France v Italy - potential spoiler

[Camquin]

On Parissi's final kick, I am not sure that France were stationary with their hands by their sides?

Is this requirement actually still in the law book?

If the French did charge, could the ref have permitted the kick to be retaken?

Do you agree that the French were not still?

 

[Decorily]

Video?

 

[Camquin]

Full match replay is here
You want from about 81 minutes on the clock.

https://www.itv.com/watch/six-nations-championship/2a4295/2a4295a0072

 

[Flish]

I thought it was a mess, not sure the French players moved illegally, but there was a water carrier amongst them moving, then the ball fell off the tee, then the French seemed to half heartedly approach, then step back when ordered - then the shot clock pressure and the kick missed.

I *think* I would allow the kick to be retaken, too much pressure and confusion there, but so far only the press are making an issue of it

 

[Camquin]

Found it: the last law rewrite moved the requirement to stand still to law 8.
The picture is still in law 22.

Given they stepped forward, the shot clock should at least have been stopped, but the sanction in law is a retake 10m closer to the goal.

 

[shebeen]

Found it: the last law rewrite moved the requirement to stand still to law 8.
The picture is still in law 22.

Given they stepped forward, the shot clock should at least have been stopped, but the sanction in law is a retake 10m closer to the goal.

agreed, France got very lucky with this one.

That aside, the question has to be asked again why these kickers push the clock so close? As a professional sport the tee just needs to come on quicker to buy time. He hit the post with a kick that took less 10 seconds from replacing the ball on the tee.

 

[didds]

totally agree about the kickers taking the time etc.
Meanwhile I just think that after the Scotland "the ball is non the ground I cannot see it on the ground" farce/debacle the officials are just shit scared now of doing anything to interfere.

I don't know enough as to whether the kick yesterday should have been re-awarded but a French player seriously advances at 6:15 in that highlights video ... but its a reasonable shout to say that France instead of being P3W2 could be P3L3


Maybe what we will now see is a ball placer /holder at every kick now

 

[Nilo]

As soon as this game finished I said the same to my partner. I think Italy were a bit hard done by and I would have at least let the kick be retaken/shot clock paused because the French player(s) moved forward in close proximity twice.

But that's just the nature of rugby, and regardless either team had ample opportunity to make the game their own beyond a 3 point penalty, and I think that is the main thing.

 

[BikingBud]

On Parissi's final kick, I am not sure that France were stationary with their hands by their sides?

Is this requirement actually still in the law book?

If the French did charge, could the ref have permitted the kick to be retaken?

Do you agree that the French were not still?

Garbisi?

 

[Elpablo73]

There was at least one attempted charge by French players. Let's stop the clock and tell the defenders to stay still. And let the penalty kick be taken with the defence standing still.

 

[BikingBud]

I thought it was a mess, not sure the French players moved illegally, but there was a water carrier amongst them moving, then the ball fell off the tee, then the French seemed to half heartedly approach, then step back when ordered - then the shot clock pressure and the kick missed.

I *think* I would allow the kick to be retaken, too much pressure and confusion there, but so far only the press are making an issue of it

Didn't initially see the ball fall off the tee, obscured in front of the kicker but Scoring Para 21 -

1. The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed and a scrum is awarded.

My emphasis and I do feel for the Italians but I agree entirely about a mess, would have been another big decision if the shot clock had been stopped and the same kick retaken. Moving 10 metres further forward might have been excessive.

Yet the removal of non-players (water carriers) visible at 5.59 on the video and with 30 seconds shot clock remaining, might have been a point to argue as the penalty does not in my understanding currently count as an approved window for water carriers to be on the pitch.

Sanction would be a penalty and where the carrier is? In front of the posts? That would really upset the apple cart.

 

[Volun-selected]

Law seems pretty clear.

8.22 If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick [a penalty] at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.

France didn’t. Twice.

8.27 If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands and a further penalty is not awarded. If the kick is unsuccessful, the non-offending team is awarded a penalty 10 metres in front of the original mark. Sanction: Penalty.

(My emphasis.)

