[Law] Incorrectly taken penalty.

[collybs]

oh FFS ...
Specifically What would you do if a team don't comply with 20.5 ?

Ping them under 9.7.4 for time wasting - free kick to opposition.

 

[chbg]

It happened today! Touring Colts team awarded PK in front of posts. 7 pts ahead in a to and fro game, so indicated to take another 3. Kicker ran up, tapped it almost without breaking stride, picked up, passed and 'scored' a good 'Barbarians' tactic' try. Sorry guys, scrum to other team at point of PK (they certainly weren't going to be given a re-take!). One defender knew that it wasn't legitimate; all the others learnt.

Oh, and the diagram at 20.15 should be in Law 9.

 

[crossref]

It happened today! Touring Colts team awarded PK in front of posts. 7 pts ahead in a to and fro game, so indicated to take another 3. Kicker ran up, tapped it almost without breaking stride, picked up, passed and 'scored' a good 'Barbarians' tactic' try. Sorry guys, scrum to other team at point of PK (they certainly weren't going to be given a re-take!). .

[LAWS]8.20 If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. [/LAWS]

I think they must kick at goal

 

[Pinky]

[LAWS]8.20 If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. [/LAWS]

I think they must kick at goal

And the tap was a very bad miss! Now what is the restart?

 

[crossref]

And the tap was a very bad miss! Now what is the restart?

If he hasn't kicked it ?
Then he hasn't yet taken the PK .. so take the PK

 

[Pinky]

If he hasn't kicked it ?
Then he hasn't yet taken the PK .. so take the PK

But he had kicked it!

 

[Treadmore]

But he had kicked it!

but not kicked at goal, which I think is crossref's point - they "must" do that and there appears to be no sanction - they can't "time waste" because there's 60s limit anyway (following which it's a scrum, not FK under Law 9)

 

[crossref]

Yes,
Bring back the tap
Now kick at goal ... And you don't have much time left...

 

[The Fat]

Yes,
Bring back the tap
Now kick at goal ... And you don't have much time left...

Scenario 1 (and this really happened in a Super Rugby game):
Team indicates they will kick for goal at the PK.
Ball is placed and kicker lines up the kick.
As kicker approaches the ball, his winger makes a dash down the sideline, the kicker changes direction and chips the ball towards the winger who catches it and scores a try in the corner.
Are you going to make that team come back and take a proper kick for goal if there is still 30 seconds left on the shot clock?

Scenario 2:
Blue have been awarded a PK and elect to kick for touch. Blue 14 starts to move forward and is a couple of metres forward of the kicker when the ball is kicked. The kicker fails to find touch and the ball is caught a metre and a half inside the FoP and inside the 22 by red 11. By this time blue 14 is closing in fast and red 11 who is isolated gets a hurried kick in and the ball goes into touch 5 metres forward of the red 11.
Restart?

 

[crossref]

Scenario 1
I think you are saying this is a rehearsed move ? In which case 9.7.a seems perfect

Scenario 2
Apply Law 10 .. Blue 14 is offside , continue to move forward and interfere with play

Which Law would you apply ?

 

[The Fat]

Scenario 2
Apply Law 10 .. Blue 14 is offside , continue to move forward and interfere with play

But 20.10 says there is no sanction

 

[crossref]

But 20.10 says there is no sanction

But Law 10 applies .. right ?

What would you do ? (with Law reference)?

 

[The Fat]

But Law 10 applies .. right ?

What would you do ? (with Law reference)?

Well it used to be a scrum, then they apparently dropped the sanction for being in front of the kicker but now you’re thinking of going with a PK.
My point is that the laws, in some instances, have become less clear as a result of the 2018 rewrite.
If a player is in front of the kicker at a kick-off, even if he jumps to contest the ball with a defender, we come back to the centre for a scrum.
So now we have inconsistencies for sanctions/non-sanctions for similar infringements.
Personally, I think the 2017 sanction of a scrum should still be in the book. It would certainly look funny to call the winger back and just say to the kicking team, “The kickoff hasn’t been taken correctly so come back and do it again”. That would mean there’s no consequence for infringing and they are likely to try it on again next week with a different ref

 

[crossref]

