NO advance the FK out of 22

[RobLev]

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.

Discussed above - in my view they're wrong because they ignore 19.1(k) which makes the place the kick is awarded, not where it is taken, determinative. I've told them so...

 

[crossref]

I think they will argue this isn't really a new FK awarded outside the 22m, but the old FK advanced 10m, and you can decline the full advance.

but whatever way they argue it, the Law needs to be fixed.

 

[RobLev]

I think they will argue this isn't really a new FK awarded outside the 22m, but the old FK advanced 10m, and you can decline the full advance.

They would be wrong to do so - Law 21.8:

[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]

but whatever way they argue it, the Law needs to be fixed.

 

[crossref]

i do think you are correct Roblev - - there is no escaping it ... which is why NO made the decision he did, applying the Law, even when the Law is unsatisfactroy

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Isn't this a simple case where the referee, with his knowledge of the law, should exercise a bit of judgment in order to ensure equity (which should trump law). Have a strong word with Varndell, then have the original FK taken again from the same spot, explaining to the Quins captain why you are doing that. If the Quins captain says, "no, I'd definitely rather advance 10 metres", then do that. I know that we all love detailed law debates (and as a lawyer I relish them), but this is a case where you use game management to ensure an equitable outcome.

 

[crossref]

So Phil asks SA referees 'are you sure about your answer?' and they don't blink

3. Name Phil Jones

Question: Following on from the question from Steve Whistler. If the free kick is advanced 10 metres and ends up marked outside the 22, the team in possession then lose the opportunity to kick out on the full. If the team then decide to take the kick on a line behind the mark, taking it back into the 22 as JVH suggested, then they still don't have the option of kicking out on the full, correct?

NB Steve Whistler's question: At a free kick the Law says 'Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second free kick, awarded 10 metres in front of the mark for the first kick' Now, if a 10-metre advance takes the new mark outside the kicker's 22, that would be a significant disadvantage the non-offending team (as they can no longer kick for touch with gain-in-ground) In this circumstance would the referee be justified in advancing the mark less than 10 metres, ensuring that the new mark remains just inside the 22?

Jaco van Heerden: Hi Steve

The referee cannot advance more than ten metres nor can he advance less than ten metres...BUT the player can choose not to take the free kick on the mark which the referee makes and take it anywhere perpendicular to the mark towards the player's own goal-line.


Lesego Legoete: Hi Phil Jones,

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.

I hope this answers your question and clarifies the matter.

Kind regards
Pro

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-489--lesego-legoete/2829621/

 

[FlipFlop]

But bear in mind - it was also the SA's who thought that if a kick (form Blue) went into touch outside the 22m, and then rolled past the 22m line, then the QT was taken (by Red) inside the 22m, that the kicking team (Blue) had put it into the 22m. This was overruled by the IRB. They (SA Refs) were inline with the IRB then, and I suspect they are not inline with the IRB now either.

 

[RobLev]

So Phil asks SA referees 'are you sure about your answer?' and they don't blink



http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-489--lesego-legoete/2829621/

And they get it wrong again - at least according to the Law.

The confusing factor is the irrelevant issue being raised of whether the kicking team has "taken it back in".

 

[crossref]

And they get it wrong again - at least according to the Law.

The confusing factor is the irrelevant issue being raised of whether the kicking team has "taken it back in".

irrelevant?? That's the very heart of the matter.

 

[OB..]

The answer is fair, but it is an extreme case of sophistry and special pleading. The ball was originally put into the 22 by an opponent. By making the mark for the advanced FK, the referee has, in normal usage, also brought the ball out of the 22, so the kicking team then took it back in again.

At a scrum just inside the Red 22, Blue win the ball but give away a FK. Red scrum half runs outside the 22 to pick up the ball and throw it back to his fly half for a kick from inside the 22. Would you argue that Red had taken the ball into the 22?

 

[RobLev]

irrelevant?? That's the very heart of the matter.

Where the kick is taken from is irrelevant, according to the Law. Whether you get gain in ground depends on one thing, and one thing only, according to the Law. That one thing is where the kick was awarded. And if you advance a FK 10m, out of the 22m, for an infringement by the non-kicking team, you award a new FK outside the 22m.

Whether the kicking team is taking it back in by kicking from behind the mark, inside the 22m, doesn't bear upon that issue at all.

I agree with everyone that this is an anomaly that should be changed; but while the Law is as it is, there is only one answer consistent with it - a FK advanced out of the 22m for infringement, kicked direct to touch, cannot gain ground. Wherever it is taken from.

 

[Phil E]

Where the kick is taken from is irrelevant, according to the Law. Whether you get gain in ground depends on one thing, and one thing only, according to the Law. That one thing is where the kick was awarded. And if you advance a FK 10m, out of the 22m, for an infringement by the non-kicking team, you award a new FK outside the 22m.

Whether the kicking team is taking it back in by kicking from behind the mark, inside the 22m, doesn't bear upon that issue at all.

I agree with everyone that this is an anomaly that should be changed; but while the Law is as it is, there is only one answer consistent with it - a FK advanced out of the 22m for infringement, kicked direct to touch, cannot gain ground. Wherever it is taken from.

What a dilema :chin:

Should I go with a lawyer, who has read the law book, but who isn't a referee; or should I go with SA Ref's whose members include international referees?

Tough one?

 

[TheBFG]

upgrade it to a PK for deliberate offence, problem solved :shrug:

 

[crossref]

upgrade it to a PK for deliberate offence, problem solved :shrug:

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]

 

[SimonSmith]

What a dilema :chin:

Should I go with a lawyer, who has read the law book, but who isn't a referee; or should I go with SA Ref's whose members include international referees and who have a track record for getting stuff like that wrong?

Tough one?

FTFY Phil

 

[crossref]

hmmm - - they have stated a view, had it challenged, and then two weeks later repeated the view, don't you think there is a possibility they checked with the IRB before answering the second time ?

 

[RobLev]

What a dilema :chin:

Should I go with a lawyer, who has read the law book, but who isn't a referee; or should I go with SA Ref's whose members include international referees?

Tough one?

Up to you; so what is the justification in Law for allowing gain in ground for a FK awarded outside the 22m that is kicked directly into touch, taking account of the wording of 19.1(j)?

 

[RobLev]

hmmm - - they have stated a view, had it challenged, and then two weeks later repeated the view, don't you think there is a possibility they checked with the IRB before answering the second time ?

Possible - but they still haven't addressed the wording of Law 19.1(j).

 

[crossref]

I don't think it can be addressed : the Law is pretty unambiguous, but unsatisfactory as applying it gives a bad outcome.
perhaps the best way to read the answer is as advice as the preferred way to turn a blind eye, and ref this unusual scenario.

expect to see a Law change in the next issue.

 

[winchesterref]

Interesting response! Confusing issue. SA refs have it for now, but I agree with Rob overall.