NO advance the FK out of 22

[Dickie E]

Slightly adjacent. We all know a team can take their FK on or behind the mark. But if the team takes the scrum option, can they take that, too, on or behind the mark?

 

[OB..]

Slightly adjacent. We all know a team can take their FK on or behind the mark. But if the team takes the scrum option, can they take that, too, on or behind the mark?

I like it!

The law does not really say, but surely the inference is undeniable that the mark for the scrum is the mark for the FK.[Laws]20.1 (a) Where the scrum takes place. The place for a scrum is where the infringement or stoppage happened, or as near to it as is practicable in the field of play, unless otherwise stated in Law.[/Laws]

 

[Dickie E]

A team that gets a free kick has a number of options to ask for a scrum or take the kick (up and under) especially if they realis that there would be no gain in ground. But if they choose to take the kick from behind the mark but within the 22, thery gain ground if they kick out. Their opponents put the ball into their 22. Thery did not take it back into the 22. They brought the ball into play from a place inside the 22 that they were allowed to choose.

"Their opponents put the ball into their 22. Thery did not take it back into the 22." :wtf:

Forget, for the moment, the 'marched 10' scenario. Is the duty ref suggesting that a team awarded a FK outside the 22 can take it back into 22 for a gain-in-ground kick?

 

[TheBFG]

not really, because then you are deliberately ignoring a different Law - 21.8 , which could hardly be clearer -

[LAWS]Sanction: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second free kick, awarded 10 metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the goal line. Any player may take the kick. If the referee awards a second free kick, the second free kick is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the free kick.[/LAWS]

I take your 21.8 and raise you 10.2 (a) :wink:

like I said problem solved and a very easy one to sell :shrug:

 

[Phil E]

"Their opponents put the ball into their 22. Thery did not take it back into the 22." :wtf:

Forget, for the moment, the 'marched 10' scenario. Is the duty ref suggesting that a team awarded a FK outside the 22 can take it back into 22 for a gain-in-ground kick?

That's exactly what I was just thinking?

View attachment 3175

 

[crossref]

I take your 21.8 and raise you 10.2 (a) :wink:

like I said problem solved and a very easy one to sell :shrug:

yes, but incorrect in Law.

There are a number of 'solutions' to this that are all easy to sell. I don't like your one because while it gives them gain-in-ground (good) it also gives them the throw in (too much).

Alternatives people have floated are
A - (where practical) measure 10m conservatively so that the advanced kick is still inside the 22m
B - simply don't advance 10m - instead tell them to re-take the FK in the same spot
C - allow them to take the advanced FK from inside the 22m and have gain in ground (the SA Refs solution)
D - give them a PK instead of a FK
E - follow the Law new FK, outside the 22m, no gain in ground, if the IRB don't like they can change the Law (the NO solution)

For me

E is the correct option and it is what you should do (NO is no fool). When the Law is clear Refs should follow it.
A is good, if can be done credibly.
B is also good
C is a possibility if you are refereeing in SA
D is the worst of all the options.

 

[TheBFG]

There are a number of 'solutions' to this that are all easy to sell. I don't like your one because while it gives them gain-in-ground (good) it also gives them the throw in (too much)

why is it too much? The opponents have deliberately offended.

 

[crossref]

why is it too much? The opponents have deliberately offended.

because the Law specifically says that sanction for these specific deliberate offences isn't a PK, it's a FK 10m up.

Of course if they do something completely egregious that you would give a PK for anywhere on the field, then fair enough.

But if you are saying that
- for oppo being not-10 outside the 22m you'd advance the FK 10m as per the Law
- but for oppo being not-10 just inside the 22m you'd advance 10m AND also convert it to a PK -- to preserve gain in ground

then I'd say you are making a Law error - you are giving an unmertited double sanction 10m advance AND a PK.

 

[TheBFG]

it's not unmerited, they've deliberately offended 10.2 (a) says I can award a PK, my choice and one I would consider, and would argue is not outside the law.

By moving the ball outside the 22 they've effectively cut down the defending sides options, is that right?

Lets look at our cousins of the round ball....... a few years back they started enforcing the "I can move a PK forward 10m for dissent" this was soon ignored by refs again because sides got wise to the fact that a PK 30/25m out was at a point where the likes of Beckham could get the ball over the wall and on target, but move it forward 10m and all of a sudden it wasn't on anymore.

 

[crossref]

Lets look at our cousins of the round ball....... a few years back they started enforcing the "I can move a PK forward 10m for dissent" this was soon ignored by refs again because sides got wise to the fact that a PK 30/25m out was at a point where the likes of Beckham could get the ball over the wall and on target, but move it forward 10m and all of a sudden it wasn't on anymore.

that's option B

A - (where practical) measure 10m conservatively so that the advanced kick is still inside the 22m
B - simply don't advance 10m - instead tell them to re-take the FK in the same spot
C - allow them to take the advanced FK from inside the 22m and have gain in ground (the SA Refs solution)
D - give them a PK instead of a FK
E - follow the Law new FK, outside the 22m, no gain in ground, if the IRB don't like they can change the Law (the NO solution)

which, yes as I said, I think is much preferable your option D.

 

[liversedge]

If the oppo do not retreat 10 and affect play (tackle/obstruct) I will play advantage rather than award another FK.
How does this differ from the 10.2 interpretation ?

 

[OB..]

Lets look at our cousins of the round ball....... a few years back they started enforcing the "I can move a PK forward 10m for dissent" this was soon ignored by refs again because sides got wise to the fact that a PK 30/25m out was at a point where the likes of Beckham could get the ball over the wall and on target, but move it forward 10m and all of a sudden it wasn't on anymore.

IIRC we were told by a soccer panel ref that this was combined with awarding a yellow card. The referees wanted to be allowed to use the 10m move first, but the authorities said they had to issue a Yellow Card first. This killed it.

 

[OB..]

it's not unmerited, they've deliberately offended 10.2 (a) says I can award a PK, my choice and one I would consider, and would argue is not outside the law.

By moving the ball outside the 22 they've effectively cut down the defending sides options, is that right?

Are you arguing that ANY infringement at a FK can be treated as deliberate under 10,2 (a)? If so I fear you are stretching the law too far in order to cover this particular gap, and will be forced for consistency to apply the same approach in other situations.

Otherwise the point is a red herring. What do you do in the case where there is no justification for changing the decision to a PK?