[Law] Question on Law 10.2

[crossref]

Do forgive me for over simplifying, but from a grassroots perspective the referee will not see a clear and obvious knock on in goal, given his position. Nor will he have the benefit of a TMO

In a grass roots game, with no AR and no TMO, yes indeed, no one would argue with a ref who gave a 22m

but in that game they DID have a TMO ! So it should have been a 5m scrum, really.

 

[DocY]

Deliberate infringment of what law? (There is no law that says attempting to knock the ball into touch is an infringement.)

10.2(c). IF you work from the premise (and it might be wrong) that attempting but failing to infringe should be counted as deliberate infringement. I think that is in the spirit of the law.

 

[DocY]

Only Keith Earls did NOT deliberately knock the ball into touch.He skillful tapped the ball off the attacking player who knocked on into touch.

I think you're missing the point. We're discussing what would happen if a player attempted, but failed, to knock the ball into touch. It's a discussion about law more than a specific incident. The clip was picked (I expect) because it looked like the sort of situation where this might have happened.

If you believe that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to knock the ball out, then there's no question of how the law applies. The debate is around what would happen if a player DID try to knock it out.

 

[crossref]

I think you're missing the point. We're discussing what would happen if a player attempted, but failed, to knock the ball into touch. .

In general terms - no offence took place. play on. have a quick word after ("I saw what you tried to do there - you were lucky you ddin't succeed !")

beyond that, you'd need a video of a specific event to call.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Deliberate infringment of what law? (There is no law that says attempting to knock the ball into touch is an infringement.)

OK, so

1. Attempting to trip an opponent , but he manages to maintain his feet is play-on?

2. Attempting to kick a player on the ground and missing is play-on?

3. A player on the ground attempting to tackle an opponent is play-on?

4. A player attempting to kick the ball out of an opponents hands when the opponent is attempting to score a try is play-on

5. You're the referee, and a player takes a swing at you. That's play-on is it?


Too many people forget this bit of the Law Book

"SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit
of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it
involves coaches, captains, players and referees."

IMO, trying to knock the ball into touch, whether directly or off an opponent, to prevent a try being scored (even if the attempt fails) is definitely against the spirit of the Laws of the Game.

 

[crossref]

IMO, trying to knock the ball into touch, whether directly or off an opponent, to prevent a try being scored (even if the attempt fails) is definitely against the spirit of the Laws of the Game.

what if they miss the ball completely --- intention 100% there, but they missed. Still to be penalised?

 

[didds]

well, you might give a PK to make a point, but you wouldn't give the RC that would be deserved if it connected.

warning: potential de-rail...

would you give a RC for every connected punch?

didds

 

[DocY]

what if they miss the ball completely --- intention 100% there, but they missed. Still to be penalised?

Good point - I think in that case there's an argument that it's not material and TBH, I think that's the route I'd take (and a quick word with the player soon afterwards). EDIT: Sorry, crossref, didn't see your previous post.

I don't think this applies in the cases Ian lists, though - those actions are likely to 'inflame passions', so should be penalised.

 

[crossref]

no I wouldn't.

But for instance if a player ran 30 metres to kick someone in the head ... and the kick missed ...

 

[DocY]

warning: potential de-rail...

would you give a RC for every connected punch?

didds

I had a bollocking from an advisor before Christmas for not RCing a punch. I still don't think it was merited - the most pathetic punch I've ever seen!

 

[leaguerefaus]

On a point of pedantry, a kickoff into touch isn't an infringement, but would you consider a deliberate, low, hard kick off aimed at a player on the touchline (which bounced off him into touch) OK? I don't think I would and I think that situation is closer to an intentional knock into touch than a misplaced kick off.

How do you manage to referee such a physical game when you want to penalise things like this...

"Penalty for what ref?"
"You kicked the ball too hard."

 

[Pegleg]

Deliberate infringement - I'm of the opinion that this covers attempted infringement. Sorry for invoking a straw man, but you'd penalise someone for throwing a punch, even if they missed (at least I would).

