[Law] Law 10.2 question

[Dickie E]

this has now been added into Law 10.2:

[LAWS](d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Does this mean that a scrum half that/who intentionally passes the ball into a lazy runner or who runs into a retreating opponent, is guilty of an offence?

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I guess it's a matter of context. If the 9 taps and gos, runs straight into the back of a retreating player who is clearly running back to be 10m from the mark, then makes a big deal of it, shouting "Sir, come on, not 10" or something, then he could easily have avoided said player, then I would think about (a) a serious word first up and (b) a penalty if it happened again. If he simply runs into someone, doesn't make the big deal of it, bounces off the opponent, and just carries on running into space, then I wouldn't be penalising him - I wouldn't say that would necessarily be clear and obvious that he was commiting an act to make it look like he had suffered and infringement.
I think this came up elsewhere before - hard to define what it covers but I think most of us will know it when we see it...

 

[Rich_NL]

I think the key is that there has to be clear intent to milk the situation for an advantage, really.

 

[crossref]

the Law is poorly worded - I think the intention was to make it an offence to make up a piece of foul play, or other infringement, that hadn't actually happened. like pretending to be tripped - ie to lie.

the wording that they have ended up with seems to makes it an offence simply to complain about being punched or an offence to show the referee the bite mark on your arm.

 

[menace]

I thought we discussed this one and it was to cover the soccer style academy award winning 'dives'?

 

[crossref]

I thought we discussed this one and it was to cover the soccer style academy award winning 'dives'?

that's no doubt what they meant, but isn't quite what they said.

 

[Phil E]

But I think we all know when to use this piece of law.
Sometimes you have to use common sense.

 

[crossref]

But I think we all know when to use this piece of law.
Sometimes you have to use common sense.

yes.
but where a Law is badly worded, but it's years old, I can see why it might not get changed and meanwhile common sense has to be used. Fair enough, that's life.

but why introduce a BRAND NEW law into the Law book, that doesn't quite say what they meant to say, and where common sense has to be used to see through the bad wording from day one. it's just sloppy.

 

[Phil E]

I agree its sloppy. but my statement still stands despite that.

You are complaining to the wrong people.

 

[Rich_NL]

True, it should clearly read "... to mislead the match officials..."

 

[beckett50]

this has now been added into Law 10.2:

[LAWS](d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

I take this to refer to preventing the soccer practice of going down like you've been shot by a .50cal round from a distance of less than 100 yards.

Does this mean that a scrum half that/who intentionally passes the ball into a lazy runner or who runs into a retreating opponent, is guilty of an offence?

No, this is already covered IMHO

 

[Dixie]

I take this to refer to preventing the soccer practice of going down like you've been shot by a .50cal round from a distance of less than 100 yards.

Agreed. But what if you've just been heavily barged while chasing a kick ahead, and noticing that the referee has his eyes firmly fixed on the ball in flight, you loudly shout OOF and fall over?

Is it the simulation of act that never took place that is covered, or theatrically drawing attention to an act that did take place?

 

[crossref]

Agreed. But what if you've just been heavily barged while chasing a kick ahead, and noticing that the referee has his eyes firmly fixed on the ball in flight, you loudly shout OOF and fall over?

Is it the simulation of act that never took place that is covered, or theatrically drawing attention to an act that did take place?

the way its worded : both.
the way its worded, it also covers calmly and quietly drawing the referee's attention to an act that did take place

what was intended : I assumed they were thinking about the imaginary pretended incident.

 

[Dickie E]

No, this is already covered IMHO

Where?

 

[menace]

Agreed. But what if you've just been heavily barged while chasing a kick ahead, and noticing that the referee has his eyes firmly fixed on the ball in flight, you loudly shout OOF and fall over?

Is it the simulation of act that never took place that is covered, or theatrically drawing attention to an act that did take place?

I'd imagine both? Judgment and all that.

But in your scenario 'play on'... You couldn't tell it was acting either....cause you were looking at the ball in the air!!:shrug:

 

[crossref]

Roll on the new Law and once Ronan Poite had determined that Brown committed no offence, would he have penalised one or more Irish players under

[LAWS] (d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[talbazar]

Where?

Here?
[LAWS]10.4. (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure. [/LAWS]

I do agree it's poorly worded and to be honest I'm not sure it was needed in the law.
An application guideline of 10.4.(m) would have been totally sufficient IMHO.

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Taff]

True, it should clearly read "... to mislead the match officials..."

I think Rich has nailed it.

 

[crossref]

OK, so in the England Ireland game Brown totally legally (in the minds of the ref and TMO) kicked Russell in the head.

So if Russell had drawn this act to the refs attention, complaining of an offence of foul play against him, when no such offence had been committed, he would be guilty under the new Law of attempting to lead the ref to consider that an offence had taken place right? and PK against him????

the Law hasn't been brilliantly thought through.

 

[Bunniksider]

..........the Law hasn't been brilliantly thought through.

Unlike the rest of the perfectly worded lawbook!!!