Penalty goal

[Mipper]

@Mipper I remember playing a match when I was at school (probably around 1988), and an opposition player placed kicked directly to touch and it resulted in a scrum to our team... were "the olden days" before the mid 80's?

I've certainly played some games where the wind might take a kick across the face of the goal and into touch on the far side. In this instance, we seem to agree that the non-kicking team gets the throw-in, but I'm not sure where... if the ball went out on the full, would the lineout be where the ball crossed the plane of touch or in-line with the original penalty?
Law 20.8 says "The kicker may punt, drop-kick or place-kick (other than for touch) the ball."... therefore a place-kick is not a kick for touch, therefore should it be treated as per law 18.8.c, with the lineout being where the ball reaches the touchline (we've already established that we don't follow 18.8.c with regard to who throws in)?

A scrum?
Well about then I suppose, I started senior rugby in ‘84, but whether my memories are of senior rugby or colts/juniors before then is a little vague.
Pretty sure it was with a ball with laces in it, from a bit of “heeled up” mud, before even sand was being used!

 

[Stu10]

A scrum?
Well about then I suppose, I started senior rugby in ‘84, but whether my memories are of senior rugby or colts/juniors before then is a little vague.
Pretty sure it was with a ball with laces in it, from a bit of “heeled up” mud, before even sand was being used!

Yes, a scrum was awarded following an incorrectly taken penalty kick (the scrum was at the mark of the previous penalty)... at least, that's how I remember it... I could be mistaken since it was a long time ago.

It was definitely a leather ball, but no laces

 

[smeagol]

Why? it has not gone directly into touch.

Law citation?

 

[crossref]

Law clarification - back then it was 21.4d, now it's 20.8 that says you cannot place-kick for touch

It makes sense from a practical standpoint; the non-offending side shouldn't get a second bite at the apple if the kick goes wonky.

They get the throw in if the kick is so wonky that the ball hits the ref..

 

[Volun-selected]

Still trying to work out if/where in law this is covered, especially in light of the law clarification. The laws are clear where the PK at goal (or too close to the goal line) goes dead (grounded in goal, or goes out over touch in goal or dead ball line). I checked the 2006 law book and it does have the kicking team get the lineout after intentional PK to touch

So back to the poorly executed PK at goal that for whatever reason goes into touch - to be awarded to the opposition is this an extension of the scenario under 18.8a of the current laws ?
[Laws]
Event: A player unintentionally knocks, passes or throws the ball into touch.
Location: Where the ball reaches the touchline.
Who throws: The opposition.
[/Laws]

is the law implying you only get the benefit of kicking to touch if deliberate? This is the only way I (in my admittedly pre-caffeinated and heavily jet lagged state) can find that would end with the lineout going to the oppo..

 

[Stu10]

I think there may be a gap here, and you are left piecing together bits of information to help make a decision.

18.8.c says:
Ball is kicked from a penalty
A player kicks the ball into touch (either directly or first bouncing in the field of play or hitting an opponent or the referee).
Location of the mark of touch - Where the ball reaches the touchline.
Who throws in - The kicking team.

But the clarification clearly states that a penalty kick for goal results in the other team having the throw-in at the lineout.

Law 20.8 indicates that a correctly taken penalty kick does NOT include a place-kick for touch.

Piecing this together, one might conclude that only a correctly taken penalty kick for touch results in the outcome described in 18.8.c. Therefore a place-kick that goes directly into touch does not allow a gain in territory or retain possession. This fits with clarification 2-2006, but also includes some assumptions. The alternative is to gain territory and lose possession, but this does not align with 18.8.c or the clarification, and IMHO this outcome does not feel right (I feel you should either get both territory and possession, or neither).

 

[Stu10]

What was law 21.4(d) in 2006? That may offer the clear answer.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What was law 21.4(d) in 2006? That may offer the clear answer.

The wording was:
Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for
touch but must not place kick for touch.

 

[RedCapRef]

Law citation?

This is just about where the kick would be taken. The kick has not gone directly into touch if it has bounced of the post so would be the same as bouncing on the ground before going into touch. So if it is non offending side throwing in it is from where it reaches the touchline, not from where the kick was taken. Unless there is somewhere a law that says the posts is not considered as the field of play.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This is just about where the kick would be taken. The kick has not gone directly into touch if it has bounced of the post so would be the same as bouncing on the ground before going into touch. So if it is non offending side throwing in it is from where it reaches the touchline, not from where the kick was taken. Unless there is somewhere a law that says the posts is not considered as the field of play.

Just a thought. If bouncing of a post = touching the ground. How can a kick at goal be successful if it touches the ground (post / crossbar)?

 

[tim White]

The Spirit of Chopper lives on!

 

[Volun-selected]

Is this just keeping the team to the consequences of their decision? Once they have elected to kick at goal they must do so (Law 8.20), and the 2006 clarification calls out specifically kick for goal vs. kick for touch.

If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in. Law 21.4(d).
If the penalty kick is for touch, therefore no place kick, then it is a lineout attacking team to throw in.

(My emphasis)

By definition a kick for goal is either successful and you score, or unsuccessful. I can think of 3 realistic variations of failure:

1. Kicker misses completely, or hits the outside of the sticks, and the ball goes dead beyond the DB line or TIG line, or is made dead in-goal. Either way, play restarts with a 22m drop to oppo.
2. Kicker hits the sticks and the ball bounces back into the field of play without passing over the crossbar - play on.
3. Kicker hits the sticks and the ball goes into touch (as per OP) or the kicker just slices the ball into touch - lineout to oppo.

