Playing advantage AFTER the whistle.

[RobLev]

The referee does not necessarily have to mark the place of the infringement. However a player taking a PK must actually kick the ball (and from close to the correct spot). If there was no kick then a PK had not been taken and the decision to award a try cannot be right.

Of course - hence the way I phrased my comment.

 

[Pegleg]

The referee does not necessarily have to mark the place of the infringement. However a player taking a PK must actually kick the ball (and from close to the correct spot). If there was no kick then a PK had not been taken and the decision to award a try cannot be right.

Of course - hence the way I phrased my comment.

I'm missing something here.

If he didn't mark the PK then he can't have thought that the PK was properly taken; the 9 didn't go from the place of the infringement, and he hadn't marked anywhere else that the PK should have been taken.

Why could he not think a kick had been taken on the basis that he had not marked the place. That suggests he has to do so. He did not need to mark it at all BUT the 9 had to tap and go from "near" the offence / mark.

 

[RobLev]

I'm missing something here.


Why could he not think a kick had been taken on the basis that he had not marked the place. That suggests he has to do so. He did not need to mark it at all BUT the 9 had to tap and go from "near" the offence / mark.

Exactly; but he didn't (tap and) go from anywhere near the spot of the infringement.

You missed the "properly" from my original comment.

If the ref had marked the spot and looked away (say, to check the opposition were back 10), then (provided the 9 was somewhere near the mark) he might have thought that the 9 had tapped close enough to the mark while he wasn't looking; but since the 9 had gone neither from the mark (because there wasn't one) nor from the spot of the infringement, then whether or not he'd tapped, he hadn't properly taken the PK.

 

[ChrisR]

Because this was a professional match then the referee would expect the players to take the kick correctly.

Therefore, if the referee is looking elsewhere, he may have expected the 9 to done it right.

My immediate thoughts are: ARs? TMO? I can excuse the referee if he was distracted but the player should have known better.

 

[ChrisR]

One other thought: As no kick was taken if the referee saw it and blew it up then should the correct action be a request to take the kick and not a scrum?

 

[Pegleg]

Sorry I did not miss the word "properly" at all.

There would seem to be two possiblities.

1; The ref felt the quick tap WAS taken correctly.

2; He realised he was too quick to blow and tried to "put it right by playing advantage after he awarded the PK.

If it was the second then it was a terrible error. if it was the first he was simply wrong because it very clearly was not taken correctly.

If "...he didn't mark the PK then he can't have thought that the PK was properly taken..." then he would have brought the player back to take it correctly. He did not do so so that can't apply.

 

[OB..]

One other thought: As no kick was taken if the referee saw it and blew it up then should the correct action be a request to take the kick and not a scrum?

[LAWS]21.2 (c) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.[/FONT][/LAWS]This applies to a kick taken from he wrong place, not to a kick error.
21.3 (a) talks about valid kicks and (b) and (c) award a scrum to the opposition for two specific typ/es of error. Filing to kick is not mentioned, but the sensible sanction for me is the same as for (b) and (c). That sanction does say "any infringement..." which I think must be taken to mean any infringement of kicking laws including the requirement to make a kick.

 

[johnnied]

I have just watched the video clip of this incident, although it doesn’t show what the PK was given for.

The referee has his arm out for advantage Red; the mark of the PK was presumably the infield side of the ruck; red had won the ball and red #9 lifted the ball and moved to his left by 1 step. He then deliberately dropped/bounced the ball, so that the PK had to be given. The referee could not have played advantage!

Red #9 regathered the ball, started running towards the referee who was about 5m further infield from the ruck, and after 1 pace forward, red #9 dropped the ball onto his right foot. Because he was running, it looks as if the ball actually connects with his lower shin rather than his foot (although it isn’t clear), regathers and runs at a Blue defender who had not started to retreat and in fact moved forward in an attempt to stop red #9. Blue failed to prevent Red # 9 and he had a clear 10m run to the line, try given.

You could argue that Red should not have been allowed to take a quick since they had deliberately dropped the ball.

You can argue that the PK wasn’t taken at or behind the mark – but probably was taken with 1m/2m.

You can argue that the ball might not have been kicked - it was very close – but you cannot argue that the referee was in a very good position to see this and which is presumably why he allowed the try.

 

[ChrisR]

Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

Agreed that it makes sense to apply this sanction generally rather than to the two issues specified.

On the other hand it kind of irks me that a team can go from a PK against to a scrum for for such minor mistake.

 

[crossref]

I have just watched the video clip of this incident, although it doesn’t show what the PK was given for.

The referee has his arm out for advantage Red; the mark of the PK was presumably the infield side of the ruck; red had won the ball and red #9 lifted the ball and moved to his left by 1 step. He then deliberately dropped/bounced the ball, so that the PK had to be given. The referee could not have played advantage!

Red #9 regathered the ball, started running towards the referee who was about 5m further infield from the ruck, and after 1 pace forward, red #9 dropped the ball onto his right foot. Because he was running, it looks as if the ball actually connects with his lower shin rather than his foot (although it isn’t clear), regathers and runs at a Blue defender who had not started to retreat and in fact moved forward in an attempt to stop red #9. Blue failed to prevent Red # 9 and he had a clear 10m run to the line, try given.

