[Law] Penalty advantage "claimed"

[Timotei]

Penalty advantage to attacking team being played at ruck, scrum half wants the penalty (in front of posts) so picks up ball and deliberately knocks on / dabs ball to ground

sure this hasn't been permitted for sometime / is not in the spirit of the game....(deliberate knock on? Penalty against?)

Can penalty be "claimed", if so how, or should attackers try to play rugby until ref calls it?

 

[Pegleg]

I can't say I like it but what alternatives do you see. As long as you don't allow the "deleberated knock on" to be followed by a quickly taken tap and go (which is the bit that is not allowed) I have no real problem.

 

[didds]

In another thread it is suggested that an attacker held up in goal could knock on and thus give only a 5m defending scrum rather than be carried out for a 22m d/o - this was refuted as being a pk for deliberate knock on.

I fail to see the difference.

Didds

 

[Dickie E]

(which is the bit that is not allowed)

I see the sense in that but where does it say it is not allowed?

 

[Taff]

It's been accepted practice for donkeys years surely.

I can't see the problem; the SH is really just saying "We don't want to play advantage. We'll take the PK"

 

[Pegleg]

I see the sense in that but where does it say it is not allowed?

We were instructed a few years back (I can't recall if it was from the IRB or just the WRU - Might look it up later) That if they want the PK they take it "properly". If they want to go they try to use advantage. The Tap and go is not a tool to "win a PK and card".


Edit:

I can't see it in the WR clarifications so it must have been a WRU thing.

 

[Phil E]

"Nine, if you want the penalty instead of the advantage just say so. If you do that again I will ping you for a Deliberate knock on."

Usually sorts it.

 

[OB..]

"Nine, if you want the penalty instead of the advantage just say so. If you do that again I will ping you for a Deliberate knock on."

Quite a lot of referees tell them that in the PMB.

 

[chrismtl]

I'm pretty sure that this covers it...

[LAWS] 8.5 (b) If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.

[/LAWS]

Intentional knock on isn't foul play, so you play the first infringement. You should be well aware of what the SH is wanting from the situation, so give it to him.The only thing you're going to do by getting all high and mighty is piss people off and lose the players' respect. Give the penalty, don't let them go quick, move on with the game.

 

[Blackberry]

Can societies just tell clubs what to do in this case (all you need to do is say "We'll take the advantage sir")? Then it will become accepted practice.

 

[RobLev]

I'm pretty sure that this covers it...

[LAWS] 8.5 (b) If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.

[/LAWS]

Intentional knock on isn't foul play, so you play the first infringement. You should be well aware of what the SH is wanting from the situation, so give it to him.The only thing you're going to do by getting all high and mighty is piss people off and lose the players' respect. Give the penalty, don't let them go quick, move on with the game.

Intentional infringement - including knock-forward - is foul play; it's a contravention of Law 10.2(a):

[LAWS]Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off. [/LAWS]

and contraventions of Law 10 are foul play.

 

[Pegleg]

The problem is that a "deliberate" (intentional?) knock on is specifically dealt with under the knock on law. It would seem odd t oconsider it under two separate sections of the laws of the game.

Of course if you take Phil' comment after the first incident (as dissallow the quick tap making him retake the PK "properly") then you could do the 9 for repeated offending (Law 10) next time giving PK against him.

 

[RobLev]

The problem is that a "deliberate" (intentional?) knock on is specifically dealt with under the knock on law. It would seem odd t oconsider it under two separate sections of the laws of the game.

...

It's not the only offence so dealt with; intentionally collapsing a scrum (Law 20.9(a)) ruck (Law 16.3(c)) and maul (Law 17.2(e)) are also specifically dealt with under their own laws as well as Law 10.4(k):

[LAWS]...Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul. [/LAWS]

 

[chrismtl]

Intentional infringement - including knock-forward - is foul play; it's a contravention of Law 10.2(a):

[LAWS]Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off. [/LAWS]

and contraventions of Law 10 are foul play.

I would consider it a contravention of law 12.1 (f) where the specific act is detailed. Don't forget that the header for the scrum, maul and ruck collapse that you reference is "Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul", which is foul play since dangerous play is specifically referenced in the foul play definition. For you to consider this specific offense as foul play, you must be classifying it as either unfair play or misconduct. I can hardly see a tap of the ball to get a penalty as either unfair play or misconduct...

 

[didds]

Quite a lot of referees tell them that in the PMB.

Then "quite a lot of referees" do not ever ref in matches I have been involved in in Wiltshire for the past 22 years! LOL

didds

 

[Pegleg]

It's not the only offence so dealt with; intentionally collapsing a scrum (Law 20.9(a)) ruck (Law 16.3(c)) and maul (Law 17.2(e)) are also specifically dealt with under their own laws as well as Law 10.4(k):

[LAWS]...Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul. [/LAWS]

But they are covered in two laws where as treating a deliberate (intentional) knock on as foul play is not specifically covered twice. Which further suggests that it should not be treated inthe same way.

 

[crossref]

Then "quite a lot of referees" do not ever ref in matches I have been involved in in Wiltshire for the past 22 years! LOL

didds

but how common is this tactic from scrum halves? I wouldn't mention it in a PMB because I have never encountered it in a game, and I can't really recall seeing it on TV the last few season (I surmise that the pros have been told not to).

 

[Pegleg]

It certinly happens but less and less.I would agree that the message is getting across.

 

[Rich_NL]

Why not go for the drop goal or, better yet, a corner kick?

I'd probably let it go, but have a word about positive play.

 

[DocY]

The problem is that a "deliberate" (intentional?) knock on is specifically dealt with under the knock on law. It would seem odd t oconsider it under two separate sections of the laws of the game.

Given that we're seeing TMOs call play back for deliberate knock-ons, that suggests to me that they are being considered as foul play, despite being specifically covered by a separate law.