[Law] Penalties - kick to touch or 'just take the lineout'

[Dan_A]

Sorry if this has been discussed previously, I did a search and couldn't find it!

Has there been a change to the laws regarding kicking to touch from a penalty. Twice over the weekend I think I heard referees say "You can just take the lineout", instead of actually having to perform the kick to touch. When was this introduced?

In the Newcastle Falcons vs London Irish game yesterday the Falcons flyhalf still performed the actual kick, despite the penalty being on the 5m mark - why would you take the kick, there's no upside?

Also, the Falcons were awarded a penalty in the final seconds and the referee said that there was no time for the lineout. If you can now take the lineout 'instead' of the kick then surely no time has elapsed?

Thinking about it both games were being watched after a couple of beers, so maybe I just dreamt it?

 

[winchesterref]

If the penalty was awarded directly from a lineout then teams can just opt for another lineout.

 

[Dixie]

If the penalty was awarded directly from a lineout then teams can just opt for another lineout.

And the lineout is in line with the line of touch. And to clarify, this is a penalty awarded for a lineout offence. So if the open side winger had shouted abuse at the referee while the lineout was being taken, or before it had ended, that would NOT be a scenario wherein the kick could be dispensed with. The aim is to avoid the need, following a lineout offence, to create another lineout rather than just getting on with it.

Personally, I would hugely expand this development, making it an option available from any PK at any point of the field. It wouldn't often be taken, but where's the downside? Surely at any level above U.14, a kicker can make touch to the nearest point on the touchline?

 

[didds]

And the lineout is in line with the line of touch. And to clarify, this is a penalty awarded for a lineout offence. So if the open side winger had shouted abuse at the referee while the lineout was being taken, or before it had ended, that would NOT be a scenario wherein the kick could be dispensed with. The aim is to avoid the need, following a lineout offence, to create another lineout rather than just getting on with it.

Personally, I would hugely expand this development, making it an option available from any PK at any point of the field. It wouldn't often be taken, but where's the downside? Surely at any level above U.14, a kicker can make touch to the nearest point on the touchline?

presumably no one would take it unless within a very few metres of the oppo tryline (and even then maybe just 6 or 7m)? On the basis that they'll make some extra territory at least whatever?

didds

 

[Dixie]

presumably no one would take it unless within a very few metres of the oppo tryline (and even then maybe just 6 or 7m)? On the basis that they'll make some extra territory at least whatever?

That's right Didds - unless a kicker who was having a nightmare with the boot preferred to have the lineout 10m out rather than risk going over the Goal Line with his attempt to land the ball on the 5m.

The reason for increasing it is to avoid the need to kick to touch for the PK for the defensive offence at the 5m scrum; the offside at the pick'n'drive; the FB's failure to release when collared close to his line; etc. Instead of trying to highlight every possible offence that it might apply to, why not allow it for all offences in all geographies, and allow the non-offending team to take that option whenever it suits them?

 

[didds]

gotcha. yeah - seems eminently reasonable.

my point wasn;t so much as to say "never over my dead body" - more just wondering when it would be used, but your examples are spot on Dixie.

Thinkking it on... how about a mandatory offer of a 5m linout for any PK within the 22? I guess that woold just see a proliferation of when there is a concern that too many PKs are taklen as 5m-linout-rolling-maul . (I don;t share that concern mind!). My own p[roblem with my suggestion is it just becomes yet ANOTHER line call for refs to deal with.

didds

 

[Jacko]

gotcha. yeah - seems eminently reasonable.

my point wasn;t so much as to say "never over my dead body" - more just wondering when it would be used, but your examples are spot on Dixie.

Thinkking it on... how about a mandatory offer of a 5m linout for any PK within the 22? I guess that woold just see a proliferation of when there is a concern that too many PKs are taklen as 5m-linout-rolling-maul . (I don;t share that concern mind!). My own p[roblem with my suggestion is it just becomes yet ANOTHER line call for refs to deal with.

didds

One of its main uses is to stop teams from deliberately offending at a lineout when time had expired (ie taking the jumper in the air so he can't set up a driving maul), knowing that there is no time left for the team to kick the ball into touch for another lineout. In this situation they can simply opt for a lineout much as they could opt for a scrum.

 

[crossref]

One of its main uses is to stop teams from deliberately offending at a lineout when time had expired (ie taking the jumper in the air so he can't set up a driving maul), knowing that there is no time left for the team to kick the ball into touch for another lineout. In this situation they can simply opt for a lineout much as they could opt for a scrum.

this makes sense.

 

[OB..]

One of its main uses is to stop teams from deliberately offending at a lineout when time had expired (ie taking the jumper in the air so he can't set up a driving maul), knowing that there is no time left for the team to kick the ball into touch for another lineout. In this situation they can simply opt for a lineout much as they could opt for a scrum.