Regardless of the ball falling off the tee, France needed to stay still so Italy should have got the kick retaken with the mark 10m closer to touch and the France captain warned to not infringe again. When talking to the France captain, if the ref had simply stated “it‘s a penalty, your team must stay still until after the kick or it’s another penalty“ then everyone listening/watching knows what is going on too.

 

[BikingBud]

There was at least one attempted charge by French players. Let's stop the clock and tell the defenders to stay still. And let the penalty kick be taken with the defence standing still.

Does the shot clock then reset, stay as it was or does it not apply after the opposition have transgressed?

Looking closer and tying to hear over the commentators, he points the French back with 15 s remaining saying "no no" Further at about 10 s remaining he does say "What's the shot clock say, I cannot see the shot clock" and he has stepped in front of the ball, raised his arm. Does this prevent the kicker approaching and the clock is still running down?

At the end of the first half following the head on head @41:35 game time, the game clock ran on while the review took place. Sharp blast and penalty awarded @ 42:37 as France 13 being binned. @42:44 shot called and then Ridley did request to "kick clock off for a second" @43:15 when the shot clock showed 29 s, due to other events going on including moving the penalty back from the 10m line to within the sponsors logo and offering Italy the chance to change their decision. The shot clock was not on the screen again until after the kick @43:55 when it was back at 30s.

So he was entirely aware of the issues with shot clock after playing time has expired and being fair.

 

[BikingBud]

Law seems pretty clear.

8.22 If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick [a penalty] at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.

France didn’t. Twice.

8.27 If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands and a further penalty is not awarded. If the kick is unsuccessful, the non-offending team is awarded a penalty 10 metres in front of the original mark. Sanction: Penalty.

(My emphasis.)

Regardless of the ball falling off the tee, France needed to stay still so Italy should have got the kick retaken with the mark 10m closer to touch and the France captain warned to not infringe again. When talking to the France captain, if the ref had simply stated “it‘s a penalty, your team must stay still until after the kick or it’s another penalty“ then everyone listening/watching knows what is going on too.

I'm happy with that as the intent is to be fair to the kicker but others without Law knowledge will likely bleat.

8.22 That term "approach" again, so with the Bigger shuffle when does that "approach" start? The faffing with his hair and shoulder drops are part of the approach routine maybe that's why the sniper took him out the other week

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Personally I didint think their stepping towards the ball was material. The ref gestured them to retire and they complied. I think the material aspect was that the ball fell off the tee, and for this, Garbisi must shoulder some of the blame. In a roof-closed, windless stadium, if you cannot place the ball on a tee correctly, then you maybe need to learn that lesson . At least, I'm sure you'll see Garbisi take more time in setting up the ball on the tee in future.

 

[didds]

and Garbisi has accepted fault

 

[crossref]

I think we need to look at the sanction. It seems to me that the sanction is a bit harsh making refs reluctant to apply it.

perhaps the sanction for moving should be - immediate whistle, time is off, shot clock is off, kicker can resettle and kick in his own time.
(kinda how we might actually manage it on a wet Saturday afternoon in the sticks)

 

[didds]

it certainly seems to raise the question "when is not standing still NOT not standing still" ?

 

[tim White]

I think we need to look at the sanction. It seems to me that the sanction is a bit harsh making refs reluctant to apply it.

perhaps the sanction for moving should be - immediate whistle, time is off, shot clock is off, kicker can resettle and kick in his own time.
(kinda how we might actually manage it on a wet Saturday afternoon in the sticks)

Everyone seemed to get confused between a conversion and a penalty kick. They are professional players, they should know the laws. The ref is a professional ref, he should know the laws. I know TV rugby is supposed to be different but I wish it wasn't.
Yet another rod for the back of the grassroots ref.

 

[didds]

I think we need to look at the sanction. It seems to me that the sanction is a bit harsh making refs reluctant to apply it.

I do get what you're saying but maybe if a few more refs DID apply the sanction sides might actually stop transgressing...
cos the stop, go back, reset and go again doesnt really make any difference to a side not transgressing ie they dont lose anything by doing so.