Penalty/free kick error ?

[Ian_Cook]

The phrase "unless otherwise stated in Law" occurs in Law 20.1 (a), where it MUST be referring to other laws, let alone parts of the same Law. You want it to have a different meaning here.

:nono:
OB, that is "stage setting" for that whole Law. Its stated as the very first Law regarding scrummaging. It is not a sanction tacked on at the end of a section or "part"

I cannot find anywhere in the Law book where a sanction written in general terms...

[LAWS]Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a
scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

... can be shown to specifically apply outside the section of the Law in which it is placed. I see no reason why the case if 21.4 (21.5) should be any different.

The sanction at the end of 21.2 IS specific to 21.2 (b) and CANNOT be applied to 21,2 (a)

21.2 WHERE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
(a) The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line
through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the opponents’
goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of
infringement.

(b) When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of
play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal
line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

3. He sees no opportunity to gain ground but can cause confusion by taking a quick tap when he knows you will merely call him back.

I'd argue he has created a disadvantage for himself then. He knows he's going to be called back, all he has done his hurried the opposition into their defensive positions so that they will be ready if he does take a tap.

4. If he sees an opportunity to score, he loses nothing by trying it on.

Again, if he's caught and brought back, how is that an unfair advantage.

Not taking the kick at the correct mark is not an infringement. If it was, then it would be the only infringement in the Laws of the Game that has no red or green sanction attached to its clause, or no generally worded sanction at the end of its Law. Taking the kick at the correct place is simply something that has to be done, and it is redone if not done right the first time. If you award a scrum for a player taking a kick in the wrong place, you are making up your own Law!

 

[Robert Burns]

I asked the original question and there seems to be a lot of opinions but from I can gather I will be doing exactly that come September.

I believe this is your best management tool to take forward.

The very last match on grass last season (7s U15s, 7th of the day), I made it very clear to the scorer/kicker what the line of his conversion kick was. He started there, took two big steps (taller than me!) and drop-kicked the ball just over the posts. I disallowed the utterly irrelevant 2 points (4 tries to 1 IIRC), and certainly didn't allow another kick.

If totally irrelevant, why disallow it and put a spotlight on yourself? Why not just allow it. Think of it as reasons to not blow your whistle as opposed to reasons too blow the whistle.

 

[talbazar]

If totally irrelevant, why disallow it and put a spotlight on yourself? Why not just allow it. Think of it as reasons to not blow your whistle as opposed to reasons too blow the whistle.

My take: Because if you clearly told a player what to do and he doesn't, allowing the kick would make you look like a fool and clearly not in control...

 

[damo]

robert, can we have an emotion smiley to cover occassions like this ................ perhaps a crucifix, a silver bullet, garlic, or the devil child symbol of 666 for all future suggestions from lucifer and his cohorts !

My bad. I forgot that anything that league does differently to union is by definition worse - that is until adopted by union.

Will the forum accept my humble apologies?

 

[Dixie]

Will the forum accept my humble apologies?

Only if League hasn't previously set a precedent.

 

[Ian_Cook]

My bad. I forgot that anything that league does differently to union is by definition worse - that is until adopted by union.

Will the forum accept my humble apologies?

You've nowt to apologise for. Innovations and ideas exchanges between League and Union work both ways

Ideas/Laws the went from Union to League
Outlawing the tacking of players in the air.
Outlawing the shoulder charge.
Four point try.
Loose-head and feed given to non-offending team at the scrum.
The Free Kick (called a "differential penalty" in RL).

Ideas/Laws the went from League to Union
Professionalism.
The blood bin.
Outlawing the spear tackle.
The Video replay referee (TMO in RU).
Limiting the proximity of the scrum mark to the goal-line.
Making the corner flag not in touch.
The Sin Bin.
Pushing the scrum offside line back from the hindmost feet.


There's probably more, but these are all I can think of at the moment.

 

[The Fat]

most posters have taken out their insect spray on this subject. perhaps SWalsh should do a ELRA ?:wink:

Have I missed something here? Why the reference to Steve Walsh on this topic?

 

[Kubamagdon96]

I normally at younger group ages would let them retake it, but if I ever referee any senior games, I'll give a warning and if I happens again scrum!

 

[OB..]

Not taking the kick at the correct mark is not an infringement. If it was, then it would be the only infringement in the Laws of the Game that has no red or green sanction attached to its clause, or no generally worded sanction at the end of its Law.

Let me get this semantic argument out of the way first.

I suspect most people would accept that an infringement is anything contrary to law. Clearly that does apply to taking a PK from the wrong spot. If it is not an infringement, why does the referee have the right to disallow the kick?

You seem to be arguing that it can only be classified as an infringement if there is a sanction, which seems to me to be backwards. Surely the approach is “That was against the law. What is the sanction?” Forcing a retake is a sanction in my view because it is something a referee does to enforce the laws.

If it was, then it would be the only infringement in the Laws of the Game that has no red or green sanction attached to its clause, or no generally worded sanction at the end of its Law.

[LAWS]Law 3.4 […] A team can substitute up to two front row players […][/LAWS]London Irish used to substitute the whole front row on the 60 minute mark, but were eventually told to stop.

Where is the sanction for offside under 11.1? Is it the paragraph at the end of 11.4?

[LAWS]Law 13.2 (c) After a score the opponents of the team who scored restart play. [/LAWS]What if the team forgets it is not playing Sevens?