Looking at #3 - where is the mark? I can't find anything that specifically calls out this scenario. It is not open play, it is not a free kick, it is not a restart kick, and I can't see this scenario happening inside the team's own 22. This leaves the "general" list in 18.8.a and the only way I can square it going to the oppo is that as they were going for goal, the ball is unintentionally in touch (but again knocks, passes, and throws do not involve feet):

Event	Location of the mark of touch	Who throws in
A player unintentionally knocks, passes or throws the ball into touch.	Where the ball reaches the touchline.	The opposition.

In this case, it would allow the kicking team gain in ground - but then again the oppo shouldn't have conceded a penalty to begin with. And having the throw in for lineout on your 5m is marginally better than defending one - but it does feel like we're giving the kicking team a second slightly smaller bite.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Is this just keeping the team to the consequences of their decision? Once they have elected to kick at goal they must do so (Law 8.20), and the 2006 clarification calls out specifically kick for goal vs. kick for touch.

(My emphasis)

By definition a kick for goal is either successful and you score, or unsuccessful. I can think of 3 realistic variations of failure:

1. Kicker misses completely, or hits the outside of the sticks, and the ball goes dead beyond the DB line or TIG line, or is made dead in-goal. Either way, play restarts with a 22m drop to oppo.
2. Kicker hits the sticks and the ball bounces back into the field of play without passing over the crossbar - play on.
3. Kicker hits the sticks and the ball goes into touch (as per OP) or the kicker just slices the ball into touch - lineout to oppo.

Looking at #3 - where is the mark? I can't find anything that specifically calls out this scenario. It is not open play, it is not a free kick, it is not a restart kick, and I can't see this scenario happening inside the team's own 22. This leaves the "general" list in 18.8.a and the only way I can square it going to the oppo is that as they were going for goal, the ball is unintentionally in touch (but again knocks, passes, and throws do not involve feet):

Event	Location of the mark of touch	Who throws in
A player unintentionally knocks, passes or throws the ball into touch.	Where the ball reaches the touchline.	The opposition.

In this case, it would allow the kicking team gain in ground - but then again the oppo shouldn't have conceded a penalty to begin with. And having the throw in for lineout on your 5m is marginally better than defending one - but it does feel like we're giving the kicking team a second slightly smaller bite.

I disagree. A kick from outside your 22 must bounce in play (+ other caveats) to gain ground. ONLY a PK to touch can gain ground without bouncing first. A kick at goal is not a kick to touch. SO I'd not allow gain in ground.

However , as I am unlikely to every experience the scenario I'll not lose any sleep over it.

 

[Volun-selected]

I disagree. A kick from outside your 22 must bounce in play (+ other caveats) to gain ground. ONLY a PK to touch can gain ground without bouncing first. A kick at goal is not a kick to touch. SO I'd not allow gain in ground.

Except that law has “A player kicks the ball directly into touch from open play or from a free-kick.” No mention of from a PK which would answer this clearly.

However , as I am unlikely to every experience the scenario I'll not lose any sleep over it.

Off the post and into touch? I certainly doubt I’ll ever see that.

Total slice off a fluffed kick from someone who struggles with even a restart kick but is still the best kicker on that team, that I’ve got a reasonable chance of seeing…

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Except that law has “A player kicks the ball directly into touch from open play or from a free-kick.” No mention of from a PK which would answer this clearly.

But the law "explains" that a penalty kick to touch using a punt, for example, is allowed but not a place kick. A place kick is exempt from the ways to attempt that. so for me I'm justified, should it ever happen. If I do it and I have an assessor maybe we will discuss it them.

 

[didds]

But the law "explains" that a penalty kick to touch using a punt, for example, is allowed but not a place kick. A place kick is exempt from the ways to attempt that. so for me I'm justified, should it ever happen. If I do it and I have an assessor maybe we will discuss it them.

but if the assessor disagrees that doesn't make him/her correct - as we can see there are many divergent views in this forum from very very experienced referees. Said assessor is still only one more person with a view.

 

[tim White]

As with so many "once in a lifetime" events I would be more interested in how the ref handled the situation than expect him to know every single Law and Law Interpretation. In this particular case I am sure many top refs would struggle to quote the relevant text. I would not criticise either the award of a scrum (kick taken incorrectly) or lineout to defending team -I would not find lineout to kickers team equitable.

Now if an alien spaceship landed on the pitch and clearly prevented a try being scored do you award a scrum, penalty, or play on??????

 

[Marc Wakeham]

but if the assessor disagrees that doesn't make him/her correct - as we can see there are many divergent views in this forum from very very experienced referees. Said assessor is still only one more person with a view.

Indeed. But the conversation would take place. And I'd be happy with my argument.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Now if an alien spaceship landed on the pitch and clearly prevented a try being scored do you award a scrum, penalty, or play on??????

That one is easy. I'd be off like a shot and I'd not wait for my pint!

 

[crossref]

Now if an alien spaceship landed on the pitch and clearly prevented a try being scored do you award a scrum, penalty, or play on??????

"Take me to your Hon Chairman"