Penalty kick to touch

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
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?

I would not advocate that they can change from a reset scrum to then a tap/kick. But that's on the basis that they have successfully restarted with the first scrum - so the PK is now done and "won" (over). The reset scrum is for another reason, so you're now stuck in that phase of play until it is successfully over - and can't go back to a PK option.
I think if I make a side re-take the kick I'd be thinking they can "tap and go" or Kick for the corner. Clearly the law specifies that if you choose a kick at goal then a kick at goal it must be. But in terms of tap and go or kick to the corner thelaw is silent. so what do we do? Equity applies I feel.

I'm not let it be a "quick tap" and go. Why reward the guy for his cock up? But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" if you we kicking for the corner I'd let you take a tap but not "quick" instead and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
the quick tap may be an option while the oppo are indisarray. But if its needs to be retaken, possibly the tap is no longer as viable an option, and a touch kick may be preferable.


That's not a reason to defend providing all options at the retake but a pointer at why insisting on another taop may actually no longer really be useful to the team that were after all initially transgressed againt. Cock up or no cock up.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,336
Post Likes
1,440
I think if I make a side re-take the kick I be thinking the penalty. Clearly the law specifies that if you choose a kick at goal then a kick at goal it must be. But in terms of tap and go or kick to the corner thelaw is silent. so what do we do? Equity applies I feel.

I'm not let it be a "quick tap" and go. Why reward the guy for his cock up? But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" if you we kicking for the corner I'd let you take a tap but not "quick" instead and vice versa.
This.

If I bring it back, I'd be telling him he can't go until the opposition have had a chance to reorganize due to the change in circumstances
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think if I make a side re-take the kick I be thinking the penalty. Clearly the law specifies that if you choose a kick at goal then a kick at goal it must be. But in terms of tap and go or kick to the corner thelaw is silent. so what do we do? Equity applies I feel.

I'm not let it be a "quick tap" and go. Why reward the guy for his cock up? But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" if you we kicking for the corner I'd let you take a tap but not "quick" instead and vice versa.
So you agree that there is no law that says you can't change PK option (unless they were going for posts or had already had a scrum). That was my point to the previous poster that would not allow them to change. Because it is silent in the law - it means they can do it.

What you're doing/suggesting by preventing a QT is not changing the kick - but 'management'.
This.

If I bring it back, I'd be telling him he can't go until the opposition have had a chance to reorganize due to the change in circumstances
Agree. ie "game management" - you're not making up your own law to prevent them changing their kick.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Scenario

Red kick for touch
You blow as the kick is in front of the mark
The kick wasn't very good, fails to make touch, and is caught by blue 15
Blue bring the ball back to the mark
Red elect posts and score 3pts

Good game management? Poor game management? Shrug, it is what it is, don't blame me?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Scenario

Red kick for touch
You blow as the kick is in front of the mark
The kick wasn't very good, fails to make touch, and is caught by blue 15
In this sort of scenario I think the restart kick is absolute - ie no advantage can be played. Correct ? Becasue theoretically the game cannot have restarted yet - that right?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
...
Blue bring the ball back to the mark
Red elect posts and score 3pts

Good game management? Poor game management? Shrug, it is what it is, don't blame me?
I suppose possibly in a chopperesque scenario the tap was taken quickly because there was a 5 man overlap and a likely 7 points. After the call back and retake. that's now off the cards, and 7 is no longer probable, but the 3 points is a banker. Again, not a hill i would die on but that seems a reasonable enough and not really totally unlikely scenario...
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
So you agree that there is no law that says you can't change PK option (unless they were going for posts or had already had a scrum). That was my point to the previous poster that would not allow them to change. Because it is silent in the law - it means they can do it.

What you're doing/suggesting by preventing a QT is not changing the kick - but 'management'.

