[Law] Penalty & kicking tea

[SimonSmith]

Tee on the field. You called kick at goal.

The opposition likely react to the tee coming on, and you can't get an advantage from that

 

[Ian_Cook]

Lets clear up a few things, and perhaps suggest some things that make more sense than some of the off-the-cuff and empathy-lacking rubbish that has been suggested here


1. I would not expect anyone to be bringing on a kicking tee unless the Captain, the kicker or the referee have signalled an intention to kick at goal.

2 However, if the coach (or someone) does bring on the kicking tee on without any of #1 happening, then its pretty obvious why... he wants the kick at goal, only, its not his decision.

3. In #2 above, if the Captain/Kicker spend too much time deciding, and in the meantime, the coach/player bringing on the kicking tee arrives at the mark, then the decision has been made for them, its a kick at goal.

4. Even if the opposition notice that the kicking tee is being brought on, they should NOT take that to mean a kick at goal unless they have seen that the referee has signalled as such... situational awareness is the responsibility of the players.

 

[The Fat]

Discuss

 

[Drift]

Discuss

Play on, the kicker just confirmed the mark and was chatting. Sure the water boy was running onto the pitch but there was no intention to kick at goal signalled by the referee.

 

[Drift]

Good question if this is your first on rugby refs

But the answer is easy and covered directly by law.

I'd ping the coach for 16 players on field and PK to opposition at 5m mark where he stepped on the field. "tee in my pocket, ref"

"You look like a player" I says

Tee on the field. You called kick at goal.

The opposition likely react to the tee coming on, and you can't get an advantage from that

I see that management and empathy is alive and well in the colonies...

 

[crossref]

Play on, the kicker just confirmed the mark and was chatting. Sure the water boy was running onto the pitch but there was no intention to kick at goal signalled by the referee.

The water boy is the only problem here.. I don't like seeing him on the pitch, was he innocently fooled by the ruse himself? Or was he part of the ruse? If he is part of the ruse then it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[RobLev]

The water boy is the only problem here.. I don't like seeing him on the pitch, was he innocently fooled by the ruse himself? Or was he part of the ruse? If he is part of the ruse then it shouldn't be allowed.

Who's the Rebels #12 pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him? He's most obvious at c1:35 in the clip.

Edit: Answering my own question - Stirling Mortlock, captain.

So we have the Rebels' captain pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him with the kicking tee.

Is this still a try?

 

[RobLev]

Play on, the kicker just confirmed the mark and was chatting. Sure the water boy was running onto the pitch but there was no intention to kick at goal signalled by the referee.

It's not the ref's signal that governs.

 

[The Fat]

Who's the Rebels #12 pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him? He's most obvious at c1:35 in the clip.

Edit: Answering my own question - Stirling Mortlock, captain.

So we have the Rebels' captain pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him with the kicking tee.

Is this still a try?

most likely Stirling Mortlock, the captain

 

[ChrisR]

That appears contrary to your post #32

Not at all. In post 32 the coach is on the pitch but not in the mix of players, the cptn has not yet indicated a kick at posts so the tap is still on.

If there is a delay as the captn thinks about his options, the coach arrives with the tee in the midst of the players and then the SH decides to tap and go then the referee should blow it up and ask the cptn his choice as he reminds the coach to stay off the pitch until the referee signals the TJs to the posts.

The arrival of the tee, or even being on the pitch, should not force the hand of the cptn. It's not the coach's decision. If the tee is on it's way (not in the midst of players) and the SH taps as the cptn thinks about it then it's play on.

 

[RobLev]

most likely Stirling Mortlock, the captain

The commentator saying "...Stirling Mortlock's (slight pause) pretending to do something..." says it all.

 

[crossref]

Who's the Rebels #12 pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him? He's most obvious at c1:35 in the clip.

Edit: Answering my own question - Stirling Mortlock, captain.

So we have the Rebels' captain pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him with the kicking tee.

Is this still a try?

good spot.
no, with those two things together it's not a try.

 

[ChrisR]

.... and if the referee doesn't see Mortlock point to the posts but sees the tap taken? What does Mortlock say when the TMO points out that he'd indicated post? "Errr, just having a bit of a stretch, Sir"

 

[RobLev]

.... and if the referee doesn't see Mortlock point to the posts but sees the tap taken? What does Mortlock say when the TMO points out that he'd indicated post? "Errr, just having a bit of a stretch, Sir"

I *think* you're agreeing no try, but...

 

[Ian_Cook]

Who's the Rebels #12 pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him? He's most obvious at c1:35 in the clip.

Edit: Answering my own question - Stirling Mortlock, captain.

So we have the Rebels' captain pointing at the posts as the water boy runs past him with the kicking tee.

Is this still a try?

It doesn't look like he is pointing to the posts; they are directly in front of him. It looks more like he was pointing out towards the corner where Kingi was waiting.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's not the ref's signal that governs.

Technically, nor is in the Captain's. Its the kicker's

Also, how do we know if the water boy is in possession of a tee? We cannot tell.


IMO Mortlock is too far away for his signal to have been to the referee, who wasn't even facing in his direction.

 

[RobLev]

It doesn't look like he is pointing to the posts; they are directly in front of him. It looks more like he was pointing out towards the corner where Kingi was waiting.

He's outside the right upright by 5-10m; and pointing directly at the posts (freeze it at 1:27). And as he sees Cipriani start to kick, he pulls his arm back in.

 

[RobLev]

Technically, nor is in the Captain's. Its the kicker's

Agree; although refs across this thread have said they'll take the captain's indication.

Also, how do we know if the water boy is in possession of a tee? We cannot tell.

It's tucked into his waistband at the back right. Big red thing.

IMO Mortlock is too far away for his signal to have been to the referee, who wasn't even facing in his direction.

If he's trying to fool the opposition into believing it's a kick at goal, but get away with the crossfield kick for a try, the last thing he wants is for the referee to see him pointing at the posts.

 

[Dickie E]

Also, how do we know if the water boy is in possession of a tee? We cannot tell.

Shouldn't be water at a penalty. Tee only ... or coffee

 

[Wert Twacky]

I lost the will to live after reading a few posts in this thread, so skipped to the end. Apologies if this has been mentioned before...

The protocol in the RFU at semi-pro and pro levels is that if someone enters the playing area with a kicking tee after a penalty has been awarded, then that signals the intention of the team to kick at goal.

Teams know it, players know it and, in the main, it works and prevents issues where the match officials have then become the centre of a shit-storm that could have been avoided.