You could argue that Red should not have been allowed to take a quick since they had deliberately dropped the ball.

You can argue that the PK wasn’t taken at or behind the mark – but probably was taken with 1m/2m.

You can argue that the ball might not have been kicked - it was very close – but you cannot argue that the referee was in a very good position to see this and which is presumably why he allowed the try.

This is a very different story from that painted in the OP.
Sounds like the referee made no mistake at all, and allowed a skilful quick tap.. He was paying more attention than you were!
If he is readinf this thread he probably feels he is owed an apology..

 

[KML1]

Given all Premiership games are available in full on the Prem Rugby website, let's know what the game is and the time and we can all have a look!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have just watched the video clip of this incident, although it doesn’t show what the PK was given for.

The referee has his arm out for advantage Red; the mark of the PK was presumably the infield side of the ruck; red had won the ball and red #9 lifted the ball and moved to his left by 1 step. He then deliberately dropped/bounced the ball, so that the PK had to be given. The referee could not have played advantage!

Red #9 regathered the ball, started running towards the referee who was about 5m further infield from the ruck, and after 1 pace forward, red #9 dropped the ball onto his right foot. Because he was running, it looks as if the ball actually connects with his lower shin rather than his foot (although it isn’t clear), regathers and runs at a Blue defender who had not started to retreat and in fact moved forward in an attempt to stop red #9. Blue failed to prevent Red # 9 and he had a clear 10m run to the line, try given.

You could argue that Red should not have been allowed to take a quick since they had deliberately dropped the ball.

You can argue that the PK wasn’t taken at or behind the mark – but probably was taken with 1m/2m.

You can argue that the ball might not have been kicked - it was very close – but you cannot argue that the referee was in a very good position to see this and which is presumably why he allowed the try.

This sound very similar to what happened in the video I posted in my post #4

Aaron Smith ran very quickly to the mark was and kicked it on the run by dropping it onto his boot, popping it up into his hands, then sprinted to the line among retreating Wallabies to score the try. He did it so quickly that some of the Wallabies (and I) thought he hadn't kicked it. The replay clearly showed that he had.

 

[didds]

I was perplexed as were both benches Committees and the supporters of both sides. Although the one side were more than happy to take the score of course!

but not so much as to provide the oppo with a free "run-in" to even up the accidental misbalance presumably? ;-)

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Would you Didds?

 

[Pegleg]

I have just watched the video clip of this incident, although it doesn’t show what the PK was given for.

The referee has his arm out for advantage Red; the mark of the PK was presumably the infield side of the ruck; red had won the ball and red #9 lifted the ball and moved to his left by 1 step. He then deliberately dropped/bounced the ball, so that the PK had to be given. The referee could not have played advantage!

Red #9 regathered the ball, started running towards the referee who was about 5m further infield from the ruck, and after 1 pace forward, red #9 dropped the ball onto his right foot. Because he was running, it looks as if the ball actually connects with his lower shin rather than his foot (although it isn’t clear), regathers and runs at a Blue defender who had not started to retreat and in fact moved forward in an attempt to stop red #9. Blue failed to prevent Red # 9 and he had a clear 10m run to the line, try given.

You could argue that Red should not have been allowed to take a quick since they had deliberately dropped the ball.

You can argue that the PK wasn’t taken at or behind the mark – but probably was taken with 1m/2m.

You can argue that the ball might not have been kicked - it was very close – but you cannot argue that the referee was in a very good position to see this and which is presumably why he allowed the try.

Video of the game not on line. Had you seen it you'd know the actual colours of the two sides. So sorry not the same incident. (unofficially the error has been acknowledged, but no formal apology until later in the week.)

 

[didds]

Would you Didds?

never been in that position, never had to make that call.

I wouldn't ever say "No I wouldn't though". But of course I'd have to have influence over my team, and get them to buy into it.

I have done similar when playing tennis/squash etc, but its easier to implement such a concept in an individual sport.




didds

 

[Dickie E]

never been in that position, never had to make that call.

I wouldn't ever say "No I wouldn't though". But of course I'd have to have influence over my team, and get them to buy into it.

I have done similar when playing tennis/squash etc, but its easier to implement such a concept in an individual sport.




didds

they do that in soccer too

 

[crossref]

they do that in soccer too

They do give the ball back to the oppo, when circumstances dictate.

But I don't think we often see football teams voluntarily conceding a goal? (yes, no doubt it has happened, but no doubt it's happened in rugby too)

 

[johnnied]

Who mentioned online?

I would be pretty certain that we are talking about the same game (unless with incredible coincidence the same thing happened on another game on the weekend) - the colours of the teams were blue/black v red (with a touch of black).

 

[Pegleg]

Who mentioned online?

I would be pretty certain that we are talking about the same game (unless with incredible coincidence the same thing happened on another game on the weekend) - the colours of the teams were blue/black v red (with a touch of black).

Those were not the colours. I deliberately did not give the correct facts of score or colour for the reason that the ref should not be identified. In fact I got it wrong about Tier 2 internationals. He has not yet done one but is apperently close.