Cannot believe there was no complaint. He won't have even been thinking about it. I'm just not sure this feels right at any level other than elite, where they should be much more switched on. I would have warned white to remember what he was doing, no second chances, he's fair game next time. Even at elite I can see that warning being given. You would easily be able to tell if it was a ploy! We are there to facilitate a fair game and have empathy for the players, not referee to every single exact technicality of the law book! This is the same for the QT ball drop, and the "can I see the ball". Come back, do it properly. :clap:
One hooker says to another, "May I see the ball please?"
- Thread starter Donk93953
- Start date
Cannot believe there was no complaint. He won't have even been thinking about it. I'm just not sure this feels right at any level other than elite, where they should be much more switched on. I would have warned white to remember what he was doing, no second chances, he's fair game next time. Even at elite I can see that warning being given. You would easily be able to tell if it was a ploy! We are there to facilitate a fair game and have empathy for the players, not referee to every single exact technicality of the law book! This is the same for the QT ball drop, and the "can I see the ball". Come back, do it properly. :clap:
the implication here being that if you realised it was a ploy you'd keep quiet and play on ?
so if they try this as a ploy they have to do it sufficiently casually to fool the oppo, but sufficiently obviously that the ref knows it's a ploy? That's quite a fine balance to strike!
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
FWIW I wouldnt call play on, as there is no kidology/gain in doing this 5m behind the mark, is there??? It sounds like 'unaware foot control' rather than 'sneakyism play'
My thought process is simple - there had been no indication to kick for posts, or other. The ball is live once kicked. It was not out of the question in the match for the White team to tap and go. Blue were primed to fly up if they did. Blue had clearly seen the ball being kicked. The player was clearly kicking the ball forward, not controlling it, or similar.
All players (kicker included) did not complain. And the later acts of the kicker, shows he realised it was his mistake. (and over here they are always complaining - so it shows they didn't consider this an error from me)
The difference to the line out above, there is no ploy of the opposition. It is solely down to the act of the team with the ball. In fact the kicking team is posing unnecessary questions to the defence - was it tapped, was it not, can we go etc. When the reality is simple - was the ball kicked? Yes - than the PK has been taken. And if a team is not smart enough to realise that kicking the ball, means they have taken the PK, then they need to learn fast.
I am there to facilitate a game. A Penalty kick was given. The ball was kicked (Behind the mark etc, a noticeable distance). This way it is easy to be consistent. And what happens if next time he dribbles it to the mark, and then taps and goes?
I am happy with the decision (as were the players) - and would call it again. In the same way, that when a kicker come up to kick
and is dropping the ball and chipping it back to themselves, I consider that to be taking the kick.
(The playing keep up is another story from a different match - #10 walks up to the mark playing keep up, get flattened by the defence. He did complain, until I asked what he was doing when he was flattened, and the lightbulb went off in his head - he's not done that since. His coach called him all sorts of things, and agreed with me)
All players (kicker included) did not complain. And the later acts of the kicker, shows he realised it was his mistake. (and over here they are always complaining - so it shows they didn't consider this an error from me)
The difference to the line out above, there is no ploy of the opposition. It is solely down to the act of the team with the ball. In fact the kicking team is posing unnecessary questions to the defence - was it tapped, was it not, can we go etc. When the reality is simple - was the ball kicked? Yes - than the PK has been taken. And if a team is not smart enough to realise that kicking the ball, means they have taken the PK, then they need to learn fast.
I am there to facilitate a game. A Penalty kick was given. The ball was kicked (Behind the mark etc, a noticeable distance). This way it is easy to be consistent. And what happens if next time he dribbles it to the mark, and then taps and goes?
I am happy with the decision (as were the players) - and would call it again. In the same way, that when a kicker come up to kick
and is dropping the ball and chipping it back to themselves, I consider that to be taking the kick.
(The playing keep up is another story from a different match - #10 walks up to the mark playing keep up, get flattened by the defence. He did complain, until I asked what he was doing when he was flattened, and the lightbulb went off in his head - he's not done that since. His coach called him all sorts of things, and agreed with me)
Many years ago a colleague was refereeing a local cup match when Red kicked the ball dead. He signalled a drop out. The Blue full back picked up the ball and unthinkingly drop-kicked it to his fly half for the restart. An alert Red player intercepted the kick and scored a try while the Blues looked on, puzzled. The try was allowed.
On the other hand it is common for a winger to pick up the ball in touch and throw it to his hooker for the lineout. What if the hooker was still on the pitch? Nobody tries to claim the throw in has been illegally taken. Would it make a difference if a QTI was still a possibility?
On the other hand it is common for a winger to pick up the ball in touch and throw it to his hooker for the lineout. What if the hooker was still on the pitch? Nobody tries to claim the throw in has been illegally taken. Would it make a difference if a QTI was still a possibility?
thepercy
Referees in America
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 923
- Post Likes
- 147
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 1
Women's college 7s tourney on the weekend, I had red kicking off, ball bounces in, and then rolls into touch. Gold player grabs ballad throws it to a teammate. In my mind this was a QTI, ball went the 5m but (just) forward, not flat or backwards, peep. I gave a FK to red, I have since learned, it should have been a scrum to red for an incorrect throw at QTI. Come to find out that gold thought she was getting a FK at halfway, not realizing it had landed in, or not knowing the law, and was not attempting a QTI. But, it sure looked like a QTI to me just slightly forward.
he he! who bought the jug in the clubhouse afterwards?
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,151
- Post Likes
- 2,165
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
You've offered this anecdote before. Are you suggesting the referee made a correct or incorrect decision?
I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.
Technically the drop out was validly taken by the full back.
However I added the lineout example to show that we do not always take that approach.
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
"Accepting the kick" is still an option on a kick-off that goes directly to touch, even in 7s. Therefore a QTI is a possibility.
Since we are discussing 'trick plays' (which I deplore) then a receiver, catching the ball in touch could legitimately throw the ball into the SH and as all trot toward midfield suddenly takes off with his team in support.
Seems to me that's fair if the referee doesn't offer choice.
Last edited:
someone accidentally peforming a valid QTI is an interesting scenario --
It might happen if the player
- did not realise it was his team's throw, and he helpfully chucks to the ball to the approaching oppo hooker
- did not realise the QTI was on, or had forgotten all bout the possiibiy of a QTI and helpfully throws it to is own hooker
- Law confusion - he thinks the ref is goung to award a scrum (perhaps it was knocked forward into touch, or as above at restart)
- does a perfectly executed, but unintentional QTI restart the game?
- does it make any difference if the receiver of the throw realises what has happened and hares off, or doesn't realise and also believes the ball to be dead.
Last edited:
thepercy
Referees in America
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 923
- Post Likes
- 147
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 1
Things are quite different here in the 'States, No clubhouses, No alcohol allowed on campus
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,151
- Post Likes
- 2,165
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Not on my field, it doesn't. No intent = no restart.
For what it's worth, I agree.