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

[crossref]

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.

I cited the clarificaiton in response to Ian's posting just above it, which raises the case of accidental touch

 

[SimonSmith]

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.

Your logic is off on this.
Kicking for goal and having it go into touch by accident is a perfectly legitimate course of action.

Place kicking for touch, having signaled a shot at goal, is not a perfectly legitimate course of action. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to pears.

We're arguing about the specifics of what law to apply - I would suggest that a deliberate offence PK would trump any lesser sanction.

 

[OB..]

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.

True, but it was quoted and seems to me to have nothing to do with logic or law either.

 

[crossref]

Your logic is off on this.
Kicking for goal and having it go into touch by accident is a perfectly legitimate course of action.

Place kicking for touch, having signaled a shot at goal, is not a perfectly legitimate course of action. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to pears.

We're arguing about the specifics of what law to apply - I would suggest that a deliberate offence PK would trump any lesser sanction.

I know all this, and agree.

The reason I quoted the clarification was in response to Ian who said

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)

And I am correcting him.
In fact
(1) and (2) are play on (lineout)
(3) is the issue in the OP and the sanction laid down in the Law for (3) is a scrum.

But in the circumstance where a scrum would mean game over, then I am sympathetic to just awarding a PK anyway

 

[Ian_Cook]

The reason I quoted the clarification was in response to Ian who said



And I am correcting him.
In fact
(1) and (2) are play on (lineout)
(3) is the issue in the OP and the sanction laid down in the Law for (3) is a scrum.

But in the circumstance where a scrum would mean game over, then I am sympathetic to just awarding a PK anyway

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.

OB.. often makes the statement "the referee has to make sense of the Laws". This Clarification makes no sense at all, and he has rightly described it as an Obfuscation.

1. The Clarification is 2006... that is 10 years ago.

2. The Law references made in it have errors...
- 21.4 (d) has changed to (e) because if the addition of 21.4 (b)
- 21.4 (d) at that time, made no mention of who throws in
- 19.4 exception has nothing to do with the lineout being no closer than 5m to the goal line; not even in 2006

3. The Clarification also directly contradicts Law 19.4 (a)

[LAWS]19.4 WHO THROWS IN
(a) The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.
Exception: When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw-in is taken by a player of the team that took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch. [/LAWS]

I would follow it for the ball striking the uprights and going into touch, and just ignore it for all other scenarios (because it doesn't apply, especially, it does not address the OP ) and go with existing Law - 21.7 (e) for unintentional, and 10.2 (a) for intentional

(NOTE: This is me making sense of the Laws! :biggrin: )

 

[crossref]

 

[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

I know.

It was a joke.

didds

 

[MiniRef]

My first reaction (which I still think) was:
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. Sanction: Penalty.

For the record, the ref blew for full time.

 

[crossref]

My first reaction (which I still think) was:
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. Sanction: Penalty.

For the record, the ref blew for full time.

10.4(m) was what they used for Chris Ashton's biting someone twice

In this situation, a player merely attempting to exploit the letter of the Law to his advatage, it feels like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

It doesn't even seem to me to be unsporting...

Is it unsporting to hold the ball at the back of a ruck or two for 30s, until time expires?

10.4(m) we should be thinking YC territory.


I think a PK for deliberately offending is as far as you can go.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Did ref just blow full time?, or did ref short blast, indicate scrum at mark, look at watch, and then blow full time?

 

[DocY]

10.4(m) was what they used for Chris Ashton's biting someone twice

In this situation, a player merely attempting to exploit the letter of the Law to his advatage, it feels like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

It doesn't even seem to me to be unsporting...

Is it unsporting to hold the ball at the back of a ruck or two for 30s, until time expires?

10.4(m) we should be thinking YC territory.


I think a PK for deliberately offending is as far as you can go.

It's very versatile! In my playing days I saw someone penalised for (in the ref's words) "unsporting conduct" when he threw a handful of mud at an opponent. I think that's definitely the right law under which to penalise him, but don't think a yellow card is merited.

I disagree about it being unsporting - I'd call it gamesmanship. Kudos to the player for knowing (assuming he did) the laws so well, though.

 

[chbg]

It doesn't even seem to me to be unsporting...

I think a PK for deliberately offending is as far as you can go.

So "deliberately offending" is not "unsporting"?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have been thinking about NKW's time wasting aspect and IMO, its not time wasting. In fact, with PK or FK, its not really possible to commit a Law 10.2 (b) Time Wasting infringement.

The Laws specify the amount of time allowed for kicks to be taken; for a PK, FK or FK from a mark, its 60 seconds, for a conversion its 90 seconds and for any other kick it is without undue delay. For a PK, FK or Conversion, using all of the allowed time is not time wasting. The player is entitled to use all of the available time specified, and if he goes over that time, the kick is disallowed and a scrum is awarded.

In this case, it doesn't matter that he delayed until after full time, so long as he was within the allowed time for the type of kick, he has not infringed any Law. Where he committed the infringement was in kicking the ball into touch from a place kick. If he did so accidentally, then its a scrum at the mark (with exception specified in Obfuscation Clarification 2006-2 when the ball strikes the uprights and goes into touch) and if time has expired, its no-side.

However, as described by the OP, the player intentionally changed his run-up and kicked the ball deliberately and directly into touch. For mine, that is an infringement of Law 10.2 (a) Intentionally Offending. The kicker should have been penalised.

 

[Dickie E]

If he did so accidentally, then its a scrum at the mark

Ian, you've mentioned that a few times but I don't think its correct. If a player has a shot at goal and it skews off his boot accidentally into touch then that is play on and a lineout for me. He has not "place kicked for touch". Question may remain about whose throw it is though .

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

 

[DocY]

So "deliberately offending" is not "unsporting"?

I think they can be, though 'unsporting' obviously has a greater scope.

I can see an argument that a player making no attempt to hide a professional foul, knowing full well what the referee will do, is not being unsporting. Depends if you think that's in the spirit of the game - we're quite well provisioned with laws to ensure he doesn't benefit from such actions, so I'm inclined to think it is.

 

[OB..]

Should a player be allowed to benefit by deliberately breaking the laws? I suggest not.

 

[crossref]

Should a player be allowed to benefit by deliberately breaking the laws? I suggest not.

that's what the PK for deliberate offending is there for....

 

[DocY]

that's what the PK for deliberate offending is there for....

I think it depends how pernickety we're being with the wording of the laws (that's what this forum's for, right? ) but I think the question is whether this is a deliberate offence or just a quirk of the lawbook - as crossref has pointed out a few times, deliberately missing a kick at goal has its own specific sanction, which could be considered to override the more general deliberate offending.

I don't like this argument and would have no hesitation to give a PK (though would try to manage the situation to stop it coming to that).

 

[didds]

Going back to the position of the kick - near half way. had the kicker kicked anywhere near successfully earlier in the match from a similar distance? Even if such a kick was just short, just wide etc?

If he'd manifestly failed from a clsoer kick already then its clear the kick attempt was to run the clock down 9although that in itlesf I don;t have tan issue with) but coid be further evidence that a subsequent kick for touch was even more likely to be deliberate in order to kick ti dead.

?
didds

 

[DocY]

but coid be further evidence that a subsequent kick for touch was even more likely to be deliberate in order to kick ti dead.

Exactly. In these situations I think a "you sure?" is prudent followed by "you know deliberately missing is an offence, right?" if you really think they're doing something naughty.