Laws 21.8f a little help please.

[wolfie]

Hi I am getting back into reffing after a 3 yr on off lay off and am revising the laws in prep. A question as I am now looking deeply into the rules and maybe over analysing.

21.8f
Am I reading this correctly? To me it is saying if the opposing team interfere or prevent a free kick from being taken they receive a scrum. That cannot be right but I can't see what else the law is trying to say.

Thanks in advance.

 

[The Fat]

Hi I am getting back into reffing after a 3 yr on off lay off and am revising the laws in prep. A question as I am now looking deeply into the rules and maybe over analysing.

21.8f
Am I reading this correctly? To me it is saying if the opposing team interfere or prevent a free kick from being taken they receive a scrum. That cannot be right but I can't see what else the law is trying to say.

Thanks in advance.

To understand 21.8(f), you must read and understand 21.8(e).
Unlike at a PK, when a team takes a FK, any opposing players who were back the required 10m may move forward as soon as the player taking the FK starts to approach the kick. i.e. if the player with the ball is going to punt the ball downfield or to touch, as soon as he takes his first step, the onside opposition players may attempt to charge the kick. 21.8(f) simply tells us what happens if the "charge down" is successful.

(e) Charging the free kick. Once they have retired the necessary distance, players of the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the kick being taken. They may charge the free kick as soon as the kicker starts to approach to kick.



(f) Preventing the free kick. If the opposing team charge and prevent the free kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.

 

[wolfie]

Thanks, that has helped.

 

[Taff]

.. 21.8(f) simply tells us what happens if the "charge down" is successful.

If the FK is charged down, why not just play on?

I always understood 21.8(f) meant if the opponent somehow got to the kicker before he managed to kick it, then they got rewarded with a scrum.

 

[Nigib]

Anyone seen this happen? Covering 10m before the kicker takes a couple of steps, probably in the wrong sport

 

[The Fat]

Anyone seen this happen? Covering 10m before the kicker takes a couple of steps, probably in the wrong sport

I have a couple of videos of it happening from a presentation I put together last season.

1. All Blacks v SA. Beauden Barrett has the ball and as soon as he starts forward to take the FK, two SA defenders rush forward. When they do, Barrett stops and motions to the referee that they are moving towards him. The SA players, who obviously know the law, keep coming and stop Barrett. Roman Poite sends the two SA players back and allows Barrett to take the FK again. Error in law by RP.

2. Australia v Wales. RWC 2011 playoff for 3rd place.
Wales awarded a FK at a scrum for early engagement. Wales SH takes a quick tap but Wayne Barnes blows and brings him back and tells him he must take the tap from the correct place behind the 8.
The Welsh #10 then takes the ball and looks to kick for touch but as he starts his approach to punt the ball, James Horwill, who was now back 10, runs forward. The Welsh #10 stops and sidesteps Horwill and then looks like he is simply going to run the ball when Barnes blows and tells Horwill to "Let me deal with it". Barnes sends Horwill back then turns to the #10 and says, "He can charge as soon as you advance OK, so just remember that". He then allows Wales to take the FK again. This all happens about 10 out from the Wales goal line. They kick the ball to touch on the 10m line. Instead of a line-out to Aus 40m out, they should have had a scrum 10m out and almost centre field.
Horwill knew the law. Barnes knew the law as he explained it to the Welsh #10 and yet he allowed Wales to take the kick again. A big WTF? moment for me and probably a few questions for WB at his post match review.
To make matters worse, when WB allows Wales to take the kick again, he tells the Wallabies players to hold. Another WTF? moment.

It happens more than you think.

Watch from 8 minutes on game clock

 

[Browner]

If the FK is charged down, why not just play on?

I always understood 21.8(f) meant if the opponent somehow got to the kicker before he managed to kick it, then they got rewarded with a scrum.

I agree Taft, the "charge" that prevents a kick being taken = scrum, the charge-down = play on.

 

[The Fat]

I agree Taft, the "charge" that prevents a kick being taken = scrum, the charge-down = play on.

Agree as well. Poor choice of terminology in my 1st post.

 

[Taff]

Anyone seen this happen? Covering 10m before the kicker takes a couple of steps, probably in the wrong sport

I've never seen in "live" but did see it once on a televised game. Well, twice now thanks to Fat. :biggrin:
It's 9 mins 30 secs into that clip. At the level I referee, I can easily imagine going through my whole "career" and never having to use 21.8(f).

