Not kicking for goal

[Deeps]

At a recent game of sevens, a penalty was awarded at the end of the game. The skipper asked if there was time for a line out to be told that there was no time left. He instructed his kicker to take a shot at goal and advised the referee accordingly.

It then became apparent that the kicker was concerned he was unlikely to make the kick in view of the distance involved. After some discussion with his skipper, when he was told to get on with it, he drop kicked the ball and it went into touch at the 5 metre line.

With Law 21.5(b) in mind, what should the referee do next; whistle the end of the game; award a scrum at the mark to the opposition for an improperly taken kick; or, award a penalty against the kicking team for unsportsmanlike play?

 

[KML1]

Dont let him. Bring him back and make him kick it at goal, just like what you just signalled!! :wink:

 

[ddjamo]

tough one. I would not want to see a scrum awarded to the non infringing side and have the infringing side win the hook and score. ploy was successful - not the spirit of the law imo. I would say that if kicking side were losing - full time. non kicking/non infringing side losing - scrum at the mark.

 

[Rit Hinners]

I agree with ddjamo.

Are you sure he intentionally found touch?

I've seen a drop kick at goal after a penalty accidentally almost find touch. This was with a kicker that was usually very accurate.

A 7s side might have some very poor kickers on it. It's not easy to "hide" a kicker on the pitch when there are only seven players on the pitch.

 

[didds]

It raises an = general point tghough... not that I've ever seen it but what happens if the skipper says "posts" to the ref and the kicker says "nbot a prayer skip - I won't make it".

Its clearly just a bit of a boo-boo from the skipper, nothing "intentional" or "smart" ..

[Personally I'd like the ref to be able to say to the skipper - "you kick it then sunshine" ]

didds

 

[Robert Burns]

Send him off, penalty try to opposition!

 

[Ian_Cook]

What would they have gained by a subterfuge. Time was up and they knew there was no time for the line-out

1. If they were winning, just kicking the ball out would have won them the game, so nothing to gain by pretending to kick for goal and then deliberately not doing so

2. If they were losing, and the the kick for goal fell short, and the other team ran the length of the field and scored, well, they lost anyway.

3. If they were losing, what would they have gained by the subterfuge, given that you would have awarded the scrum to the other side, whereas they could simply have tapped and run, or taken a scrum with their own feed.

Blow the whistle for no-side.

 

[Donal1988]

Agree with Ian. Blow it up.

 

[Deeps]

Are you sure he intentionally found touch?

Can anyone make that decision? Perhaps he sliced his kick?

 

[Donal1988]

But even if he did intentionally kick to touch was there any material effect?

 

[Deeps]

What would they have gained by a subterfuge. Time was up and they knew there was no time for the line-out

1. If they were winning, just kicking the ball out would have won them the game, so nothing to gain by pretending to kick for goal and then deliberately not doing so

In this case, the kicking team were winning but by a point or two only, however, it would seem that the captain made the decision to kick at goal without apparently realising his kicker's concerns as to what might happen if his kick fell short with the ball remaining in play.

 

[Donal1988]

Seems highly unlikely to me Deeps. Making more trouble for yourself and the teams.

 

[Robert Burns]

In this case, the kicking team were winning but by a point or two only, however, it would seem that the captain made the decision to kick at goal without apparently realising his kicker's concerns as to what might happen if his kick fell short with the ball remaining in play.

On a more serious note (In case anyone wasn't aware my last comment wasn't serious).

Why did you not take the kickers intentions?? As it's his intentions that decide the kick at goal, not the captains.

 

[Drift]

Why did you not take the kickers intentions?? As it's his intentions that decide the kick at goal, not the captains.

What if the kicker had scored from there during the game so you know he can do it and the captain signals the kick at goal, so you know it's within range for the kicker, but he doesn't want to?

Just throwing a spanner in the works.

 

[Robert Burns]

That's regardless, the choice of intention is the kickers, if he wants to kick at goal from 5m out or 95m out, or not at all, it's their choice.

 

[Drift]

Ok cool. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Phil E]

Why did you not take the kickers intentions?? As it's his intentions that decide the kick at goal, not the captains.

Bearing Robbies comment above, was I wrong last Saturday when........

Penalty given to Blue.

A blue player right behind me says, "kick at goal please Sir".

I signal the kick.

Kicker is not sure he can make it and talks to another player (who becomes Captain later on when the Captain is injured).

This player says "excuse me Sir, can you ask the Captain next time, that player (points to blue who asked for kick) is not the Captain and can't make that decision."

I say "Someone in your team says "kick please", then you are kicking. If you only want the Captain to make that decision then you need to look at your own team discipline, not to me."

Was I right?

 

[crossref]

The scenario where this question really bites is when
- Red is winning by two points
- but points difference is important (eg pool game at festival)
- penalty to red
- red face decision : kick out of play and and settle for 2 pt victory, or take the PK at goal to try and increase the score difference.

Red decide to go for posts....
....and then the enormity of the risk they are taking sinks in, and they want to change their mind. What then?

1-do you let them change their mind (no, they can't I think that's clear)

If then

2-if kicker drops kicks to touch - ie clearly no attempt at goal - what do you do?

3-a cleverer kicker might put the ball on the cone and place-kick as hard as he can directly at the DBL to make sure ball goes dead.

In (2) I think I would take them back for scrum blue. They made their decision for posts, and then made no attempt at posts so can't change

In (3) as long as they are not so stupid as to tell me what they are doing, I think I would have have to allow it. I may have my suspicions - but on the face of it an attempt at posts seemed to take place, and therefore it's end of game.

 

[Bunniksider]

Crossref if we are still talking about 7's as per the original post then there would be no tee as 7's penalty goal attempts are drop kicks no?

 

[crossref]

so I guess you have
(4) Kicker drop-kicks directly at the DBL to ensure it goes dead.

- Same as (3). End of game. I think it would be a brave ref who said that no attempt at goal took place... unless of course Red were silly enough to tell him what they are doing. 'Is it OK if I just kick it at the DBL, ref?'. ans - 'You have to make an attempt at goal'