Well it used to be a scrum, then they apparently dropped the sanction for being in front of the kicker but now you’re thinking of going with a PK.
My point is that the laws, in some instances, have become less clear as a result of the 2018 rewrite.
If a player is in front of the kicker at a kick-off, even if he jumps to contest the ball with a defender, we come back to the centre for a scrum.
So now we have inconsistencies for sanctions/non-sanctions for similar infringements.
Personally, I think the 2017 sanction of a scrum should still be in the book. It would certainly look funny to call the winger back and just say to the kicking team, “The kickoff hasn’t been taken correctly so come back and do it again”. That would mean there’s no consequence for infringing and they are likely to try it on again next week with a different ref

Being offside in front of a kicker is not necessarily sanctioned at all ..only if you interfere with play , as in your example.

But stand still until you are put onside and it's play on . So most often it's play on .. (as.it.waa in 2017 for that matter.)

So the possible outcomes under Law 10 are play or (in fact) a choice of PK or scrum back .

But what are you doing ..and law reference ?

 

[The Fat]

Being offside in front of a kicker is not necessarily sanctioned at all ..only if you interfere with play , as in your example.

But being in front of the kicker at a kickoff or restart IS sanctioned regardless of whether the infringing player/players carry on to interfere with play and the sanction is a scrum.


Put simply, the crux of the whole argument for me is that the so called "simplified" Law book is not necessarily clearer or more simple to understand. Some infringements/non-compliances in Law 20 no longer have sanctions listed, not complying with the time requirements when taking a PK has been moved from the PK section of the book to the Scoring section (Law 8), as you have pointed out we can now find a PK sanction for things that were clearly labelled a scrum (and in my opinion should still be a scrum).

A big part of the rewrite centred around reducing the size of the Law book. Grouping a couple of infringements and adding one line i.e. Sanction: Scrum, would not have caused a blowout in size, production costs or ink usage. But it would have made the Laws simpler and clearer. Oh wait...….. that was the whole point of their rewrite exercise.

 

[Phil E]

But being in front of the kicker at a kickoff or restart IS sanctioned regardless of whether the infringing player/players carry on to interfere with play and the sanction is a scrum.

Is it?

Right winger a yard in front, ball goes to the left wing.

No way I am stopping play for that?

Or am I missing something?

 

[crossref]

But being in front of the kicker at a kickoff or restart IS sanctioned regardless of whether the infringing player/players carry on to interfere with play and the sanction is a scrum.


Put simply, the crux of the whole argument for me is that the so called "simplified" Law book is not necessarily clearer or more simple to understand. Some infringements/non-compliances in Law 20 no longer have sanctions listed, not complying with the time requirements when taking a PK has been moved from the PK section of the book to the Scoring section (Law 8), as you have pointed out we can now find a PK sanction for things that were clearly labelled a scrum (and in my opinion should still be a scrum).

A big part of the rewrite centred around reducing the size of the Law book. Grouping a couple of infringements and adding one line i.e. Sanction: Scrum, would not have caused a blowout in size, production costs or ink usage. But it would have made the Laws simpler and clearer. Oh wait...….. that was the whole point of their rewrite exercise.

this example really isn't a 2017 v 2019 issue

being in front of a PK in 2017 was either play on or a scrum, depending upon whether there was a material impact
being in front of a PK is 2019 is either play on or a choice of PK / Scrum, depending upon whether there was a material impact

In practice it's almost always going to be play on (perhaps with a shout of 'leave it! or stay!)

Similarly being in front of a restart hasn't changed from 2017 to 2019

The only scenario that has actually changed is the quick tap that isn't a proper tap...

 

[mcroker]

this example really isn't a 2017 v 2019 issue... the only scenario that has actually changed is the quick tap that isn't a proper tap

It stopped being a helpful answer to the original question about halfway down Page 2 (which is something that I think is a bit of a general issue with the forum at the moment, hence some of the various suggestions made on how to improve the structure on other threads).

 

[crossref]

campaign to keep on topic!
yes. I undertake to play my part going forward

 

[mcroker]

campaign to keep on topic!
yes. I undertake to play my part going forward

Welcome to the campaign... I think the manifesto should be:
Campaign to keep on topic AND perhaps not explore every possible edge case if it isn't helpful to the OP (at least in the Question forum)

Speaking of which - I may now be slightly off topic.