[7's/10's] Heel kick conversion? Would you allow it?

[menace]

Would you allow this?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/v...at-darwin-sevens/story-e6frf4pu-1227201180122

Not sure if this is visible outside Oz, but it was a heel kick for a try conversion. Very clever, but do you think it is legal?

 

[Drift]

It's illegal under the definitions of a "kick" however the 2 additional points did not change the outcome of the game at all so just award it and get on with blowing full time.

 

[chrismtl]

Video works for me.

Here's the definition for a drop kick:

[LAWS]Drop kick: The ball is dropped from the hand or hands to the ground and kicked as it rises from its first bounce.[/LAWS]

And finally the definition of kick as that's required to correctly interpret the previous definition:

[LAWS]Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.[/LAWS]

So technically illegal to answer your question. Would I call it? Nope. Not unless I got miraculously chosen to be one of the world series sevens refs

 

[talbazar]

Same here.
Would just give it.
Same goes for a conversion from the in-goal (which you see sometimes in 7's

 

[Pegleg]

Heel kick is not a kick so dissallow it.

 

[talbazar]

Heel kick is not a kick so dissallow it.

You're right, it's not a kick.
Meaning that following the law to the dot, you need to bring the ball back and tell the player to kick it because he hasn't missed his conversion yet (he hasn't kicked it) and then ask him to take it "normally".
Knowing that the chances of missing it from that position are rather slim (I'd say slimmer than with a "heel kick"), it's loosing about 45 seconds of a 7 minutes half (~a tenth of it) for about nothing.

Give him the 2 points for the showmanship and tell him not to do it any more....

As Chrimtl mentioned, if you're in a leg of the 7's series, maybe you could be pedantic about that, but honestly, would a player at that level do this if these 2 points really mattered?

My 2 cents.
Pierre.

 

[Phil E]

Its an illegal kick, you have to disallow it.
Otherwise you might just as well let him throw it over the bar.

 

[menace]

It's illegal under the definitions of a "kick" however the 2 additional points did not change the outcome of the game at all so just award it and get on with blowing full time.

But what if it could have altered the result? You've just dug yourself a hole. It seems you're being empathetic to one team and at the same time being unempathic to the other?
Any other laws we should just ignore because showmanship makes it ok to break it? Perhaps a quick tap off the knee is ok...as you're just being pinickity if you pull it up?

 

[Pegleg]

You're right, it's not a kick.
Meaning that following the law to the dot, you need to bring the ball back and tell the player to kick it because he hasn't missed his conversion yet (he hasn't kicked it) and then ask him to take it "normally".

No chance. he had the chance. He chose to showboat instead. Tough luck.

The law was clarified and change to expressly prevent this. So no chance the IRB (WR) we clear they did not want it being done so no way Jose!

 

[crossref]

The law was clarified and change to expressly prevent this. So no chance the IRB (WR) we clear they did not want it being done so no way Jose!

I don't think the Law was intended to address this at all, the definition of a kick is there to address quick taps : where it's important to define constitutes a quick tap

[LAWS]Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground. [/LAWS]

I don't for a moment think that Law was there to prevent back-heeled conversions, why would you ban them? They're clearly more difficult than regualr ones.

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't think the Law was intended to address this at all, the definition of a kick is there to address quick taps : where it's important to define constitutes a quick tap

[LAWS]Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground. [/LAWS]

I don't for a moment think that Law was there to prevent back-heeled conversions, why would you ban them? They're clearly more difficult than regualr ones.

That's a heck of assumption. Mark Ring was heel kicking conversions and drop goals back in the 80s.

 

[OB..]

It is illegal, and the law was changed in a way that made the illegality clear.

If you allow it, you create the impression in many peoples' minds that it is legal. Why do that? The kickers have time to think about it, and should know the law. There is no real point in doing it.

The same applies to conversions taken from the wrong side of the posts.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Mark Ring was heel kicking conversions and drop goals back in the 80s.

And very little else from what I remember. Perhaps he developed the skill so he could always be facing into the wind to stop his lovely hair getting ruffled.:biggrin:

 

[Drift]

But what if it could have altered the result? You've just dug yourself a hole. It seems you're being empathetic to one team and at the same time being unempathic to the other?
Any other laws we should just ignore because showmanship makes it ok to break it? Perhaps a quick tap off the knee is ok...as you're just being pinickity if you pull it up?

Then I would disallow it, or make them retake it, whatever the right thing is. However because it had no impact on the game what does it matter? It was also a knockout game so the scoreline doesn't matter in terms of a points difference situation.

 

[Dickie E]

It is illegal, and the law was changed in a way that made the illegality clear.

If you allow it, you create the impression in many peoples' minds that it is legal. Why do that? The kickers have time to think about it, and should know the law. There is no real point in doing it.

The same applies to conversions taken from the wrong side of the posts.

1. well, there is a real point in kicking from wrong side of posts
2. why is kicking from wrong side of posts illegal?

 

[OB..]

1. well, there is a real point in kicking from wrong side of posts

There is a trivial gain in time.

2. why is kicking from wrong side of posts illegal?

Irrelevant.

 

[Dickie E]

Then I would disallow it, or make them retake it, whatever the right thing is. However because it had no impact on the game what does it matter? It was also a knockout game so the scoreline doesn't matter in terms of a points difference situation.

... and it was in Darwin. Things are, well, just different there. :aus:

 

[Dickie E]

There is a trivial gain in time.
Irrelevant.

In a 14 minute game, any gain in time isn't trivial

Why is the legality of the practice irrelevant?

Why are you such a contrarian?

 

[crossref]

when I have reffed sevens the tournament rules is usually to encourage taking kicks from behind the post -- to eliminate time spent running and fetching the ball.

 

[Pegleg]

That's a heck of assumption. Mark Ring was heel kicking conversions and drop goals back in the 80s.

And the club he played for disciplined him for disrespecting the opposition.