Interesting Tap Tactics

[viper492]

Hi All,

Just wanted to get some advice on a decision I made last week.

For background, it was a schoolboy U14 level game and they play without numbers hence no numbers in the following stuff.

Green team has been awarded a penalty on the attacking 22m line. They've opted to to take the tap. The halfback is at the ball and flanked by 4 players [it may have only been 3 - memory is slightly sketchy there] on either side (standing horizontally adjacent to or just in front of him and spaced out over a few metres - a bit like a soccer wall but each man not quite touching) preventing the Gold team from seeing what was being done behind this wall of players and probably preventing them from playing at the ball carrier if they'd moved to a position to. Green have set it up reasonably quickly (Gold are set in a defensive line though) and attempt to take the tap. The Green halfback never has the ball leave his hands while tapping it on his foot. I rule for a scrum to Gold for Green not taking the tap properly [is that correct under the laws - I don't have a law book on me at the moment and feel momentarily unsure but I seem to remember that for a PK taken incorrectly the sanction is a scrum] and comment to Green that I am not going to reward such tactics!

Just before I blew the whistle I saw this obviously practiced manuever begin to come into action - players running dummy runs on various angles with the Gold side unable to see what's happening and being forced to commit to these runners while the halfback spreads the ball wide. Pretty impressive but I feel it is really against the spirit of the game.

In hindsight I feel I probably should have penalised under 10.4(m) but they didn't attempt the tactic again so they got the message not to do it anyway.

Thoughts on this whole scenario - what would you do and did I make an appropriate decision?

 

[TheBFG]

correct on the "not taken correctly" (however at u14 I MIGHT have suggested he took it again), with regards to the "wall" thing, we had a long discussion on this before on here and there was a general disagreement as to if it should be allowed, "old school" seem to think it was OK, where as "modern thinking" was it was a :nono:. I was in the old school camp and don't see a problem with it, would you ping a pass to a player running behind another who was on a dummy line as long as he didn't stop another player from making a tackle or take a player out?

 

[crossref]

I don't see how any one could take the view that a team with the sophistication to attempt a complicated tap penatly move like that on the one hand, should be indulged in two attempts at taking the actual tap properly.

It is a thing, though, that inmany referees do think (for reasons that escape me!) that a tap is so difficult for a 14 yr old to grasp that he should get two attempts at it - I don't agree, but given the general expectation I make sure to include it in my PMB, so that they have had the warning.

Turning to this scenario --

10.4(m) is (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship.
I absolutely don't think it is that! That would be very harsh.

If the kicking team were charging, you penalise them as a cavalry charge, but sounds like they weren't

Seems to me it's legal, but watch very hard for obstruction in the execution and PK even the slightest bit of it -- if it's a rehearsed move, they have to execute it carefulyl and accuratley, with no obstructions.

 

[OB..]

Green team has been awarded a penalty on the attacking 22m line. They've opted to to take the tap. The halfback is at the ball and flanked by 4 players [it may have only been 3 - memory is slightly sketchy there] on either side (standing horizontally adjacent to or just in front of him and spaced out over a few metres

This is a minor variation on the Cavalry Charge.
[LAWS]Definitions 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]
[LAWS]21.4 (i) Behind the ball. All the kicker’s team at a penalty or free kick must be behind the ball until it has been kicked, except the placer for a place kick.[/LAWS](It's 21.4 (h) in my law book ...)

IIRC the Cavalry charge was deemed dangerous because the players were moving fast when taking the ball. If the secondary line of moving players was going to get the ball, you could probably choose between obstruction and dangerous play.

 

[crossref]

as an aside - after many years of refereeing junior games my observation is that complicated tap penalty moves are normally a sign of indifferent quality coaching.

The very best teams are focused on playing rugby and tend to keep things simple.
Their moves may be clever but they are never elaborate (as elaborate moves go wrong) and the moves are focused on creating space rather than relying on creating confusion.

A very elaborate move by U14 is (in my opinion) mostly for the purpose of making the coaches look clever.

 

[TheBFG]

I don't see how any one could take the view that a team with the sophistication to attempt a complicated tap penatly move like that on the one hand, should be indulged in two attempts at taking the actual tap properly.

