Not kicking for goal

[Robert Burns]

Law reference please Robert?

If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the
kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to
kick at goal.

This does not state that the kicker and only the kicker can indicate a kick at goal. It merely says "IF".

By contrast a scrum alternative.....

Scrum alternative. A team awarded a penalty or free kick may choose a scrum instead.
They throw in the ball.

Note it says "a team may choose", not the kicker, not the captain, not the LHP, but the team.

Law 21 I believe, 'Scoring from a penalty Kick'.

 

[Robert Burns]

21.5:

(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
(c) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.
(d) If the kicker has not indicated an intention to kick at goal but takes a drop kick and scores a goal, the goal stands.

I believe the IF is there because the kicker does not have to signal intention to kick for goal. But note that it is clearly the kicker that is defined to give the intention, should they wish too, or should the referee ask.

Bold is my emphasis as the ref should ask the kicker, not the captain.

Regarding the scrum, and any other decision in fact, the law does not state who makes the decision within the team, so hence as lots of others have said, if a team member chooses first, wrongly, then tough.

However, this law is very clear on who decides if to kick at goal or not.

 

[OB..]

OB, How do you know he's the kicker? as we are talking mainly about last minute kicks, you would know who had been kicking, but basically the guy standing next to you with the ball in his hand is going to be the kicker. Maybe a simple question "Are you the kicker?". If a yes, then that's good enough.

I thought I answered that point. The only person who can decide who the kicker is, is the captain. If he tells the player with the ball to hand it over, you expect the player to do so.

I think the law is badly phrased. So what's new?

 

[Donal1988]

Agree OB

 

[Deeps]

Ignoring Robbie's red herring concerning who makes decisions on behalf of the team where to kick the ball, what is interesting is that in 40 posts there have been recommendations to use all three of the possible sanctions originally posed. Consistency has not shown itself therefore.

What is clear is that there is no specific sanction in law so it becomes a matter of judgement by the referee as to the consequences of the kick in relation to the precise circumstances of the game. Law 21.5(b) requires that a kick at goal must be taken once that intention has been stated; why so? Is it to allow the defenders to position themselves to best defend the kick; possibly to prevent the defenders from distracting the kicker by establishing an appropriate benign disposition at the kick or is it to prevent the attacking side from using some ploy, such as a kick to the wing knowing that the defenders are clustered near the posts, to pop the winger over for a potential 7 points vice the three points on offer?

Making the kicker take the kick again does not work for me as he has infringed and arguably has done it intentionally; it would smack of a second bite of the cherry. Calling time while infering that the kicker may have sliced his kick is probably wrong too; not even I am that bad a kicker. The kicker has infringed (it is a game, remember) and the defenders are entitled to reap the benefit, just as you might award a scrum when a tap kick fails to move the ball a visible distance. As Ruling 2 of 2010 requires all options to be offered to the non kicking team should the ball be kicked directly to touch at a restart when time has expired, so should the sanction for an improperly taken kick be awarded in this case.

I would suggest that the opposition should have an opportunity to do do something useful with the ball until it next goes dead before time is called, particularly, as in this case, where a single score would have changed the outcome.

 

[Phil E]

I believe the IF is there because the kicker does not have to signal intention to kick for goal. But note that it is clearly the kicker that is defined to give the intention, should they wish too, or should the referee ask.
However, this law is very clear on who decides if to kick at goal or not.

I disagree.

(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
(c) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.
(d) If the kicker has not indicated an intention to kick at goal but takes a drop kick and scores a goal, the goal stands.

It's all if's and maybe's

May enquire, does not mean "must" enquire. It suggests that he "may" ask someone else. He may enquire, or he may not!
It just gives the ref the option to enquire if he wishes to do so. In other words, the kicker can't decline the enquiry, should the referee make it.

 

[crossref]

(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention.

I am struggling to think what the point of that law is anyway... why do we stop teams from changing their minds? ploys are all part of rugby, it's up to the defenders to stay alert. 21.5.b should be removed.

 

[Phil E]

I am struggling to think what the point of that law is anyway... why do we stop teams from changing their minds? ploys are all part of rugby, it's up to the defenders to stay alert. 21.5.b should be removed.

Ref I'm kicking.

No, no, wait, changed my mind.

What's that skip, Oh! we ARE kicking.

No, wait, not sure I can make it that far.

Hang on, I might give it a go.

:chin: :chin: :chin:

 

[Taff]

I am struggling to think what the point of that law is anyway... why do we stop teams from changing their minds? ploys are all part of rugby, it's up to the defenders to stay alert. 21.5.b should be removed.

But what about the TJs? If they get sent behind the posts for a PK attempt, they are then not available for any kick to touch.

 

[Simon Thomas]

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?

Phil - I am with you on this one.

If kicker tells me "posts sir" then that is what they get. If the tee arrives (and we have been around this one before) then it is a shot at goal nominated.

If they want all requests via skipper than that is down to their discipline and organisation - not my problem.

 

[Simon Thomas]

But a harder feat to get distance from a drop kick as oppopsed to a place kick hence the worry that oppo may get a final phase of play to counter.

I have never measured the distances achieved with the three type of kick - place, drop and punt, but I suspect they are pretty similar for a specialist trained kicker.

On a full size approx 100m pitch, when place kicking I could usually just about make the posts from oppos 10m line. Half way line was out of range without a following wind.

When restarting I could drop kick from halfway line and put the ball dead (before new law came in), or from a 22m drop out get first bounce not far from the oppo 22m. And for drop kick in open play my "attempt arc" (as we used to call it) was 35m maximum.

Punts from hand (standing kick) at half way line (say on 15m line) I would expect to get a first bounce in touch mid way 22m to goal line.

