PK hits defender

[The Fat]

You will probably never see this happen again.

Green awarded PK 30m from the posts. The kick is taken for goal but the trajectory of the ball is dropping short and will definitely not make it over the crossbar. A blue defender, standing about 3m in front of the goal posts, realises that the ball is dropping directly to him so he positions his hands to catch the ball. Unfortunately, the ball hits him on top of the shoulder and bounces off him and over the crossbar.
Now when you stop laughing, give me your decision and try to back it up with law please.

 

[crossref]

goal.

[LAWS]9.A.2 Kick at goal - special circumstances
(a)
If after the ball is kicked, it touches the ground or any team-mate of the kicker, a goal cannot be scored.
(b)
If the ball has crossed the crossbar a goal is scored, even if the wind blows it back into the field of play.
(c)
If an opponent commits an offence as the kick at goal is being taken, but neverthless the kick is successful, advantage is played and the score stands.
(d)
Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

(d) doesn't really seem applicable, but even if it is applicable (c) covers it.
(a) specifically mentions a team mate-- so presumably an opponent is OK

 

[Pegleg]

Award the goal. The law back up is that it is not disallowed in law. Back to you to prove otherwise. It has happened by the way. Was on "Question of Sport" a few years back.

 

[crossref]

The defenders probably want the goal awarded to generate the jug afterwards, and to perfect the anecdote

 

[The Fat]

Award the goal. The law back up is that it is not disallowed in law. Back to you to prove otherwise. It has happened by the way. Was on "Question of Sport" a few years back.

Would love to find that clip. No idea who was on that night?

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]21.5 (c) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.[/FONT][/LAWS]This allows a defender to play the ball after it is kicked - as long as he does not infringe 9.2 (d) of course.

 

[Pegleg]

Would love to find that clip. No idea who was on that night?

No it was a long time ago. I stopped watching it about 5 years ago. Too trashy these days. It was one of the "What happened next?" questions.

 

[The Fat]

No it was a long time ago. I stopped watching it about 5 years ago. Too trashy these days. It was one of the "What happened next?" questions.

Cheers

 

[The Fat]

One argument put forward yesterday was that because the kick was obviously going to miss, the attempted catch is now in the next phase of play. My question is, when can we determine the end of the PK attempt and the beginning of the next phase? Wouldn't that be if the defender actually caught ball or it hit the defender then hit the ground etc?

 

[The Fat]

[LAWS]21.5 (c) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.[/FONT][/LAWS]This allows a defender to play the ball after it is kicked - as long as he does not infringe 9.2 (d) of course.

OB,
Would there be any correlation between the theory (put forward by one assessor yesterday) that the player touched the ball as it was on the way down and therefore the goal should be disallowed, and the days when players could jump to prevent a ball from just sneaking over the crossbar?
Need your rugby history experience here.

 

[OB..]

One argument put forward yesterday was that because the kick was obviously going to miss, the attempted catch is now in the next phase of play. My question is, when can we determine the end of the PK attempt and the beginning of the next phase? Wouldn't that be if the defender actually caught ball or it hit the defender then hit the ground etc?

Since the defenders can move as soon as the ball has been kicked, Law 21 no longer applies. The only restriction on their actions is the prohibition in Law 9 on preventing a penalty.

 

[OB..]

OB,
Would there be any correlation between the theory (put forward by one assessor yesterday) that the player touched the ball as it was on the way down and therefore the goal should be disallowed, and the days when players could jump to prevent a ball from just sneaking over the crossbar?
Need your rugby history experience here.

At one time, touching the kick in flight meant a goal could not count. In the earliest days the commonest way of scoring was a goal from a Mark. This could be charged so any touch on the ball invalidated a goal. When penalty kicks at goal were introduced, the same rule applied to them, even though you could not charge.

I can't give you an exact date for the change, but it was some time in the late 60s or early 70s I think. I have quoted this anecdote before: on the first Saturday of the change, the only person in the country to take advantage of it was our 3rd XV full back. His kick hit an opposing prop square between the shoulder blades and popped over the bar.

By 1974 a goal would count unless the ball hit the ground or a member of the kicker's team ie it did not matter if it hit an opponent.

The specific prohibition on trying to prevent a penalty goal after the kick dates from the 2000 re-arite.

 

[The Fat]

At one time, touching the kick in flight meant a goal could not count. In the earliest days the commonest way of scoring was a goal from a Mark. This could be charged so any touch on the ball invalidated a goal. When penalty kicks at goal were introduced, the same rule applied to them, even though you could not charge.

I can't give you an exact date for the change, but it was some time in the late 60s or early 70s I think. I have quoted this anecdote before: on the first Saturday of the change, the only person in the country to take advantage of it was our 3rd XV full back. His kick hit an opposing prop square between the shoulder blades and popped over the bar.

By 1974 a goal would count unless the ball hit the ground or a member of the kicker's team ie it did not matter if it hit an opponent.

The specific prohibition on trying to prevent a penalty goal after the kick dates from the 2000 re-arite.

Thanks for that.
It is the type of info I was looking for.

 

[The Fat]

I can't give you an exact date for the change, but it was some time in the late 60s or early 70s I think.
.

Found a thread from 2008 where a similar scenario was discussed OB, and in one of your posts in that thread, you mention 1968.

 

[OB..]

Found a thread from 2008 where a similar scenario was discussed OB, and in one of your posts in that thread, you mention 1968.

Unfortunately I don't have any law books between 1959 and 1974. All I have is any notes I made when doing research in the Reference Library at Twickenham. I can't find a note of the date, but I may have spoken to the fullback in question about it.

 

[OB..]

At one time, touching the kick in flight meant a goal could not count. In the earliest days the commonest way of scoring was a goal from a Mark. This could be charged so any touch on the ball invalidated a goal. When penalty kicks at goal were introduced, the same rule applied to them, even though you could not charge.

I can't give you an exact date for the change, but it was some time in the late 60s or early 70s I think. I have quoted this anecdote before: on the first Saturday of the change, the only person in the country to take advantage of it was our 3rd XV full back. His kick hit an opposing prop square between the shoulder blades and popped over the bar.

Found a thread from 2008 where a similar scenario was discussed OB, and in one of your posts in that thread, you mention 1968.

Report from the Department of Funny Coincidences:
I bumped into the referee in question at the dentists this morning and asked him if he remembered the date. "I can't even remember what I had for breakfast", he said. "Anyway, I don't think I knew the law had changed."

Well, I tried.

 

[The Fat]

Up-date

Craig Joubert is in the "Award the goal" camp.
Quite funny where this question has gone so far.

 

[crossref]

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-493--craig-jubert/2829625/

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-493--craig-jubert/2829625/

 

[DarrenJones]

If the ball is played when it touches a player, I would say that the kick must be over to be played by a defensive player in that manner. I would have disallowed.

 

[OB..]

If the ball is played when it touches a player, I would say that the kick must be over to be played by a defensive player in that manner. I would have disallowed.

[LAWS]9.A.2 (a) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]If after the ball is kicked, it touches the ground or any team-mate of the kicker, a goal cannot be scored.[/FONT] [/LAWS]Since this specifically refers to a team-mate, it does not refer to an opponent. Therefore an opponent touching the ball does not prevent a goal being scored. See my anecdote at #12.

In 1959 the laws said[LAWS]A goal is obtained by kicking the ball over the opponents' cross bar from the field of play, by any place kick or drop kick except a kick-off or drop out, without touching the ground or any player of either team.[/LAWS]The change in wording was certainly deliberate.