Like I said MIGHT give them a chance to take it again. 1st PK of the match and he get's it wrong, give him a chance, we're not there to catch them out, I see it as our job to educate as well at that age :shrug:

And just because you have a "clever" coach it doesn't mean you have players that can execute an elaborate tap PK move :wink:

 

[crossref]

i think your expectations are too low - the U14 know perfectly well how to do a tap.
the reason they often don't bother, is because referees let them get away with it --- and its a safe try as well: and even with those referees that don't let you get away with it, you'll get a warning first time

 

[viper492]

i think your expectations are too low - the U14 know perfectly well how to do a tap.
the reason they often don't bother, is because referees let them get away with it --- and its a safe try as well: and even with those referees that don't let you get away with it, you'll get a warning first time

I disagree somewhat with you on that. I would usually allow them to have a second go at it but at the time I felt the move was unfair and that they certainly didn't deserve to have the second attempt to take the tap (in my mind the tactic is/was unfair and this gave me a relatively light way to deal with it as I didn't think it really deserved a penalty against...) - You'd be surprised how many of these kids, despite having played for 5 or 6 years, still don't know how to take a tap properly but once you tell them at the first tap that it must leave their hands or be tapped (and move slightly) on the ground, you don't see another tap taken improperly all game :biggrin: they should all know but the evidence suggests otherwise...What can we do? :shrug: (*Edit: Obviously we can just award scrums until they learn but that's not necessarily the best thing to do for the game in terms of player enjoyment/safety/for the flow of the game - especially as I've only seen one or two sides this season that can actually pack a half-decent scrum...)


TheBFG - the usual ethos is a 'take it again' in most of our junior rugby - To be absolutely honest when I awarded the scrum it was the second time I'd done that in 3 seasons of refereeing and I'm not sure if I've seen any other ref awarding one at a junior level (up to U16) for it... Which is very surprising given how often it occurs.

 

[Dickie E]

At junior level I would normally ask them to take it again. After all, "ball not leaving hands" is as much a kick as scratching your nose and neither are "kick taken incorrectly".

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hi All,

Just wanted to get some advice on a decision I made last week.

For background, it was a schoolboy U14 level game and they play without numbers hence no numbers in the following stuff.

Green team has been awarded a penalty on the attacking 22m line. They've opted to to take the tap. The halfback is at the ball and flanked by 4 players [it may have only been 3 - memory is slightly sketchy there] on either side (standing horizontally adjacent to or just in front of him and spaced out over a few metres - a bit like a soccer wall but each man not quite touching) preventing the Gold team from seeing what was being done behind this wall of players and probably preventing them from playing at the ball carrier if they'd moved to a position to. Green have set it up reasonably quickly (Gold are set in a defensive line though) and attempt to take the tap. The Green halfback never has the ball leave his hands while tapping it on his foot. I rule for a scrum to Gold for Green not taking the tap properly [is that correct under the laws - I don't have a law book on me at the moment and feel momentarily unsure but I seem to remember that for a PK taken incorrectly the sanction is a scrum] and comment to Green that I am not going to reward such tactics!

Just before I blew the whistle I saw this obviously practiced manuever begin to come into action - players running dummy runs on various angles with the Gold side unable to see what's happening and being forced to commit to these runners while the halfback spreads the ball wide. Pretty impressive but I feel it is really against the spirit of the game.

In hindsight I feel I probably should have penalised under 10.4(m) but they didn't attempt the tactic again so they got the message not to do it anyway.

Thoughts on this whole scenario - what would you do and did I make an appropriate decision?

Correct decision on the ball not moving a visible distance from the hand.

As for the tactical moves, there is nothing wrong with it, so long as

1. the players in the wall are not ahead of the player taking the tap kick (because if they are, then they are effectively all offside at the moment the kick is taken), and

2. the players in the wall cannot be running before the kick is taken as this would be a "Cavalry Charge", which is specifically outlawed - 10.4 (p)

 

[Dixie]

I disagree somewhat with you on [14 year-olds being expected to take a tap properly]. I would usually allow them to have a second go at it ... - You'd be surprised how many of these kids, despite having played for 5 or 6 years, still don't know how to take a tap properly ... they should all know but the evidence suggests otherwise. ... the usual ethos is a 'take it again' in most of our junior rugby - To be absolutely honest when I awarded the scrum it was the second time I'd done that in 3 seasons of refereeing and I'm not sure if I've seen any other ref awarding one at a junior level (up to U16) for it... Which is very surprising given how often it occurs.

