and the charge down commencing then, it might have been a differing response."as the kicker stepped back as part of his kicking routine"
I think the time to coach it out of kickers was a long time ago, but IMO now the cat is out of the bag.The video from the clarification shows those distinct parts, we see the pause then the step back, and one might assume given the distinct nature of the kicker's action it was quite obvious to those reviewing the request that this was the kicker's "approach".
The request actually states:
If the video had shown the kicker stepping back from the ball to the "start position" and the charge down commencing then, it might have been a differing response.
Is it something to coach out of kickers?
Ot not stop the backward step, but c;larify the approach starts with a motion TOWARDS the ball.I think the time to coach it out of kickers was a long time ago, but IMO now the cat is out of the bag.
WR need to explicitly put a stop to it with a law clarification for that to change.
Ot not stop the backward step, but c;larify the approach starts with a motion TOWARDS the ball.
alternatively etc
My main concern with calling this a PK is whether the player intentionally interfered with play. I would have thought that the relevant section here is 10.9 10.10 & 10.11 which refer to retiring after a TRM etc, not the offside in general play. The examples WR show in that section of the law both show deliberate interference or actions undertaken by the player which prevents the attacking side to use the ball as they wish, not a player regaining their feet. The law even states that a player needs to immediately retire to an onside position, meaning that the laws intend players to attempt to regain an onside position, not just wait for the game to move away. If, as some believe, a player who is retiring is offside if they get hit with a ball regardless of their actions, then we won't see more than a couple of phases in a good field position until the attackers get a defender into an offside position and a ball gets thrown into them and they go for three points.
For mine it's not in the spirit of the laws and certainly feels like a gotcha rather than a highly dynamic and exciting sport.
Conversely a player standing still , in the 9 10 channel , is interfering just by being thereI]
An offside player may be penalised if they interfere with play... simply being in an offside position does not automatically warrant a penalty, IMHO. A player flat on the floor and not interfering with play should not be penalised.
Absolutely agreeConversely a player standing still , in the 9 10 channel , is interfering just by being there