[Law] Quick tap penalty

[Phil E]

Only time I've ever seen it penalised is if the player has been moving back to an onside position. But we're off topic. The question was Quick tap taken, player tackled after 10m by a retreating player. That's fine. Play on.

Seriously, I sometimes think that some posters on here post just to be difficult. It's shame really as there's some really good advice mixed in with all the arguing and bickering.

No were not off topic, we are exploring situations that might arise from the original question. That's how conversations and discussions develop.

Off topic would be a completely unrelated question that had absolutely nothing to do with the original. That is not the case.

 

[crossref]

The OP was all about, did that constitute interfering with play, in the first 10m

So thought it was a good question, with some thoughtful answers.

Arab I think you rather missed the point of it

 

[Zebra1922]

Only time I've ever seen it penalised is if the player has been moving back to an onside position. But we're off topic. The question was Quick tap taken, player tackled after 10m by a retreating player. That's fine. Play on.

Seriously, I sometimes think that some posters on here post just to be difficult. It's shame really as there's some really good advice mixed in with all the arguing and bickering.

i think that’s harsh about this scenario, there are genuine considerations as to whether the retreating player interferes with the 9s options. If he doesn’t the. I agree it’s a fairly simply play on. But if he’s restricting running lines or ability to pass as he chooses, then I’d blow for offside, not 10m.

ive no interest in debating the rate as rocking horse stuff. I think the above covers the salient points here.

 

[didds]

Totally fine by me.

what is (s)he otherwise supposed to do? run alongside the BC until the BC scores 50m later?

didds

 

[thepercy]

The would be tackler doesn't have to retreat the full 10m before making the tackle. They could make the tackle as soon as a teammate that was back ten advances past them.

 

[Arabcheif]

So, in terms of off topic. It may not be as much off topic as it can be, but discussing, what if this, what of that diverts from the original question. For me that's off topic. The OP has said the BC runs and get tackled by a retreating player after 10m. We're then discussing different scenarios that didn't happen in the OP. That gentlemen is off topic. We're now discussing something NOT asked in the OP.

 

[crossref]

For me the OP was asking what does and does not amounts to interfering with play during those first 10 metres ..

 

[frenchie851]

I got my question answered then there were a few other 'what ifs' thrown up and they have also helped me better under stand the scenario as a whole.

Second year in reffing as much discussion about the laws and the nuance of the laws the better for me.

 

[didds]

Did the act of retreating (ie alongside the BC) reduce the ball carrier's options? If yes, you are not retreating, but are remaining in the game by reducing the available space and ultimately the benefit of the PK. PK for me if you move in a way that reduces the options, and by the sound of the OP, probably a card for that player as it sounds cynical.

i get what yoru saying.

But equally the retreating defender HAS to be somewhere.

didds