Not retreating 10.

[eb559]

Hello everyone. Long time lurker here who finally came up with something interesting to post.

Playing in a game today, red v purple.

Purple get penalty for tackler not releasing. Purple 9 takes quick tap but not from the mark. Red 1 puts in massive, but otherwise legal hit on him, were it not for the fact he only retreated about 3 yards

Leads to a bit of a scuffle, no punches thrown or anything like that, but made a previously good tempered match a bit more heated.

FYI the ref in the game told both sides to calm down and then simply told purple to retake it from the right place.

IMO if it had been taken properly it was a definite yellow, but as it hadn't been I wonder what should have happened.

What's everyone's take?

Cheers

 

[crossref]

hmm -

If it was a dangerous tackle, worthy of a YC on its own, then I agree : that the fact the tap was from the wrong place is irrelevant, it's still a YC.

But here you say the tackle was actually legal.

So I think the answer to your question depends .... why exactly did you think it was a definite YC ?

 

[eb559]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

It seemed fairly cynical in that red 1 knew he hadn't retreated far enough, but it looked like he did it just to stop purple making a clean break, and sort of lucked out that it hadn't been taken properly. Nothing wrong with tackle technique, just the big impact probably added to the purple players' reaction.

 

[didds]

so we have a not-10 tackle on an incorrectly taken FK.

I can understand why the ref prefered a tap again with the defence already back!

YC for the tackler wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility though - it was a cynical act whatever happened with the tap.

Put it this way

1) legal tap, not 10 tackle - cynical p-lay - YC
2) no tap taken at all, defender just knocks oppo over, YC for preventing oppo from taking the tap.

This is not really any different. He's either a not-10 cynical tackler, or was preventing the player from being able to take a re-tap.

didds

 

[crossref]

We don't YC every not 10 offence, it's not an automatic YC

But knocking someone over to prevent them taking a PK sounds like a nailed on YC every time

 

[eb559]

Having since spoken to red 1 he claims he thought it was red's penalty (the ref simply said "not releasing" and hadn't put an arm out either when the tap was taken) and that he was just trying to get the ball back.

This reminded me of last years Premiership semi-final between Leicester v Northampton when Goneva tackled a saint off the pitch preventing the quick throw, thinking it was tiger's ball, having not realised that it had deflected into touch of a tiger (i think Goneva himself) and JP Doyle didn't take any action because he realised Goneva didn't know he'd palyed it into touch and thought it was rightly his ball.

Just wondering if that approach was the right one, because it seems pretty similar to what red 1 claims happened.

 

[crossref]

So he did indeed deserve that YC

 

[Pinky]

Massive but otherwise legal hit is not acceptable to get the ball for you to take a penalty. Def PK and possibly YC.

 

[Dickie E]

Having since spoken to red 1 he claims he thought it was red's penalty

wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard that

 

[SimonSmith]

Otherwise good natured match? I'd be OK with a weary smile and quick chat to everyone to make them exceptionally aware of their rights and obligations.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

There is a law that covers exactly this. and w/o looking I believe it is scrum to red.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Ok , changed my my scrum to purple


If the referee believes that the kicker’s team has contrived an infringement by their opponents, the referee does not award a further penalty but allows play to continue.

Game stopped due to scuffle

d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

 

[RobLev]

Ok , changed my my scrum to purple


If the referee believes that the kicker’s team has contrived an infringement by their opponents, the referee does not award a further penalty but allows play to continue.

Sorry, I'm lost. PK awarded to Purple after red infringement; Purple takes PK (from wrong place); Red 1 delivers a massive hit which is illegal even if he truly thought it was his PK. Where's the contrived infringement?

Game stopped due to scuffle

d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

Quickly taken penalty from the wrong place - Law 21.2(c):

[LAWS]If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.[/LAWS]

So either the PK is taken again from the original correct mark, or (if a new PK is awarded for Red 1's hit) it goes forward to the spot of Red 1's offence.

Or have I missed something?

 

[crossref]

Having since spoken to red 1 he claims he thought it was red's penalty (the ref simply said "not releasing" and hadn't put an arm out either when the tap was taken) and that he was just trying to get the ball back.

.

this makes it a LOT worse for himself -- red is saying that he put in a massive hit when he thought the ball was dead.
really that should be a RC (and legally it's probably an assault), although as the ball was actiually live, he is saved from the RC.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Sorry, I'm lost. PK awarded to Purple after red infringement; Purple takes PK (from wrong place); Red 1 delivers a massive hit which is illegal even if he truly thought it was his PK. Where's the contrived infringement?



Quickly taken penalty from the wrong place - Law 21.2(c):

[LAWS]If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.[/LAWS]

So either the PK is taken again from the original correct mark, or (if a new PK is awarded for Red 1's hit) it goes forward to the spot of Red 1's offence.

Or have I missed something?

No you didn't miss anything I did. You are correct using the law 21.2(c). It took me several days to come up with this argument, but consider this view of OP

Just as the red player who made the tackle at 3m should absolutely know he must be 10m, the quick tapper should also know where the mark is exactly at a tackle infringment. It is right at the ball or tapped directly behind that mark.

21.2(c) allows him to take "two bites at the cherry" if in a hurry he taps the ball at any distance away from the mark. An improper kick may achieve a breakaway or even an infringment. If it fails to fool the ref he knows he will get another crack from the mark.

21.2(c) IMO and only maybe my opinion, exists to benefit non offending when the mark is not obvious i.e. the offisde line of the backs at a scrum, A better description may be when the mark is away from the ball and quick tapper mistakenly takes it a wrong location.


The contrived infringement in the OP in the not 10 red (massive hit, tap tackle, obstruction it makes no difference). The contrived portion is the tap away from the mark intending to catch whatever addt.PK occurs, if any.

In OP quick tapper is actually the one who pays the price, he is physically roughed by a cute play. The red player (despite his explanation)
also knows the cost of not 10. He is willing to accept whatever penalty occurs, but placed a physical stamp on quick tapper and may also allowed his team to regain a better defensive posture albeit 10m further back. It may cost him 10 minutes or just a PK.