Penalty kick to touch

[Dickie E]

I'm curious - what basis in law do you have that says they can't change their kick type (eg go for posts/punt for LO?) . Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean?

A team can change from non-posts to posts but not vice versa:

Law 8.20:

If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

I guess this may come into play if the kicker starts putting ball on tee in the wrong place. If the ref tells him to move it to the mark he can't then decide to kick for touch

 

[menace]

A team can change from non-posts to posts but not vice versa:

Law 8.20:

If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

I guess this may come into play if the kicker starts putting ball on tee in the wrong place. If the ref tells him to move it to the mark he can't then decide to kick for touch

Agree - but he hasn't taken the kick off the mark - so not really relevant for the "re-take" issue...
Plus it's written in the law of what he/she/they must do - so they must follow through with the PK goal attempt.

So is there any other law that says a kick type 'cant' be changed for a "re-take"? (or once they choose a tap or punt they must continue to do so?)

 

[didds]

Don't have them retake the PK

The best that can happen is that we all hang around and wait while the ball is retrieved and then they kick it out again to pretty much the same place

Yup. Id go with that.
id sort of extend that idea to clearances under penalty advantage... that then get brought back cos a PK to touch keeps the throw. Why not have a concept of PK advantage lineout and the side kicking out THEN keep the throw, and we don't waste time bringing the ball back to be kicked out again.

(apologies if tat is a derail)

 

[didds]

A quick tap from materially the wrong place is a different matter, do have them retake that PK
(and from the side of the scrum rather than behind it is material, yes)

or allow the advanced tap "mark" but defenders only need to be 10m back form the REAL mark?


Though I can still see issues here...

 

[Stu10]

Yup. Id go with that.
id sort of extend that idea to clearances under penalty advantage... that then get brought back cos a PK to touch keeps the throw. Why not have a concept of PK advantage lineout and the side kicking out THEN keep the throw, and we don't waste time bringing the ball back to be kicked out again.

(apologies if tat is a derail)

I've thought about this before I think it has some merit, though a kicker might consider whether they would have put in a longer kick without pressure, but it's swings and roundabouts.

I think in a similar vein, though I don't think it is in the Law book, if there is a penalty at a 5m lineout against the defending team, at elite level they are simply playing the lineout again and skipping the kick to touch.

or allow the advanced tap "mark" but defenders only need to be 10m back form the REAL mark?


Though I can still see issues here...

I had this exact scenario last Saturday and I pondered the same thing after the game, but in reality it is too messy to manage and there will be some confusion over positioning, subsequently you will almost certainly have a) an offside defender playing the ball carrier, or b) someone on the attacking team insisting the defence are offside because they are only 6m from the incorrect tap position. Also, if you allowed the tap to be taken in front of the mark, while you might argue you do not steal space from the defence (because they set 10m from the original mark), you will certainly steal time from the defence, allowing them less time to react.

 

[DocP]

I think in a similar vein, though I don't think it is in the Law book, if there is a penalty at a 5m lineout against the defending team, at elite level they are simply playing the lineout again and skipping the kick to touch.

18.8.f Lineout Options

Event	Location of the mark of touch	Who throws in
Following an incorrect throw.	Where the original lineout took place.	The opposition.
Following a disallowed quick throw.	Where the formed lineout would have taken place if the quick throw had not been taken.	The same team.
Following an incorrect quick throw.	Where the incorrect throw was taken.	The opposition.
Following the ball going into touch from a knock-on or throw forward.	Where the ball reached the touchline.	The opposition.
From a penalty or free-kick awarded for a lineout infringement.	Where the original lineout took place.	The opposition.

 

[number11]

"Er, number 10. You were two to three meters in front of my mark. Next time I want it on or behind the mark, or it's their scrum."

 

[crossref]

"Er, number 10. You were two to three meters in front of my mark. Next time I want it on or behind the mark, or it's their scrum."

their scrum would be a Law error. That's the whole point of the thread, and the whole problem -- there is no sanction, it's retake the kick.

 

[number11]

their scrum would be a Law error. That's the whole point of the thread, and the whole problem -- there is no sanction, it's retake the kick.