So what you are very clearly saying is that you have an astonishingly high incidence of a recurring problem with poor technique that ought to result in a scrum - bit like a failure to catch a ball - which, due to universally-low expectation among officials, is not properly sanctioned, with the offenders being given another go. You feel that actualy awarding a scrum would not be good for the players.

My own view is exactly opposite. The players know that the refs lack the cojones to deal with the issue properly, so they have no incentive to perfect their tap technique. The risk with a tap is that the ball is kicked beyond the grasp of urgent fingers, resulting in at best a slow recovery and distribution, or at worst a knock-on - whereas a tap without release bears no such risk. As long as there is no sanction, it makes absolute sense to avoid the proper tap. When I reffed U.11, we resolved these issues within a season by awarding the scrum - not always without a warning, but probably every other game there was a scrum. By U.13, you never ever saw the tap against the boot.

I saw this obviously practiced manuever begin to come into action - players running dummy runs on various angles with the Gold side unable to see what's happening and being forced to commit to these runners while the halfback spreads the ball wide. Pretty impressive but I feel it is really against the spirit of the game.

Can you tell us why you feel this is contrary to the spirit of the game? Do you perhaps feel that it's all about getting a 15-stone islander to smash through ranked defenders, so a team without such a player resorting to subtlety is cheating? There is a very effective move from a lineout whereby the blind winger ghosts into a gap between 10 and 12. His run is masked by the presence of the lineout players. Does that also fall beyond your fairness parameter - and if so ... why?

 

[ChrisR]

There are two parts to the original post.

1. Improper kick. From definitions a kick " .... must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground". Tapping the ball with the foot is not a kick. Therefore, to my way of thinking, the kick has not been taken so play has not restarted and there is no sanction. Remind player of the requirement for a kick and restart. Period. U-14 or otherwise, first and every time. To change a penalty (serious offense) to an advantage (scrum) to the offending team for such a minor technical issue is an anathema to me.

2. Unusual tap kick. Refer to Law 21.4(h),(i),(j) & (k). The formation as described in the OP seems to violate 21.4(h). If this is a set play then players could be instructed to retire to be onside before the tap is taken.

I remember a similar ploy many years ago where about five players would line up with their backs to the ops, to the side but behind the ball, the SH would tap and pass the ball to one of the players. Teammates would then run at a variety of angles and the ball would be pitched to one. It died from lack of effectiveness and the law change that allowed a PK to touch to go touch and the throw by the non-offenders.

Never used it but it looked like fun.

 

[Browner]

Dixie is spot on, Learn early, learn once.

. You'd be surprised how many of these kids, despite having played for 5 or 6 years, still don't know how to take a tap properly

Maybe referee leniency (or dad/ ref inexperience) or 'lack of consequence' is exactly why these players don't do it correctly. Most teams have 'experienced' 9s & its the quick thinking experienced players they who take the majority of QTP & QFK in juniors.

My experience says you call it ' once' and you don't need to do it a second time in most matches, kids learn, u10+ is all about learning. I've coached through these age groups and its not a difficult technique to instill.

Zero tolerance from u13+ gets my vote, exactly as does crooked feeds!

 

[OB..]

There are two parts to the original post.

1. Improper kick. From definitions a kick " .... must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground". Tapping the ball with the foot is not a kick. Therefore, to my way of thinking, the kick has not been taken so play has not restarted and there is no sanction.

[LAWS]21.4 (d) A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark.
[...]
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.

[/LAWS]

 

[Browner]

. Tapping the ball with the foot is not a kick. Therefore, to my way of thinking, the kick has not been taken so play has not restarted and there is no sanction.

I dont agree.
The video in 21.4.(d) shows the correct sanction, and it being applied.
[LAWS]. Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball. [/LAWS]


Edit....
OB types quicker!

 

[viper492]

So what you are very clearly saying is that you have an astonishingly high incidence of a recurring problem with poor technique that ought to result in a scrum...The players know that the refs lack the cojones to deal with the issue properly, so they have no incentive to perfect their tap technique. The risk with a tap is that the ball is kicked beyond the grasp of urgent fingers, resulting in at best a slow recovery and distribution, or at worst a knock-on - whereas a tap without release bears no such risk.


