NO advance the FK out of 22

[RobLev]

This from SArefs.
Discuss.

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830759/

Simple; they haven't read the law. It isn't where the FK is taken from that counts, it's where it was awarded. The FK for not back 10 is a new FK; and Law 19.1(j) tells us that;

[LAWS]When a free kick awarded outside the 22 goes directly into touch, the throw-in is in line with where the ball was kicked, or where it went into touch, whichever is nearer the kicker’s goal line.[/LAWS]

Then you may wish to comment on this one

BC is tackled, fumbles it, and after an age eventually pops up a pass. Not immediate...

 

[The Fat]

Simple; they haven't read the law. It isn't where the FK is taken from that counts, it's where it was awarded. The FK for not back 10 is a new FK; and Law 19.1(j) tells us that;

[LAWS]When a free kick awarded outside the 22 goes directly into touch, the throw-in is in line with where the ball was kicked, or where it went into touch, whichever is nearer the kicker’s goal line.[/LAWS]



BC is tackled, fumbles it, and after an age eventually pops up a pass. Not immediate...

Agree with you re FK awarded outside the 22.

On the 2nd one, what do you think NO would have done if the white player had placed the ball instead of passing at the same pace?

 

[Browner]

I agree that that Law is wrong -- but does that mean that I can ignore it?

Yes, If another also Law also covers the offence. Just, use the one that gives " most advantage to the non offending team " , in the case of a further offence , then , if its intentional, that'll do nicely , for me.

Imagine a Fk awarded in own 22, 9 taps and runs seeing a 3v1 overlap ahead of him and shapes to pass to the fastest and unmarked winger on the pitch, lone defending player who was retreating recognises this and immediately diverts & tackles the 9....... What you gonna do Crossref?
a) advance the FK 10m upfield , now outside the 22, ...... or
B) give PK at point of his deliberate offending, because its ' more advantageous' to the non offenders ( and then YC the defender, or even award a PT! ....ooh contentious !)

My hand would be heading to my pocket on a 'offence upgrade' 100%, I know this is fanciful, but its done to demonstrate that you may choose and be aslo Law adhering.

 

[RobLev]

Yes, If another also Law also covers the offence. Just, use the one that gives " most advantage to the non offending team " , in the case of a further offence , then , if its intentional, that'll do nicely , for me.

Imagine a Fk awarded in own 22, 9 taps and runs seeing a 3v1 overlap ahead of him and shapes to pass to the fastest and unmarked winger on the pitch, lone defending player who was retreating recognises this and immediately diverts & tackles the 9....... What you gonna do Crossref?
a) advance the FK 10m upfield , now outside the 22, ...... or
B) give PK at point of his deliberate offending, because its ' more advantageous' to the non offenders ( and then YC the defender, or even award a PT! ....ooh contentious !)

My hand would be heading to my pocket on a 'offence upgrade' 100%, I know this is fanciful, but its done to demonstrate that you may choose and be aslo Law adhering.

That works, but only if the majority of infringements of Law 21.8 are non-deliberate. The problem is, I can't see an easy way to distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate infringements of that Law; in fact a couple of infringements have intentional action as an element of the offence (21.8(d), (f) and (g)). How do you distinguish betwen deliberately intentionally throwing the ball out of the reach of the kicker, and non-deliberately intentionally doing the same?

Similarly, it's difficult to see how a player can non-deliberately fail "immediately [to] run towards their own goal line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark" (21.8(a)).

So what non-arbitrary criterion are you going to use to decide between FK and PK for infringement under 21.8?

 

[Dickie E]

If you don't retreat at a PK, the mark for the PK is moved 10m forward.
If you don't retreat at a FK, the mark for the FK is moved 10m forward.

That looks consistent to me.

What about scrum, ruck, maul, et al.?

[aside: you Poms hold this guy up as the font of all knowledge: I just don't get it :shrug: Maybe that's how Phil the Greek keeps getting a free feed]

 

[crossref]

This from SArefs.
Discuss.

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830759/

gosh the same incident as in the OP
anyone would think that SAREFS read this site (shy wave to SARefs)

I like their reasoning.

 

[crossref]

[aside: you Poms hold this guy up as the font of all knowledge: I just don't get it :shrug: Maybe that's how Phil the Greek keeps getting a free feed]

this Pom doesn't understand any of that!

who is 'this guy' ? OB.. ? who is holding him up as a fount of all knowledge? what's the connection with Phil?

 

[RobLev]

gosh the same incident as in the OP
anyone would think that SAREFS read this site (shy wave to SARefs)

I like their reasoning.

The problem is they are arguing that taking the FK short of the mark, inside the 22m, isn't taking the ball back - but that's not the point being made. The point being made is that it doesn't matter where the FK is taken, because the Law refers to where the FK is awarded; so their reasoning is irrelevant, however cute.

And this:

If Botiga had kicked directly into touch from inside the 22 on a line through the mar, the line-out (to Wasps) would have been at the place where the ball went into touch.

is simply wrong. Law 19.1(j) (which I quote above) is why.

 

[crossref]

The problem is they are arguing that taking the FK short of the mark, inside the 22m, isn't taking the ball back - but that's not the point being made. The point being made is that it doesn't matter where the FK is taken, because the Law refers to where the FK is awarded; so their reasoning is irrelevant, however cute.

And this:



is simply wrong. Law 19.1(j) (which I quote above) is why.

yeah, you're right.

at the end of the day there's no way to resolve this, the Law is simply unsatisfactory here.