My suggestion is to bluff the kicker into keeping to the rules.

 

[crossref]

My suggestion is to bluff the kicker into keeping to the rules.

bluffing has it's place, sure, but I wouldn't bluff with Law error -- and a plan for what happens if they call it. because of they do it again a scrum would be wrong and take-it-again would be very uncomfortable! You'd be cornered into reversing PK ? ouch

 

[number11]

bluffing has it's place, sure, but I wouldn't bluff with Law error -- and a plan for what happens if they call it. Which is not going to be a scrum

Fair enough. It's what ever works for you. I've bluffed plenty of times with past law errors. Personally this is just a future one.

(And for context, I've not tried this!)

 

[crossref]

Fair enough. It's what ever works for you. I've bluffed plenty of times with past law errors. Personally this is just a future one.

fair enouhg, and if they did it again, what would you do?

 

[number11]

fair enouhg, and if they did it again, what would you do?

Not sure TBH with you. I'm not sure if I would even reach that hypothetical situation. It would all depend on my mood on the day and how the teams were.

I would be tempted to call the scrum though, seeing as I can do what I damn well please am the sole judge of fact and of law.

 

[chbg]

If you've given them an instruction and they still insist on disobeying/not following it, then a scrum is a light penalty (see Laws 9.7a, 9.9, 9.28).

 

[Phil E]

their scrum would be a Law error. That's the whole point of the thread, and the whole problem -- there is no sanction, it's retake the kick.

But to retake the kick IS the sanction.

A penalty or free-kick is taken from where it is awarded or anywhere behind it
on a line through the mark and parallel to the touchlines. When a penalty or
free-kick is taken at the wrong place, it must be re-taken.

 

[Locke]

their scrum would be a Law error. That's the whole point of the thread, and the whole problem -- there is no sanction, it's retake the kick.

Why is this a problem? If they take it in the wrong spot, I whistle and make them bring it back to the right spot.

 

[crossref]

Why is this a problem? If they take it in the wrong spot, I whistle and make them bring it back to the right spot.

in post #6 and #12 I looked at why making them take-it-again is not necessarily attractive

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not sure TBH with you. I'm not sure if I would even reach that hypothetical situation. It would all depend on my mood on the day and how the teams were.

I would be tempted to call the scrum though, seeing as I can do what I damn well please am the sole judge of fact and of law.

No you can't!

Being "sole judge", still requires you to act within the laws of the game. As the law you paraphrase states:

6: Within the playing enclosure

The referee is to the sole judge of fact and law during a match. The referee MUST (my emphasis) apply the laws of the game FAIRLY (again my emphasis) in every game.

 

[crossref]

Given that (which is true) .. what would you do then @Marc Wakeham ?

i.e If they kick for touch, but were materially in front of the mark ?

Get the ball brought back and make them take it again?

and once they have the ball back in their hands, if they
- quick tapped from the mark and ran
- asked to change to posts
- asked to change for a scrum?
all OK?

 

[Locke]

Given that (which is true) .. what would you do then @Marc Wakeham ?

i.e If they kick for touch, but were materially in front of the mark ?

Get the ball brought back and make them take it again?

and once they have the ball back in their hands, if they
- quick tapped from the mark and ran
- asked to change to posts
- asked to change for a scrum?
all OK?

If they kick for touch materially in front of the mark, this is how I’d hope to handle it:
- First time I’d probably give a warning. “#10, you were too far in front of the mark there. next time make sure you’re on the mark.”
- The next time or two they kick for touch materially in front of the mark, I’d make them bring it back. I’d stop time if I felt it made sense based on scoreline and how long it will take to get a/the ball back to the mark. Then I’d have another word, “we’ve talked about you taking the kick too far in front of the mark and I’ve made you retake it a couple times. If it happens again, I’m going to have to assume it’s intentional and will penalize you.”
- and then I’d penalize them from there on.

Also, to answer your other question, if they kicked for touch too far in front of the mark and I made them bring it back, I’d make them stick with that decision (or tap and go) although I have no real basis in law for that.

But, of course, the reality is that I’ve never made anyone bring a penalty kick for touch back in my few years of being a referee. I have made quick taps come back quite a few times though.