Penalty - back 10m

Thunderhorse1986


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
226
Post Likes
0
Asked this by a coach:

Blue awarded a penalty. Blue 9 takes a quick tap. Red 9 has anticipated the penalty and has retreated 10m. He then runs forward and legally tackles blue 9 - say about 5m forward from the penalty mark. Other red players, who have never retreated the full 10m, but who have retreated behind the red 9 as he ran forward to make the tackle (say they got to about 6-7m from the mark) are:

a) still offside - they must go back 10m before coming back to the tackle
b) onside because their onside 9 has run in front of them

I am pretty sure the answer is (b) courtesy of 21.7(c) but the coach I was speaking to told me he was given a different answer by the referee and his assessor. Any thoughts?
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
b) is correct.
 

Elpablo73


Referees in England
Joined
May 16, 2016
Messages
75
Post Likes
22
I agree b) is correct, on the assumption that the players who had not retreated the full 10m had adequately satisfied 21.7(b) and kept running to try to get themselves onside.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,486
Solutions
1
Post Likes
445
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
The situation absolutely fulfils 21.7(c) (my highlight):

[LAWS]Kick taken quickly. If the penalty kick is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retire, they will not be penalised for this. However, they must continue to retire as described in 21.7(b) above or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has run in front of them, before they take part in the game. [/LAWS]

The other referee and assessor were wrong (as reported second-hand, of course).
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
From the description B is correct (with the caveats expressed above).

Perhaps in the Scenario described in the OP the other ref and advisor took it to be that the second player had bnot attempted to retire.
 
Top