 

[crossref]

Ref I'm kicking.

No, no, wait, changed my mind.

What's that skip, Oh! we ARE kicking.

No, wait, not sure I can make it that far.

Hang on, I might give it a go.

:chin: :chin: :chin:

yes but we OFTEN get -
- kick for the corner!
- no let's do Trailblazer that always works
- no, what about a scrum?
- no you idiot - kick for the corner
- (from the far wing) OI! lots of space out here!!!
- well, how much longer is there?
- how much longer ref?
etc etc

and it doesn't cause any problems: you just tell them to hurrry up get on with it...and they do...

TOUCH JUDGE positioning is a good answer though - that sounds like the reason for the law.

 

[Robert Burns]

I thought I answered that point. The only person who can decide who the kicker is, is the captain. If he tells the player with the ball to hand it over, you expect the player to do so.

I think the law is badly phrased. So what's new?

haha, yes, I do agree with you OB.

But why would a captain replace his best kicker, if his best kicker say's he can't kick it?

Ignoring Robbie's red herring concerning who makes decisions on behalf of the team where to kick the ball, what is interesting is that in 40 posts there have been recommendations to use all three of the possible sanctions originally posed. Consistency has not shown itself therefore.

What is clear is that there is no specific sanction in law so it becomes a matter of judgement by the referee as to the consequences of the kick in relation to the precise circumstances of the game. Law 21.5(b) requires that a kick at goal must be taken once that intention has been stated; why so? Is it to allow the defenders to position themselves to best defend the kick; possibly to prevent the defenders from distracting the kicker by establishing an appropriate benign disposition at the kick or is it to prevent the attacking side from using some ploy, such as a kick to the wing knowing that the defenders are clustered near the posts, to pop the winger over for a potential 7 points vice the three points on offer?

Making the kicker take the kick again does not work for me as he has infringed and arguably has done it intentionally; it would smack of a second bite of the cherry. Calling time while infering that the kicker may have sliced his kick is probably wrong too; not even I am that bad a kicker. The kicker has infringed (it is a game, remember) and the defenders are entitled to reap the benefit, just as you might award a scrum when a tap kick fails to move the ball a visible distance. As Ruling 2 of 2010 requires all options to be offered to the non kicking team should the ball be kicked directly to touch at a restart when time has expired, so should the sanction for an improperly taken kick be awarded in this case.

I would suggest that the opposition should have an opportunity to do do something useful with the ball until it next goes dead before time is called, particularly, as in this case, where a single score would have changed the outcome.

I agree with almost all of this, however I don't believe that you can allow play to continue under a law ruling that doesn't cover this scenario. The law must prevail and either you penalise for unsportsmanship, or you call full time because you no are awarding a scrum.

 

[TheBFG]

But why would a captain replace his best kicker, if his best kicker say's he can't kick it?

Used to play with a prop who could slot a PK from OUR 10m line, IF he caught it right, but our usual kicker was 75-80% good from their 10m line, 1-2 point game and PK on the half way line, you knew who the capt would call on :wink:

 

[Robert Burns]

Phil - I am with you on this one.

If kicker tells me "posts sir" then that is what they get. If the tee arrives (and we have been around this one before) then it is a shot at goal nominated.

If they want all requests via skipper than that is down to their discipline and organisation - not my problem.

Simon, the arrival of the tee is only to state when the minute starts.

However, While I am throwing the law at you all, I do agree with what everyone is saying, and I would, as the rest of you would, take the captains decision.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Robbie

I know this one (and Deeps and Ballsie will know it too) for a fact.

RFU issued a ruling for England that arrival of tee was in effect a nomination of shot at posts.

In a National league match about 4 or 5 years ago Havant coach sent on tee, oppo stopped, Havant SH tapped and went putting player over in corner. Complaints all over the place.

I will try to dig out paperwork on it but I have heard the ruling discussed at a number of training / development group meetings, including by London's DB.

 

[Phil E]

RFU issued a ruling for England that arrival of tee was in effect a nomination of shot at posts.

In a National league match about 4 or 5 years ago Havant coach sent on tee, oppo stopped, Havant SH tapped and went putting player over in corner. Complaints all over the place.

Obviously doesn't apply at international level :chin: :nono:

Or did the ref just get it wrong?

 

[TheBFG]

cropped up recently, Wales v somone in the autumn internationals, Jenkins came on to the pitch with water battle at a PK, defending team backed off Stephen jones tapped and scored in the corner, didn't that cause a rulling from IRB?

I know Spreaders brought it up in a Dev meeting and gave the ref a bit of a roasting, Shhhh!

 

[Robert Burns]

Robbie

I know this one (and Deeps and Ballsie will know it too) for a fact.

RFU issued a ruling for England that arrival of tee was in effect a nomination of shot at posts.

In a National league match about 4 or 5 years ago Havant coach sent on tee, oppo stopped, Havant SH tapped and went putting player over in corner. Complaints all over the place.

I will try to dig out paperwork on it but I have heard the ruling discussed at a number of training / development group meetings, including by London's DB.

I would agree that it makes sense, even if they don't nominate posts the fact the tee starts the 1 minute to kick at the posts must also mean that it states the intention to kick.

The two must go hand in hand.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Robbie

I know this one (and Deeps and Ballsie will know it too) for a fact.

RFU issued a ruling for England that arrival of tee was in effect a nomination of shot at posts.

In a National league match about 4 or 5 years ago Havant coach sent on tee, oppo stopped, Havant SH tapped and went putting player over in corner. Complaints all over the place.

I will try to dig out paperwork on it but I have heard the ruling discussed at a number of training / development group meetings, including by London's DB.