Foot intercept

[pippobaccello]

Scrum half get the ball from the scrum and tries to pass to 10. The opposite 9 lifts the leg to intercept, kicks the ball (not the 9's hands, of course) and steals it. Is it ok or foul play? It seems ok to me, as being a kick it's not a volounteer forward pass.

 

[menace]

Seems ok to me if the ball has left the 9s hands (and defender remained onside behind the ball the whole time). But if that foot touches anything other than the ball, then I'm likely to PK or higher (for dangerous play).
So the defender has to get his timing spot on. Not sure the risk is worth it?

 

[Rushforth]

First of all welcome!

My immediate reaction to the photo agrees with yours that there is no 'foul play', by which I mean the foul sense of the word.

From a photo I cannot tell if the blue SH had previously been offside, but at the least it is not "clear and obvious" that he was, with his entire left calf obscured by the red back row.

The only real question in my mind is how his foot got there so fast, which might be answered by the distance of 59 from back foot.

 

[Browner]

Welcome,

#59 ....wow , that's a big squad.

Looks OK to me, but it carries risks for sure ....if he can get his timing right then good luck , if he fails badly then .... goodnight !
But it looks a rather controlled lunge, albeit desperate.


PS.... Don't you just love these grassless pitches , they re great for slidding in to score a try from 10meters out !

 

[Simon Thomas]

Looks legal to me and not an unknown tactic to some scrum halves :biggrin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Looks legal to me and not an unknown tactic to some scrum halves :biggrin:

Looks familar then Simon?

 

[Balones]

I would be inclined to tell a referee to ping it for dangerous play. This is too close for comfort. if the ball was totally in open play then no problem. To allow this may encourage other players to intercept with a foot close to a player later in the game (or next week) with not so fortunate outcomes. We have for sometime got some sort of agreement amongst refs that we should penalise the action/intention and not the outcome. There is not enough in the photo to show how close it actually was and the exact timing of the foot in relation to the pass. It doesn't really matter to me because it is something that we should not be encouraging. In this case I would expect the player to be admonished at least and told not to attempt it again.

 

[Stuartg]

Scrum half get the ball from the scrum and tries to pass to 10. The opposite 9 lifts the leg to intercept, kicks the ball (not the 9's hands, of course) and steals it. Is it ok or foul play? It seems ok to me, as being a kick it's not a volounteer forward pass.

Using the same assumptions as everyone else I'm happy to play on. However at the next stoppage have a word with the black SH about the dangers of getting it wrong and that you'll be watching closely.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Looks familar then Simon?

Even the discrete little shirt pull by black 9 on red number 8 (wearing 25) trying to get a reaction and buy a cheap PK.

 

[Balones]

Using the same assumptions as everyone else I'm happy to play on. However at the next stoppage have a word with the black SH about the dangers of getting it wrong and that you'll be watching closely.

I believe the tactic worked according to the OP so the next stoppage is immediate.
It is dangerous play and not foul play and is something that we should discourage.
If the foot had made contact then a yellow card would be in order or at least supported. Therefore one step back (I.e attempt) could also be a supported penalty. But a good telling off would also be accepted depending on the closeness.

 

[pippobaccello]

Tks to everybody.
The game ref accepted the play and then talked to the boy, saying that it was allowed but could be dangerous.
I was not at the game so could not tell how close it was. Regarding the shirt pull ... hey, :smile: he's a 9, isn't him ?

Ciao
Marco

 

[FlipFlop]

I think this is one of those: It looks dangerous, so I you need to be careful. I would start with assumption of dangerous play, unless I clearly saw the contact was ball only. (rather than assume it is not dangerous unless I saw contact).

So really difficult to rule on the basis of a still photo. Did the foot carry on and make contact with the SH? was it clear and obvious that no contact was made? (especially to the torso/head) Was the kick a "cancan" kick, or more a horizontal "stamp" - makes a difference to which bits of the body likely to contact. If C&O that no contact was made, then play on, otherwise I would penalise for dangerous play.

But I think it looks like the chances are, that in the photo, there was no contact, and it looks like the ball has clearly gone before ball was kicked. And the kick looks like a "horizontal stamp" type of kick (i.e. pushing the ball forward, not kicking it upwards), so unlikely to have involved contact, so play on. But it is a still, so impossible to know.