[Law] Quick Tap . No tap taken

[vimpe22]

Law 20.2 2018
Pre. Ref Law 21.2c

A penalty or free-kick is taken from where it is awarded or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark and parallel to the touchlines. When a penalty or free-kick is taken at the wrong place, it must be re-taken.


Law 20.11

Pre ref, Law 21.4 d

The ball must be kicked a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark. Once the kick has been successfully taken the kicker may play the ball again.

Law 2017 at the end of 21.4 says the sanction as otherwise stated is a scrum with opposing team throw in


1. Though not stated clearly in 2018 law book it is covered under law 19 .1 the referee awards by a scrum for any reason not covered in law .

2 The referee does not see the quick tap as it is behind his back . The AR talks over comms and referee plays on as he heard something but it is not clear. The ball is grounded in goal and referee before indicating try talks to AR and takes play back and gives the scrum to opposing side . I belive this can be covered under law 6.13.

Would appreciate any guidance

 

[Dickie E]

if you don't see the quick tap, bring it back and ask them to take it again.

Make mental note to do your best to be ready for the quick tap in future.

 

[vimpe22]

Yes agreed . Should have been good for management . But he did not and consulted AR becuase he heard something on Coms. End result AR gets post Mach assault . Scores 25 .29 fifteen to go and ends 25. 43

 

[Dickie E]

it's all a little unclear. Let me paraphrase and tell me if this is correct:

Ref awards a penalty. Ref is distracted by an AR saying something over comms and doesn't see the quick tap taken properly. When the ball is grounded in goal ref consults with AR regarding whether or not quick tap was taken correctly. AR says no (any idea why he says no? wrong place, didn't leave hands, etc) and ref comes back for a scrum to opponents. Is that the gist of it?

 

[vimpe22]

it's all a little unclear. Let me paraphrase and tell me if this is correct:

Ref awards a penalty. Ref is distracted by an AR saying something over comms and doesn't see the quick tap taken properly. When the ball is grounded in goal ref consults with AR regarding whether or not quick tap was taken correctly. AR says no (any idea why he says no? wrong place, didn't leave hands, etc) and ref comes back for a scrum to opponents. Is that the gist of it?

The explanation is that it was never tapped . Just picked up and ran

 

[crossref]

Was the PK acfually taken correctly or wrongly ?? Did you see it ?

If the PK was not taken correctly then the right result was reached , albeit through a terrible process . But people can't really complain too much

If the PK was actually tapped properly .. are sure that's what the AR called it back for ? Maybe something else was wrong


Key Learning --
1 they can't take a quick tap behind the referee's back. Call them back.
2 try and always anticipate the quick tap possibility so that you can see it happen

 

[Zebra1922]

Was the PK acfually taken correctly or wrongly ?? Did you see it ?

If the PK was not taken correctly then the right result was reached , albeit through a terrible process . But people can't really complain too much

If the PK was actually tapped properly .. are sure that's what the AR called it back for ? Maybe something else was wrong


Key Learning --
1 they can't take a quick tap behind the referee's back. Call them back.
2 try and always anticipate the quick tap possibility so that you can see it happen

It's not always a question of anticipating the tap penalty, it's frequently taken from the wrong place. I'm always amazed at hose many player thing it's OK to take a quick tap when you are clearly facing the opposite direction, or from a place not on the mark.

On the issue of taking it behind you, if you are on the mark and they take if from the wrong position, would you penalise and award a scrum to the oppo or call them back to retake? I nearly always go for the latter but is that right?

 

[crossref]

It's not always a question of anticipating the tap penalty, it's frequently taken from the wrong place. I'm always amazed at hose many player thing it's OK to take a quick tap when you are clearly facing the opposite direction, or from a place not on the mark.

On the issue of taking it behind you, if you are on the mark and they take if from the wrong position, would you penalise and award a scrum to the oppo or call them back to retake? I nearly always go for the latter but is that right?

20.2 taking it from the wrong place is not an offence, they just get to take it again

[LAWS]A penalty or free-kick is taken from where it is awarded or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark and parallel to the touchlines. When a penalty or free-kick is taken at the wrong place, it must be re-taken.[/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

I'm always amazed at hose many player thing it's OK to take a quick tap when you are clearly facing the opposite direction,

given the amount of information that the player has to process and decisions made, being cognisant of which way the referee is facing is probably low on his list.