[LAWS]Law 18.3 The kick is taken at or behind the mark on a line through the mark.[/LAWS] (There is a reference to Law 21, which takes us full circle.)

[LAWS]Law 19.2 (b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.[/LAWS]If he throws it from the wrong place ....?

Enough is enough. I’ll get back to the substantive question of the appropriate sanctions.

 

[OB..]

Here is what the Law said in 2009
[LAWS] (a) The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the opponents’ goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b) When a penalty or free kick is awarded for an infringement in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]
That had been the law for many years, and of course it explains why I am so comfortable with awarding a scrum.

In 2010 there was a change to the second part
[LAWS](b) When a penalty or free kick is awarded to the defending team in in-goal, the mark for the kick is at the place of infringement. When a penalty or free kick is awarded to the attacking team in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal-line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

Then they decided to drop the idea of having kicks in in-goal and adopted the current wording in 2011.

Did they intend to change the law relating kicks not near the goal-line? It looks for all the world as though they overlooked it. I certainly don’t remember it being mentioned as a change. It is, of course, feasible to argue that they did change it, whether they meant to or not, but I prefer my suggested explanation and escalation approach.

 

[Browner]

Have I missed something here? Why the reference to Steve Walsh on this topic?

Waspy ridiculed my view [post#13] implying I needed to sit the lowest ERFU refereeing course , then Felk posted a vid example of SW executing [which I take to mean he supports ] my view [post#14] ...... not a major issue, but nevertheless it was akin to swatting a wasp !

 

[Waspsfan]

Waspy ridiculed my view [post#13] implying I needed to sit the lowest ERFU refereeing course , then Felk posted a vid example of SW executing [which I take to mean he supports ] my view [post#14] ...... not a major issue, but nevertheless it was akin to swatting a wasp !

I actually just asked, as a genuine question, whether you actually actively refereed? You never answered.

 

[Felk]

Waspy ridiculed my view [post#13] implying I needed to sit the lowest ERFU refereeing course , then Felk posted a vid example of SW executing [which I take to mean he supports ] my view [post#14] ...... not a major issue, but nevertheless it was akin to swatting a wasp !

I didn't have a view chaps. It's why I asked the question in the first instance. I found the video when trying to research the answer. I posted it for no other reason that it showed a top level ref making the player retake his tap and go.

 

[The Fat]

I didn't have a view chaps. It's why I asked the question in the first instance. I found the video when trying to research the answer. I posted it for no other reason that it showed a top level ref making the player retake his tap and go.

If I remember correctly, the video shows the player taking the tap on the 5m line when the mark is on the 15m line. Ref correct to not allow it in that situation but I do understand why you posted the vid.

 

[Browner]

I didn't have a view chaps. It's why I asked the question in the first instance. I found the video when trying to research the answer. I posted it for no other reason that it showed a top level ref making the player retake his tap and go.

sorry felk ..... I should have said " which I take to mean that SW supports my view " ...poor sentence construction on my part !!

 

[Rushforth]

Why is it that when a player taking a quick FK/Pk screws it up somehow by either not going through the mark and taking it from the wrong place or not tapping and going correctly that some refs just get the player to retake and other penalise by giving the oppo a scrum ?

I realise that others have answered sufficiently, but I do both. The first time that there is anything (at all) wrong with the quick kick (position, not leaving hands, my not actually having given a mark yet, or busy with an explanation), there may be a second chance, or even a third (ATP, or in this case Ask, Tell, Scrum).

I have been told that I am idiosyncratic on these forums; I believe that the ball should leave the hands if that is the kind of kick attempted, and that such a kick should be within about a yard of the spot I am clearly pointing at as well as closer to the kicker's own dead ball line than that of the opposition. Not that a foot in front of it will cause me sleepless nights!

 

[OB..]

I have been told that I am idiosyncratic on these forums; I believe that the ball should leave the hands if that is the kind of kick attempted, and that such a kick should be within about a yard of the spot I am clearly pointing at as well as closer to the kicker's own dead ball line than that of the opposition. Not that a foot in front of it will cause me sleepless nights!

For me that is slap bang down the middle of normal. If you want to be idiosyncratic you'll have to try harder. :smile:

 

[Rushforth]

For me that is slap bang down the middle of normal. If you want to be idiosyncratic you'll have to try harder. :smile:

A pox on you, OB.., for... that isn't good enough, is it?

 

[Ian_Cook]

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-454--lourens-van-der-merwe/2829582/


And interestingly, here is the email I received from NZReferees when I asked the same question

Hi Ian…


Great question.


You raise 2 key points here…

1. The aim is to allow the game to commence as quickly as possible. So we do allow a bit of latitude, having said that we look for the kicker to take the kick from behind where the mark should be made. We allow a width of around one meter so as not to be pedantic.
2. If taken from the incorrect place…then a re kick is ordered. This is a law clarification.

Hope this answers your question.

	Rod Hill
	High Performance Referee Manager

Interesting, because he mentions it being a "law clarification"

If there is one, I haven't been able to find it. There are only four Law 21 Clarifications on the iRB website

2002:6
2004:10
2005:3
2006:2

None of them appear to mention anything about a PK/FK not being taken from the mark.

 

[Rushforth]

Thanks Ian, but my idiosyncrasy rating is going to suffer if the late Rod Hull and his fush'n'chups-eating emu agrees with me despite there being no law clarifications since 1947 about "pedantic matters".

(You've hit the nail on the head)