A punch is very clear and obvious to assess. "Did he or didn't he try to knock it into touch?" that is far more difficult to judge. And yes there are circumstances where I'd red him even if he missed!

 

[Pegleg]

OK, so

1. Attempting to trip an opponent , but he manages to maintain his feet is play-on?

2. Attempting to kick a player on the ground and missing is play-on?

3. A player on the ground attempting to tackle an opponent is play-on?

4. A player attempting to kick the ball out of an opponents hands when the opponent is attempting to score a try is play-on

5. You're the referee, and a player takes a swing at you. That's play-on is it?


Too many people forget this bit of the Law Book

"SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit
of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it
involves coaches, captains, players and referees."

IMO, trying to knock the ball into touch, whether directly or off an opponent, to prevent a try being scored (even if the attempt fails) is definitely against the spirit of the Laws of the Game.

I completely agree. However, the problem is being 100% confident that the player is trying to knock the ball iinto touch. Some situations are C&O others are not.

 

[Phil E]

Not sure how relevant this is to the 'is a missed offence still an offence' question, but in the Sarries v Newcastle game last week the AR stuck his flag in at a ruck for a player throwing several punches.

When they looked at the replay the player was punching the ball, which was being held by a player on the ground, to try and dislodge it.

Did he throw punches? Yes.
Did he hit anyone? No. Only the ball.

Ref and TMO decided that no offence had taken place.

You can see it in the Premiership full match replay at 01:02:10 on the slider time (pop up grey bar at the bottom with play controls in).

http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/?WT.mc_id=mpType:Display*Asset:Display_Ad*CmpID:PRTV*Other:Video

NB: what really riled me was the referee doing nothing about a Newcastle player who said "you have to give a red card", and the captain getting in his face and arguing at the end.

 

[thepercy]

I had a bollocking from an advisor before Christmas for not RCing a punch. I still don't think it was merited - the most pathetic punch I've ever seen!

At least he didn't advise you to fabricate referee abuse so you could give the RC...

 

[Ian_Cook]

what if they miss the ball completely --- intention 100% there, but they missed. Still to be penalised?

Referereing by increments huh?

If he takes a swipe and misses, the ball will not go into touch as a result of his intentded action, and the try would probably be scored, so your question is moot.

The only difference between the video posted by the OP in Post #6 and the one posted by me in post #22 is that the ball touched the attacking player before it went into touch. For mine, that is a difference that makes no difference. My chain of thought for both is...

1. Did the defending player intentionally propel the ball towards the sideline?
YES

2.Did the ball go ito touch as a result of this action?
YES

3. Did this action prevent a probable try from being scored?
YES

RESULT
Penalty Try
Yellow Card for the defending player

 

[Balones]

1. Did the defending player intentionally propel the ball towards the sideline?
YES

Ian
I have said that I agree with the principle that you are applying to the situation. I.e. deliberate and obvious attempt to hit the ball in to touch that causes the ball to go into touch off another player then by all means apply a PT. In #6 - because on this forum we like to be pedantic and nit-picking - I am not convinced from what I saw that he was deliberately trying to hit the ball into touch. The angle of his arm movement and the palm of his hand would suggest that the attempt was to hit the ball more 'up' than 'across'. I would be prepared to reward the skill that this shows rather than penalise him heavily.

 

[L'irlandais]

Thanks. I think that's in definite of a law rewrite then, as negative play like that is ruining the game.

In theory then you could pass the ball into touch to end the game if you make it come off an opposition player. As long as it goes level / backwards.

i cannot imagine a situation, where to end the game, the ball carrier would do anything other than kick to touch, (especially if he is that close to the touch line) or pass to a teammate with the ability to kick to touch. Throwing the ball at an opposition player in the hope of passing it into touch would most likely end up simply giving away possession. Also in Rugby opposition players are generally in front of the ball carrier, so 9times out of 10 it'd have to be a forward pass, giving then opponents a PK. Hardly a good strategy for ending a match.

Also the example in your post #11 is not negative play. Passing the ball in the defensive line is a very risky play, the green player did NOT infringe any law. If you are going to rewrite the LOTG, please do so with the aim of improving them!