I agree Taff, the "charge" that prevents a kick being taken = scrum, the charge-down = play on.

Agree as well. Poor choice of terminology in my 1st post.

I'm so glad; I thought I'd understood it wrong for the past 4 years. :biggrin:

 

[Browner]

!

Agree as well. Poor choice of terminology in my 1st post.

Noted.

Never seen in any match I've refereed though, but I knew this FK defensive 'opportunity' as a player, it does catch opposition out though IF the referee also knows his stuff.

That James Hook example isnt a good watch ( thanks the fat) WB seems to know his law very well, but instead he kinda operates as a coach to Hook in that situation. I'm disappointed to see that from SuperWB , ..... perhaps he blew but then 'recounted' the law after he'd blown ...& we've probably all done that on occasions!?!?

 

[The Fat]

I mentioned this law in passing during a conversation with a local club president who was also assisting with coaching the U19s and captaining the 3rd grade seniors at the time.
Him: "Hang on a minute! Run that by me again! You can charge a FK as soon as the guy starts to move to kick?"
Me: "Yes, didn't you know? You've played a couple of hundred games for the club".
Him: "No, never heard of it or seen it".

I could see the wheels turning. He informed his players and within the next couple of rounds, bingo.

As much as that little law lesson had thrown him, you can imagine his face when I threw 22.4(g) into the mix.
Him: "Now that's just f#%(ing wrong".

 

[The Fat]

Found the Beauden Barrett one v SA

 

[Browner]

Found the Beauden Barrett one v SA

Commentators eh...
Ha ha, yes .....it is one of those old laws that ............ Ahem, Still exists , so not exactly " trying it on "

On a separate note Fat, didn't Kieren Read 'shape' to take a QFK?, which means that the SA charge is permitted to commence from then???? Just thinking about that game scenario occurring.

 

[wolfie]

Hi all,

That's been a worthwhile debate that has provoked some interesting thoughts. For me I would be surprised if I ever see it and it sort of comes under the heading of "if it doesn't look right it probably isnt". Be good to know if it does happen that I know the law.

I would like to tell my club teams of it but think we may get the same response from our weekend refs as RP and WB. Also it does make the refs life easier if the teams are not aware.

I think it also ranks along 13.15 drop out goes into opponents in-goal. At my level it is just one of things I don't think I will ever see..

But with regard 22.4g I did give a try under that even after the volunteer touch judge told me he was in touch. Trouble was I had the crowd and both teams against me for next 3/4 of the game because they decided I'd made a poor decision. - never mind no one said reffing was easy.

Yours

Wolfie

 

[Browner]

But with regard 22.4g I did give a try under that even after the volunteer touch judge told me he was in touch.

Trouble was I had the crowd and both teams against me for next 3/4 of the game because they decided I'd made a poor decision. - never mind no one said reffing was easy.

One of the reasons that we referee, and they don't ! , anyway they would've soon found another reason to blame you for their loss of match.

I mystified all spectators/players/coaches by declaring " no clean catch" at a claimed 'mark' call.

In response i posted a clip of CJ doing exactly the same in WP v Bulls onto their clubs website, merely to add TV support to my call. I will referee them again, so it may help breed confidence in this whistlers law knowledge?!?!? , or they may still consider me a smartarse ! But to me it was a 'cant lose' posting!

 

[ChrisR]

But with regard 22.4g I did give a try under that even after the volunteer touch judge told me he was in touch.

Key to awarding a try under 22.4(g) is for the ball to be on the deck when it's grounded. If the player, in touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, catches then grounds the ball then the ball is dead before he can score.

 

[The Fat]

But with regard 22.4g I did give a try under that even after the volunteer touch judge told me he was in touch.

Key to awarding a try under 22.4(g) is for the ball to be on the deck when it's grounded. If the player, in touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, catches then grounds the ball then the ball is dead before he can score.

Even more tricky is that he doesn't necessarily have to catch it. If the ball is bouncing and the player puts his hand on it at the top of the bounce (or at any stage where it is off the ground) and "guides" the ball back to the ground, he is deemed to have been in possession before the grounding and it is no try. Therefore, your 1st sentence is the key. The ball must be on the deck.