One of the law trials is that the lineout from a PK to touch can be taken even if time has expired. I bet James Hook is in favour!

 

[Dixie]

One of the law trials is that the lineout from a PK to touch can be taken even if time has expired. I bet James Hook is in favour!

I am sure he would! On balance though, I'd prefer that a new way of taking a PK be written into the law book - as a throw-in in line with the mark at the nearest touchline, with the non-offending team getting a choice of touchline if it's uncertain which is the nearest. That way, they'd always get to take the throw-in if that was what they wanted, but wouldn't necessarily be able to get it up to the 5m line.

 

[ChrisR]

One of the law trials is that the lineout from a PK to touch can be taken even if time has expired. I bet James Hook is in favour!

My understanding is that applies only if the penalty occurred before time expired but the kick could not be taken before time. If time has expired before the offence happens the PK is awarded but a kick to touch will end the half/match.

Is that a correct reading of the amendment?

 

[TheBFG]

One of its main uses is to stop teams from deliberately offending at a lineout when time had expired (ie taking the jumper in the air so he can't set up a driving maul), knowing that there is no time left for the team to kick the ball into touch for another lineout. In this situation they can simply opt for a lineout much as they could opt for a scrum.

Also brought in to speed things up a bit, no need to call the 10 in to kick the ball into row Z, just take another LO. I saw JP do this in the Newcastle game, but it was the week before that I saw the capt ask Barnsey (I think) if they could have the LO instead of kicking it away into the stands. Nice to see a Capt that knows the laws :clap: (and he was a centre too!)

 

[Ian_Cook]

One of the law trials is that the lineout from a PK to touch can be taken even if time has expired. I bet James Hook is in favour!

The Australian NRC have been doing that since its inception in 2014.

After time is up, if a player wants to end the half or the match, they have to take a tap kick first (that's the PK taken), and then kick the ball into touch. If they don't take the tap kick first, the game continues.

 

[Rawling]

My understanding is that applies only if the penalty occurred before time expired but the kick could not be taken before time. If time has expired before the offence happens the PK is awarded but a kick to touch will end the half/match.

Is that a correct reading of the amendment?

In order to increase the penalty for infringing in the dying moments of the game, if time expires and
a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue. If time expires
and a player then kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing area, the referee allows
the throw-in to be taken, and play continues until the next time that the ball becomes dead.

The 2016 trial variation is to allow the kick even if the penalty is awarded after time.

I believe there is a fairly recent Law change proper, or clarification, or directive, that says a penalty kick taken (or awarded?) before time doesn't have to land (or be taken?) before time in order for the lineout to take place, but I can't find it.

 

[Pinky]

The 2016 trial variation is to allow the kick even if the penalty is awarded after time.

I believe there is a fairly recent Law change proper, or clarification, or directive, that says a penalty kick taken (or awarded?) before time doesn't have to land (or be taken?) before time in order for the lineout to take place, but I can't find it.

There was a clarification that said boot on the ball was the kick taken, not when it landed.

 

[OB..]

There was a clarification that said boot on the ball was the kick taken, not when it landed.

I can't find it.

It would be curious, as the ball is not in touch at that point.

 

[crossref]

The 2016 trial variation is to allow the kick even if the penalty is awarded after time.

I believe there is a fairly recent Law change proper, or clarification, or directive, that says a penalty kick taken (or awarded?) before time doesn't have to land (or be taken?) before time in order for the lineout to take place, but I can't find it.

you are thinking of the restart situation, which is when a conversion is taken at the death. The instruction was that if they boot hits ball at time <80mins, then game should restart.


(I don't think they specifically said whether this would also apply for a PK at goal (?), presumably not)

 

[OB..]

you are thinking of the restart situation, which is when a conversion is taken at the death. The instruction was that if they boot hits ball at time <80mins, then game should restart.


(I don't think they specifically said whether this would also apply for a PK at goal (?), presumably not)

Yes, that's the one.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=5&clarification=1010

Scenario 2
The same logic applies, i.e. as long as the penalty kick is taken before 80:00 then the lineout will take place and the match will end at the next stoppage within Law. Time is taken from the strike on the ball.

This is not a clarification, as the law was clear. It is new law.

I have no problem with the kick to touch being allowed even if time has expired, but I don't like to see the laws changed via a so-called Clarification.

 

[Pinky]

I think they called it a clarification. I think it is helpful, and don't agree law was clear previously.

 

[OB..]

I think they called it a clarification. I think it is helpful, and don't agree law was clear previously.

Law 5.7 (e) [LAWS]The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout ...[/LAWS]
Law 19 defines when the ball is in touch. It is NOT in touch when a player kicks it, even if he has said he is aiming for touch. In what way is that unclear? Do you think the referee should blow his whistle for touch when the ball is kicked? What would happen if the kick failed to reach touch?