Can you tell us why you feel this is contrary to the spirit of the game? Do you perhaps feel that it's all about getting a 15-stone islander to smash through ranked defenders, so a team without such a player resorting to subtlety is cheating? There is a very effective move from a lineout whereby the blind winger ghosts into a gap between 10 and 12. His run is masked by the presence of the lineout players. Does that also fall beyond your fairness parameter - and if so ... why?

Dixie - to your first part: I agree that doing that would resolve the problem (and with the reasoning behind it) - I'll give it this approach a go in the next game I referee (tomorrow) and see what the reactions are - I feel as if it will not go down well [not that that is ever a reason to make/not make decisions]. I will include it in the PMB and make it clear to them to take them properly so that if the ref coach tomorrow asks why I was enforcing it I can lean back on that as I feel he might see it as curious to be enforced (will be interesting to say the least).

Second Part: No I don't feel it's about using a huge islander to smash through the line but about the team being able to be aware when the tap is being taken (in this case the defending team were/would have been unable to tell if the tap had been taken - my memory is telling me at this point that they were probably in front of the man tapping it but I can't 100% remember... it's a bit over a week and 4 games later now). To me that is an act contrary to the spirit of the game and definitely shouldn't be allowed as how can a defending team respond to a play if they don't know if the tap has been taken. IMHO that cannot be allowed - there is a difference between actively deceiving the opposition by forming a wall/preventing the opposition from being aware of what's happening whereas the blind winger coming can be seen by, at least, the players in the lineout (although they may not be focused on the situation) - he is not being "intentionally" shielded by players with the sole intent being to deceive the opposition... Do we allow a team to have 7 players approach the lineout, form with 5 and then penalise the defending side for having 7 in the lineout? No. I feel this tap play is in the same vain as that.

 

[viper492]

Since it won't let me edit...

Browner - I fully agree and usually after you tell them once to ensure they take the tap properly they do.

Given the thoughts around the taking of the tap, I feel I might try something different tomorrow and actually ensure that they follow the laws on this one tomorrow - I'll include it very quickly in my PMB saying that I'll act on it from the start. I'll also have a ref coach there so we'll see what he has to say when I blow a scrum in the 13B standard game. I agree that at this standard and age they should know what they're doing and if they don't, it's not my problem. It will be most interesting to see the coach/crowd reactions to this - I suspect extremely dissatisfied but I feel as if I'll take some sick joy out of that epper:

 

[Browner]

Since it won't let me edit...

Browner - I fully agree and usually after you tell them once to ensure they take the tap properly they do.

Given the thoughts around the taking of the tap, I feel I might try something different tomorrow and actually ensure that they follow the laws on this one tomorrow - I'll include it very quickly in my PMB saying that I'll act on it from the start. I'll also have a ref coach there so we'll see what he has to say when I blow a scrum in the 13B standard game. I agree that at this standard and age they should know what they're doing and if they don't, it's not my problem. It will be most interesting to see the coach/crowd reactions to this - I suspect extremely dissatisfied but I feel as if I'll take some sick joy out of that epper:

Good luck, I'd allow the coach to listen into the PMB, he won't be surprised thereafter. As for parents of kids.....any that want to take up the whistle can, otherwise they should cheer and support their siblings efforts.

I'd bet several £s that if asked all players know the ball movement requirements of a PK or Fk

U13 is a great age the players still appear to be actively listening to the PMB !!!!

 

[4eyesbetter]

From my personal observations, the requirement for a tap kick to go somewhere has been so thoroughly drilled into kids by U13 in London and surrounding areas that those of them who find themselves playing League in summer still do it habitually, even if some kindly person tells them "we don't care about that, you can just tap it on your foot and carry on".

 

[Browner]

From my personal observations, the requirement for a tap kick to go somewhere has been so thoroughly drilled into kids by U13 in London and surrounding areas that those of them who find themselves playing League in summer still do it habitually, even if some kindly person tells them "we don't care about that, you can just tap it on your foot and carry on".

I thought the RFU encouraged kids to have a complete rest at the end of the season rather than batter their young bodies on rock hard pitches, irrespective of how many ' kind' people thought otherwise.