Goal Line Stand Penalties

[RobLev]

Why would they?

Because the defending team giving away all the PKs would swiftly run out of STE FR players, at a guess? Or is your hypothetical ref keeping his cards in his pocket for some reason?

 

[Dickie E]

In soccer it is relatively hard to score a goal in general play but relatively easy to score a goal from a penalty. The result? Lots of diving in the penalty area.

The point being we don't want to make the penalty for an infringement so punitive that the attacking is encouraged to milk penalities.

 

[Browner]

Because the defending team giving away all the PKs would swiftly run out of STE FR players, at a guess? Or is your hypothetical ref keeping his cards in his pocket for some reason?

I was merely responding to the "another scrum follows a successful PK" suggestion, and repeat carding likely wasn't tabled within it ( it being 15 yrs ago, repeat carding wasn't in vogue then)

 

[FlipFlop]

Or it can all be solved with a exception:
At the scrum following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal may not elect to kick for goal in the event they are awarded a penalty at the scrum.

So you get a PK, kick the goal (3pts), have the scrum, get a PK, then you have a choice of kick to touch, tap and go, or scrum.

 

[OB..]

Couldn't a team with a significant scrum dominance , opt for a scrum 15m in front of the posts, get a PK then merely re-scrum for 80 mins & watch the score go .....3,6,9,12,15,18..........150-0 ?

I'm sure Cockers would be in favour of that improvement to the game, might even make LT competitive again ! (Ducks)

presumably it would very quickly be a standard try, 7 points, then KO half way up the pitch though?

didds

Surely the scrums would have gone uncontested at some stage, which would stop the sequence?

Why would they?

Not nowadays, more likely an offence of some kind being given ....

Because the defending team giving away all the PKs would swiftly run out of STE FR players, at a guess? Or is your hypothetical ref keeping his cards in his pocket for some reason?

I was merely responding to the "another scrum follows a successful PK" suggestion, and repeat carding likely wasn't tabled within it ( it being 15 yrs ago, repeat carding wasn't in vogue then)

Or it can all be solved with a exception:
At the scrum following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal may not elect to kick for goal in the event they are awarded a penalty at the scrum.

So you get a PK, kick the goal (3pts), have the scrum, get a PK, then you have a choice of kick to touch, tap and go, or scrum.

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

In soccer it is relatively hard to score a goal in general play but relatively easy to score a goal from a penalty. The result? Lots of diving in the penalty area.

The point being we don't want to make the penalty for an infringement so punitive that the attacking is encouraged to milk penalities.

Currently teams are happy to risk a penalty if it prevents a try. That is what the proposal is primarily aimed at.

Teams cannot force the opponents to give away penalties. Years ago I was at Twickenham in the old South Stand on a freezing day to watch England play Ireland. England had a 5m scrum in front of us and got the shove on. Ireland could not get a proper grip on the frozen ground. No attempt to collapse the scrum. Classic pushover try.

At present a sequence of penalties at a scrum cannot lead to a penalty try unless the scrum was actually moving forward significantly. The proposal woud deal with that.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Or it can all be solved with a exception:
At the scrum following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal may not elect to kick for goal in the event they are awarded a penalty at the scrum.

So you get a PK, kick the goal (3pts), have the scrum, get a PK, then you have a choice of kick to touch, tap and go, or scrum.

Alternatively, following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal gets a FK at the mark at which they cannot opt for a scrum at all.