I contend that it is the referee's responsibility to be facing the right way unless he has blown time off to deal with a matter. Same as the referee who misses the quick conversion because he is proudly marching back to the 22 with his back to play

 

[crossref]

I contend that it is the referee's responsibility to be facing the right way unless he has blown time off to deal with a matter. Same as the referee who misses the quick conversion because he is proudly marching back to the 22 with his back to play

I agree - because you can be sure to make sure you are facing the right way to see the mark/the ball before you blow your whistle.

(yes, of course sometimes something might kick off at just the same moment to distract you)

 

[smeagol]

given the amount of information that the player has to process and decisions made, being cognisant of which way the referee is facing is probably low on his list.

I contend that it is the referee's responsibility to be facing the right way unless he has blown time off to deal with a matter. Same as the referee who misses the quick conversion because he is proudly marching back to the 22 with his back to play

If the referee can't see the tap, then how can the referee know that the tap was taken correctly?

 

[Dickie E]

If the referee can't see the tap,

under what circumstances would the referee not be able to see the tap?

Yeah, I get that that ref can only give what he sees. Same as he can't allow a QTI if he hasn't verified that all the associated conditions are met.

I'm more commenting on the concept that it is the player's responsibility to ensure the ref is looking in his direction. It is not, it is the ref's responsibility.

 

[crossref]

I agree with your view Dickie
The ref should make sure he can see the mark (or where the mark is going to be) when he blows .. so that if they take it quickly from the right place, he can see it ..

Normally you have a good sense of which PK are likely to be taken quickly

 

[Arabcheif]

I've a related question. What if I took a Quick tap and the defence weren't back 10m? Here's some senarios -
a) I run straight and run into a retreating defender.
b) I run straight avoiding the retreating defender but another player (not back 10M) advances and tackles me, but I'm able to stay on my feet for several other metres and cross the 10M threshold before going down
c) I run avoiding the retreating player but really wanted that line a defender (who was back the 10m advances and tackles me. The retreating defender then joins in, I'm still not past the 10m line from the PK.

My expectations would be

a) My choice to run that line - play on
b) PK not back ten
c) PK not back ten - Retreating player is the offending player.

Would that be correct?

 

[didds]

c) Id say that's fine. you were tackled by an "onside" player. All bets are off now, open player so retreating player can join in (usual open play caveats).

didds

 

[OB..]

I've a related question. What if I took a Quick tap and the defence weren't back 10m? Here's some senarios -
a) I run straight and run into a retreating defender.
b) I run straight avoiding the retreating defender but another player (not back 10M) advances and tackles me, but I'm able to stay on my feet for several other metres and cross the 10M threshold before going down
c) I run avoiding the retreating player but really wanted that line a defender (who was back the 10m advances and tackles me. The retreating defender then joins in, I'm still not past the 10m line from the PK.

My expectations would be

a) My choice to run that line - play on
b) PK not back ten
c) PK not back ten - Retreating player is the offending player.

Would that be correct?

When you take a quick tap, the opponents fall into two groups. Group A are already 10m away and onside, so they can rush up to tackle you. Group B are not 10m back and so before interfering with play, they must retreat to the 10m line without getting in your way.

a) unless the opponent moves to get in your way, it is your silly fault, but it does not change the offside situation.

b) as soon as the offside player grabs you he attracts an offside penalty however far you manage to drag him.

c) You cannot expect offside opponents to disappear into thin air. Hence you cannot run into them and claim they were at fault. If you choose to take a quick tap you accept the the need to run round some of them. However once an onside opponents tackles you, offside lines change to that of a tackle/ruck. The retreating player now has to respect those lines.

 

[Rich_NL]

There used to be a useful "contrived offences" law to point to.

 

[crossref]

There used to be a useful "contrived offences" law to point to.

9.7.c is the modern equivalent

 

[Rich_NL]

9.7.c is the modern equivalent

No, contrived offences for not-10 after a penalty tap was play on, 9.7.c is a penalty offence itself.

 

[crossref]

Hmmmm .. when did a contrived offences law last appear in Law book, I don't think it was in2017