Agree. ie "game management" - you're not making up your own law to prevent them changing their kick.
But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" Says that yes. The not letting them take the re-take quick is game mnagement and comes under equity (fairness); they can't gain by breaking the laws.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I suppose possibly in a chopperesque scenario the tap was taken quickly because there was a 5 man overlap and a likely 7 points. After the call back and retake. that's now off the cards, and 7 is no longer probable, but the 3 points is a banker. Again, not a hill i would die on but that seems a reasonable enough and not really totally unlikely scenario...
That's not uncommon though, when a quick tap is brought back it's clear they now have their second best option

But not so clear after a kick to touch . As indeed they can still take a kick to touch, so they are never worse off, but sometimes will be better off
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
yep. But even if the kick to touch remains you could get the scenario of a fluffed kick to touch that makes 15m off the side of the boot, is brought back, and the next touch kick makes 50m instead bang into the corner for a 5m lineout.

hey ho
Id suggest it is just what it is. Don't you guys tie yourself in knots over it. After all a player on the wrong side of a ruck blocking access to the ball and PKd, which is then kicked for the match winning 3 points in the last minute, is still a player on the wrong side of the ruck even if it then transpires she was knocked unconscious in the tackle and wasn't in a state to get clear.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I suppose possibly in a chopperesque scenario the tap was taken quickly because there was a 5 man overlap and a likely 7 points. After the call back and retake. that's now off the cards, and 7 is no longer probable, but the 3 points is a banker. Again, not a hill i would die on but that seems a reasonable enough and not really totally unlikely scenario...
That is the fault of the player who did not take the tap and go within the laws of the game. Blame him not me!
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
That is the fault of the player who did not take the tap and go within the laws of the game. Blame him not me!
yes ... but as others have said the alws dont actually stop him changing his mind anyway. and that would be a real reason for doing so. And notwithstanding he hasn't actually broken any law 9which is why there is not a penalty for foing so). he's just not actually restarted the game as required by law. And forcing him/her to retake a tap when now there is nothing in it merely rewards the orgainal transgressor that gace away the PK in the first place
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
hey ho
Id suggest it is just what it is. Don't you guys tie yourself in knots over it
I'm not in a knot! My view is clear : after a PK to touch that was in front of the mark : I would never bring them back and give them another go

[and I don't think I have ever seen an elite ref do it, no doubt for the same reasons I wouldn't]
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
But as the law is silent on it and makes no "objection" Says that yes. The not letting them take the re-take quick is game mnagement and comes under equity (fairness); they can't gain by breaking the laws.
I think we are both in violent agreement?🤔😉
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
equity (fairness); they can't gain by breaking the laws.
which is why we don't want to bring them back and take the kick again : they very well could.
- likely they will just kick it again .... and they could easily kick it further
- or they could realise that kicking wasn't even the best choice in the first place and do something they prefer better (thanks ref)
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
yes ... but as others have said the alws dont actually stop him changing his mind anyway. and that would be a real reason for doing so. And notwithstanding he hasn't actually broken any law 9which is why there is not a penalty for foing so). he's just not actually restarted the game as required by law. And forcing him/her to retake a tap when now there is nothing in it merely rewards the orgainal transgressor that gace away the PK in the first place
I'm not forcing him to do anything. A said the law does not prevent a change of action other than prohibiting (for clear reasoning) as side changing from a Kick at goal to running the ball etc.

I'm not letting the second be a "Quick tap" as that would be unequitable. Of course, any "unfairness" to the side having the penalty, as referred to in your last sentence is the kicker's fault. No one else is to blame
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
yep. But even if the kick to touch remains you could get the scenario of a fluffed kick to touch that makes 15m off the side of the boot, is brought back, and the next touch kick makes 50m instead bang into the corner for a 5m lineout.
If he fluffed the kick badly I'd probably manage it by playing on and telling him to kick from the correct mark next time. (he tried to cheat and failed. Tough luck on!)
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
yes ... but as others have said the alws dont actually stop him changing his mind anyway. and that would be a real reason for doing so. And notwithstanding he hasn't actually broken any law 9which is why othere is not a penalty for foing s). he's just not actually restarted the game as required by law. And forcing him/her to retake a tap when now there is nothing in it merely rewards the orgainal transgressor that gace away the PK in the first place
I'd say the "penalty" is they have lost the opportunity given by the overlap situation and being brought back. There is clearly a sanction all be it a fairly minor one. The loss of the momentum.
 
Last edited:
Top