[Law] Minute to go - Penalty kick - slow preparation - kick to touch

[crossref]

Time was wasted when kicker changed his intention from a kick at goal after his approx 1 min., and also chose the wrong type of kick to touch., a kick to touch that was taken with undue delay.

The sanction for each is permitted to be other than a scrum as time wasting is covered elsewhere.

This is within law.

so if time has expired then the award of a scrum means : it's game over.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Time was wasted when kicker changed his intention from a kick at goal after his approx 1 min., and also chose the wrong type of kick to touch., a kick to touch that was taken with undue delay.

The sanction for each is permitted to be other than a scrum as time wasting is covered elsewhere.

This is within law.

Well, the kicker is not even allowed to change his intention to kick at goal...

[LAWS]21.5 SCORING A GOAL FROM A PENALTY KICK
(a) A penalty goal can be scored from a penalty kick.
(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal.
Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.[/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

I would not award a scrum after full time because I see no basis in law to do so.
Accidental: game over
Intentional: PK

 

[crossref]

I would not award a scrum after full time because I see no basis in law to do so.
Accidental: game over
Intentional: PK

I agree with the sentiment, but in Law the sanction prescribed for doing it intentionally is a scrum.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree with the sentiment, but in Law the sanction prescribed for doing it intentionally is a scrum.

Nope; I'll quote the law again

[LAWS]10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

..the Law the sanction prescribed for intentionally infringing ANY Law of the game, is a PK!

 

[crossref]

Nope; I'll quote the law again

[LAWS]10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

..the Law the sanction prescribed for intentionally infringing ANY Law of the game, is a PK!

yes, there is that fall back of course. But it generally applies to
- offences that are usually committed unintentionally (like forward pass, or knock on), but sometimes intentionally
- repeated offences

This one - indicating posts, then kicking for touch cannot be committed unintentionally. It is ONLY be an offence if it's intentional So it has to be a scrum first time, and a PK if they do it twice.

(kicking for the posts and having the ball go accidentally over the touchline - let's say its a force 9 gale blowing - is not an offence at all -- Line out)

 

[OB..]

We have another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The prohibition on place kicking to touch was introduced to speed the game up. It had an immediate effect in that nobody did it any more - why lose the right to a penalty kick? However it has now reappeared in a different, rare, guise so it may be the sanction (which worked originally) is no longer strong enough. Perhaps a Clarification is all that is needed.

 

[DocY]

From a legalistic point of view it could be argued that the more specific offence of deliberately missing a kick at goal (scrum) should override the more general deliberate infringement (PK). But I think that reasoning would only apply if we had complete faith in the lawbook.

 

[DocY]

We have another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The prohibition on place kicking to touch was introduced to speed the game up. It had an immediate effect in that nobody did it any more - why lose the right to a penalty kick? However it has now reappeared in a different, rare, guise so it may be the sanction (which worked originally) is no longer strong enough. Perhaps a Clarification is all that is needed.

I was just thinking "I wonder if anyone knows the reason for deliberately missing having a different sanction"

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The Law makes no provision for a PK. the specified sanction is a scrum.

[LAWS]21.4 PENALTY AND FREE KICK OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

(e) Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick
for touch

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]

Sure it does. Unless otherwise stated in law. the otherwise in this case is unfair play in law 10

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

so if time has expired then the award of a scrum means : it's game over.

Im suggesting a FK not a scrum, Time wasting is stated elsewhere in law. Law 10 supercedes law 21

 

[OB..]

supercedes

Many years ago when we still had typists instead of word processors, I had a typed report returned to me with (among other corrections) "supersedes" changed to "supercedes". I corrected the others but insisted on "supersedes". The report came back with "supercedes", so I went round to explain why it had "s", not "c". She disagreed and pulled a dictionary out of the drawer. Her face was a picture of disbelief. "The dictionary's got it wrong!" she said, while her colleague dissolved in laughter (which she eventually joined in).

Merriam Webster says

Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error.

Fowler suggests it goes back further and has a little validity

It is worth noting that the word appears first as "superceder" in Old French and only later as "-seder"; and that in English, forms with medial "c" have been recorded since the 15c. It was often also written "supercedere" in medieval Latin, according to the OED.

My OED simply says

[now erron.] cf supersede

The etymology is that it comes from Latin "sedio", I sit, rather than "cedo" I go. Maybe "c" will eventually win because of the other words that end in "-cede". Shall I "procede"? :smile:

 

[Ian_Cook]

yes, there is that fall back of course. But it generally applies to
- offences that are usually committed unintentionally (like forward pass, or knock on), but sometimes intentionally
- repeated offences

Does it? Where does it say that in the Laws.?

This one - indicating posts, then kicking for touch cannot be committed unintentionally. It is ONLY be an offence if it's intentional So it has to be a scrum first time, and a PK if they do it twice.

(kicking for the posts and having the ball go accidentally over the touchline - let's say its a force 9 gale blowing - is not an offence at all -- Line out)

I disagree

Place kick for goal swings right in howling gale, and goes into touch.... accidental
- scrum at the mark - Law 21.7 (e)

Place kick for goal strikes the posts and bounces sideways across the touchline.... accidental
- scrum at the mark - Law 21.7 (e)

Place kick for goal, but the kicker intentionally changes his run-up and kicks directly into touch... intentional
- PK at the mark - Law 10.2 (a)

 

[crossref]

well actually it's a line out - there was a clarificatin (that we have discussed a few times before)

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=21&clarification=27

[LAWS]Clarification 2 2006

Following a penalty kick and after the ball was kicked, the ball hits the goal post and goes into touch without having been touched by another player.
What decision should the referee give?
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in.
Law 21.4(d).

If the penalty kick is for touch, therefore no place kick, then it is a lineout attacking team to throw in.

The lineout in either of these situations may not be closer than 5 metres from the goal line. Law 19.4 Exception.[/LAWS]

Ha !

So the answer is
Place for goal accidentally goes into touch -- Lineout
Place kick for goal intentionally goes into touch -- Scrum

The fact that time expired means I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of a PK, but it's not what the Law would dictate.

 

[didds]

You could always say to the kicker in these circumstances to make sure they just kick it hard enough to go dead behind the DBL ;-)

didds

 

[crossref]

You could always say to the kicker in these circumstances to make sure they just kick it hard enough to go dead behind the DBL ;-)

didds

In the OP the PK was from the half way line, so no doubt he felt he couldn't guarantee that long a kick

 

[DocY]

The fact that time expired means I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of a PK, but it's not what the Law would dictate.

What about 10.4(m)? Seems like just the law for this sort of thing.

 

[crossref]

What about 10.4(m)? Seems like just the law for this sort of thing.

yes. that and biting.

 

[OB..]

well actually it's a line out - there was a clarificatin (that we have discussed a few times before)

And what a peculiar one it is.

If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in.
Law 21.4(d).

The reference (it is now 21.4 (e)) is to the prohibition on place-kicking for touch and the sanction is a scrum at the mark to the opponents. There is no mention of a lineout and the Obfuscation, I mean Clarification, does not explain why a kick that goes into touch from a PK can be a throw to the opposition.

We have argued previousiy whether or not kicking "for" touch necessarily implies intention, but in this case there was very obviously no such intention.

 

[Phil E]

The clarification is for a genuine kick at goal that hits the post and rebounds into touch.
It has nothing to do with the OP.