[Law] More new Laws?

[Pinky]

Good point - you've reminded me of a vague recollection of a thread discussion here in the dim and distant. Although in this instance it's towards their own posts, presumably to kick it dead, and it goes awry.

I think that I would still go with the guidance that bouncing off the post and going dead would be a lineout to the defending side. Even although that feels all sorts of wrong in law!

 

[OB..]

I think that I would still go with the guidance that bouncing off the post and going dead would be a lineout to the defending side. Even although that feels all sorts of wrong in law!

It is Clarification 2 of 2006 (which makes no sense at all to me).
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Request[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Law 19.1 (e) stipulates: “Penalty kick. When a player kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing area, the throw in is taken from where the ball went into touch.”

Law 19.4 (Exception) has the following precision. “When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw in is taken by the player of the team who took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch.”

Finally, Law 21.4 (d) requires for “kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch.”

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?
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]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.

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

The term "kicking FOR touch" has often been queried - does it imply intention? If it does, then in this case it is blindingly obvious that the intention was to try and kick a goal, so 21.4(d) is irrelevant.

If intention does not matter, then apply 21.4 (d), for which the sanction is a scrum to the opposition at the place for the penalty.

The usual 12-year old must have been away and left his younger brother to mess it up.

 

[Dickie E]

It is Clarification 2 of 2006 (which makes no sense at all to me).

Funny isn't it cos it makes all sorts of sense to me. You don't get 2 bites of the cherry. if your shot at goal misses, you don't (and shouldn't) get rewarded with the lineout throw.

 

[Nigib]

I think that I would still go with the guidance that bouncing off the post and going dead would be a lineout to the defending side. Even although that feels all sorts of wrong in law!

In which case the team kicking (and the defending team in this instance) gets throw-in at the lineout

 

[OB..]

Funny isn't it cos it makes all sorts of sense to me. You don't get 2 bites of the cherry. if your shot at goal misses, you don't (and shouldn't) get rewarded with the lineout throw.

My view is that they could be rewarded with the scrum. That at least fits the laws.

Two bites at the cherry is not a standard principle of rugby. If it were, a player who knocks the ball forward when trying to catch it should not be allowed to recover it.

 

[Pinky]

In which case the team kicking (and the defending team in this instance) gets throw-in at the lineout

I suppose he was not kicking for goal so there is no need to change who the throwing in side should be, but OB is right that clarification from 2006 hardly clarifies anything.

 

[VM75]

Funny isn't it cos it makes all sorts of sense to me. You don't get 2 bites of the cherry. if your shot at goal misses, you don't (and shouldn't) get rewarded with the lineout throw.

+1

if your place-kick at goal misses & goes into touch [including a bounce off an upright] then it's not a 'permitted' punt or drop kick touch-find , so you don't get the throw.

 

[OB..]

+1

if your place-kick at goal misses & goes into touch [including a bounce off an upright] then it's not a 'permitted' punt or drop kick touch-find , so you don't get the throw.

If you decide the kick that goes into touch is not allowed, then the sanction is a scrum to the opposition at the mark for the penalty.

If there is nothing illegal about the kick, then the kicking team gets the throw.

You are entitled to argue about what you think is fairest, but I don't see how anybody can align that with the laws. Issuing a clarification that ignores the laws seems to me to be a bad move.

 

[winchesterref]

Game over, as it wasn't a kick to touch and neither did it go directly into touch. This counts as an unsuccessful kick at goal, IMHO

This is the one

 

[Camquin]

You cannot place kick a penalty into touch, so if a place kick accidentally goes into touch by bouncing off the posts you should not get the advantage of the throw.
It is at least better than the scrum for an incorrect kick.

I suppose on the high veldt a drop kick might have the legs to bounce off the posts and into touch.

You can punt for touch or space - so a punted cross kick that goes wrong and comes off the posts is legal - not quite sure why you lose the throw in that case.

BTW, provided you have not said you are kicking for goal and the Touch Judges have not been sent behind the posts, can you place kick a cross kick into space for a winger to run onto?

 

[didds]

BTW, provided you have not said you are kicking for goal and the Touch Judges have not been sent behind the posts, can you place kick a cross kick into space for a winger to run onto?

if you set up for a place kick, without indicating posts, would the ref not be checking your intentions? Or even take that action as an indication nof posts (rightly or wrongly!)

cheers

didds

 

[ianh5979]

If he's using a tee that automatically indicates a shot at goal