 

[crossref]

It's never even clear on that site whether the answers are the views of SARFU, or merely the personal opinion of the ref who happens to be on duty. (I imagine the latter) .

I think that by following up JVH's answer with a full length article in support of his view, SA Refs have answered that question.
(It's the former)

 

[RobLev]

Agree with you re FK awarded outside the 22.

On the 2nd one, what do you think NO would have done if the white player had placed the ball instead of passing at the same pace?

What he "should" have done, or what he "would" have done?

For me, "immediate" is the same whether you are placing or passing; but I suspect he'd have let it go if it had been placed. And he might have been correct to do so - a delayed pop-pass is clearly material - it allows the team-mate to run onto the ball at pace - whereas a delayed placement with no jackler is much less so.

 

[The Fat]

What he "should" have done, or what he "would" have done?

For me, "immediate" is the same whether you are placing or passing; but I suspect he'd have let it go if it had been placed. And he might have been correct to do so - a delayed pop-pass is clearly material - it allows the team-mate to run onto the ball at pace - whereas a delayed placement with no jackler is much less so.

I had a feeling that would be your answer and I would have to disagree with that way of thinking. We have discussed this issue of "immediately" previously on this forum with the general feeling being that the ball carrier has a little more time to exercise his options if there is no opposition player, on their feet, near the ball wanting to gain possession.
My reply to your response would be that there should be no difference in timing for release (whether it be by place, pass or push) under the same tackle conditions, i.e. if there are oppo players over or near the ball the release, regardless of which method is used, must be quicker than if there are no oppo players over or near the ball. In any case, it would seem unreasonable to me to say that if there is no oppo player trying to take possession from the ball carrier, that the ball carrier gets 3 seconds to place or push the ball but only 1-2 seconds to pass the ball.
Others may disagree with me but that's why we come on here to discuss our game management. Interested to read others comments.
Cheers

 

[OB..]

What about scrum, ruck, maul, et al.?

[aside: you Poms hold this guy up as the font of all knowledge: I just don't get it :shrug: Maybe that's how Phil the Greek keeps getting a free feed]

Too silly. Next.

 

[Browner]

That works, but only if the majority of infringements of Law 21.8 are non-deliberate. The problem is, I can't see an easy way to distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate infringements of that Law; in fact a couple of infringements have intentional action as an element of the offence (21.8(d), (f) and (g)). How do you distinguish betwen deliberately intentionally throwing the ball out of the reach of the kicker, and non-deliberately intentionally doing the same?

Similarly, it's difficult to see how a player can non-deliberately fail "immediately [to] run towards their own goal line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark" (21.8(a)).

So what non-arbitrary criterion are you going to use to decide between FK and PK for infringement under 21.8?

Agree about (e,f,g) which is why i posted #28, which said

IMO 21.8 a,b,c,d are outranked by the PK sanctions contained in Law10. Therefore applying L10 upgrades the FK to a PK, which is a better deterrent.

Unless someone can convince me that 21.8 abc or d offences are C&O unintentional, unlikely they will .

 

[RobLev]

Agree about (e,f,g) which is why i posted #28, which said

Sorry, I missed that in your earlier comment.

It is difficult nevertheless to see that any infringements even of (a)-(d) can be committed other than deliberately; you therefore can't distinguish between the various infringements of Law 21.8 on the basis of deliberateness, because they are all deliberate. On your view, therefore, there is no place for the sanction written into Law 21.8 (which has to be taken to be the default sanction).

In my inexpert view, however, what you can do is use 10.4(m) to upgrade to a PK for cynical breaches of 21.8; that is, the mens rea has to go beyond deliberateness.

 

[Browner]

Sorry, I missed that in your earlier comment.

It is difficult nevertheless to see that any infringements even of (a)-(d) can be committed other than deliberately; you therefore can't distinguish between the various infringements of Law 21.8 on the basis of deliberateness, because they are all deliberate. On your view, therefore, there is no place for the sanction written into Law 21.8 (which has to be taken to be the default sanction).

In my inexpert view, however, what you can do is use 10.4(m) to upgrade to a PK for cynical breaches of 21.8; that is, the mens rea has to go beyond deliberateness.

Or ... They all are, cos its easier and less hair splitting.

 

[RobLev]

Or ... They all are, cos its easier and less hair splitting.

That completely ignores the fact that the default sanction in Law for breach of 21.8 is another FK. A PK should be awarded as an exception to that rule.

 

[Browner]

That completely ignores the fact that the default sanction in Law for breach of 21.8 is another FK. A PK should be awarded as an exception to that rule.

Yep, unnecessarily so, IMO.

 

[OB..]

It is a standard principle of legal interpretation that you must always make sure that any interpretation you choose does not make another part otiose.

 

[TheBFG]

according to the Saffers Refs site...... (not my typos, on this occasion!)

Law 21.2 WHERE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
(a) The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark.

If Botiga had taken the kick from within his 222 and kicked the ball directly into touch, where would the line-out be?

The ball was put into touch by Wasps, not Harlequins.
Harlequins were allowed to take the kick anywhere behind the mark.
Opting to kick from behind the mark does not mean that Harlequins had taken the ball back into their 22. They d=]simply kicked from inside their 22, as the law allows them to do.

If Botiga had kicked directly into touch from inside the 22 on a line through the mar, the line-out (to Wasps) would have been at the place where the ball went into touch.