retaken conversion

[Dickie E]

this will sound like one of those contrived law quiz questions but genuinely happened to me yesterday.

Red are leading 36 - 29 when Blue score a try right on full time so 36 - 34.

Blue take conversion, chargers yell out and conversion misses.

So I order a retake - so far so good.

Blue decide to change kickers. Red bench goes ape-shit "has to be same kicker!", etc

I allow new kicker who, of course, successfully takes conversion. FT: 36 all draw.

Red team less than happy.

So 2 questions:

1. was I right, in law, to allow a change to kicker?, and
2. even if I was right, have I made the final score about myself and would it have been better management to enforce the same kicker?

 

[SimonSmith]

Is this even covered in law?

And you were in a no-win situation; you HAD to make a decision... I wouldn't have faulted you either way.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hmmmm....

[LAWS]THE OPPOSING TEAM AT A CONVERSION

14. All opposing players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker
begins the approach to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to
prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions.

15. The team must not shout during a conversion attempt.

Sanction: If the opposing team at a conversion attempt infringes but the kick is successful,
the goal stands. If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker retakes the conversion and the opposing
team is not allowed to charge. When another kick is allowed, the kicker may repeat all the
preparations. The kicker may change the type of kick.

16. If the ball falls over after the kicker begins the approach to kick, the opponents may
continue to charge.

17. If the opposition touches the ball and the kick is successful, the goal stands.[/LAWS]

Now, if one was being a pedantic, jobsworth grammar Nazi, one could interpret "the kicker" as meaning that it must be the same kicker (and I can think of at least one other member here who would probably do so just to be a contrarian)

While the Law does not specifically say you can change the kicker, it also does not say you cannot - the Laws appear to be silent on this matter. I can imagine a scenario where the kicker might pull groin muscle it taking the kick (Like Jack Debreczeni did yesterday in Jags v Chiefs). It would be most unfair to demand that he retake the kick.


IMO, you got it right.

 

[Dickie E]

thanks both. Any thoughts on my question #2?

I wouldn't want to favour the squeaky wheel but I'm also mindful that Red are now blaming the ref for the outcome.

 

[Ian_Cook]

thanks both. Any thoughts on my question #2?

I wouldn't want to favour the squeaky wheel but I'm also mindful that Red are now blaming the ref for the outcome.

IMO

Q1 - Yes, you were right to allow a change of kicker.

Q2 - No, the law supports you, not them. If you had not allowed a change of kicker, then that could have been construed as you making up stuff.

 

[crossref]

Unfortunately the Law book is clear enough ..

[LAWS]
Sanction: If the opposing team at a conversion attempt infringes but the kick is successful, the goal stands. If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker retakes the conversion

[/LAWS]

For comparison see the Law when oppo infringes at a restart

[LAWS].
When the ball is kicked:

Team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball. Sanction: Scrum.
Opposition players must be on or behind the 10-metre line. Sanction: The kick is retaken.[/LAWS]

 

[Balones]

What would you have done if the first kicker injured himself and couldn’t take the retake? I have been on the pitch when our kicker has taken the conversion and had to go straight off because of a tweaked hamstring.

 

[Dickie E]

Unfortunately the Law book is clear enough ..

[LAWS]
Sanction: If the opposing team at a conversion attempt infringes but the kick is successful, the goal stands. If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker retakes the conversion

[/LAWS]

For comparison see the Law when oppo infringes at a restart

[LAWS].
When the ball is kicked:

Team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball. Sanction: Scrum.
Opposition players must be on or behind the 10-metre line. Sanction: The kick is retaken.[/LAWS]

I contend that the kicker is the player with the ball at the time of the kick, m'lud

 

[Flish]

What advantage can a team get by changing the Kicker? Ie why not allow it? As long it’s a player who was on the pitch at the time?

 

[crossref]

What would you have done if the first kicker injured himself and couldn’t take the retake? I have been on the pitch when our kicker has taken the conversion and had to go straight off because of a tweaked hamstring.

Then I'd let someone else take it, what would you do ?

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]8.22 If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal,[/LAWS](Re Penalty Kicks)

At this point "the kicker" is unidentified.

I think It is unnecessary to read the law as requiring the same person to retake a conversion.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]8.22 If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal,[/LAWS](Re Penalty Kicks)

At this point "the kicker" is unidentified.

I think It is unnecessary to read the law as requiring the same person to retake a conversion.

It doesn't usually happen that the kicker is the player who indicates the kick, its usually the captain.

 

[Shelflife]

Id be happy with the way it was handled.

If you want to be pedantic about it and define that it must be the same kicker then if as was suggested what happens if he gets injured ? Theres nothing in law that allows the kicker to be changed (youve effectively backed yourself into a very smelly corner here) according to your definition of the law. So you end up with a conversion to be taken and a kicker that cant take the kick, now thats a situation that you have made all about yourself.

 

[crossref]

Id be happy with the way it was handled.

If you want to be pedantic about it and define that the it must be the same kicker then if as was suggested what happens if he gets injured ? Theres nothing in law that allows the kicker to be changed (youve effectively backed yourself into a very smelly corner here) according to your definition of the law. So you end up with a conversion to be taken and a kicker that cant take the kick, now thats a situation that you have made all about yourself.

if the kicker injured himself taking the kick, then common sense would prevail - he goes off and someone else take the kick (not the replacement though). Can't see anyone getting upset about that.

chance of this happening? very low
- retaken kicks are rare (I have had to order that, but I can't remember the last time)
- kickers injuring them self taking a kick are rare (I have seen in on TV, but I don't think I have seen it in any game I have reffed)
chance of both happening on the same kick... once every 100,000 conversion kicks?

 

[Shelflife]

Bit of a cop out there crossref, on one hand you have carefully analysed the grammar and nuance of a law wording and made your decision on that, and then immediately after youve thrown out the law book and applied common sense with no basis in law ?

Chances of it happening is irrelevant, it has happened its unfolding in front of your eyes and you have to deal with it.

Personally Id be on the OPs side here rather than having to try and explain the nuance of a word to an irate coach after the game.

 

[crossref]

Bit of a cop out there crossref, on one hand you have carefully analysed the grammar and nuance of a law wording and made your decision on that, and then immediately after youve thrown out the law book and applied common sense with no basis in law ?

Chances of it happening is irrelevant, it has happened its unfolding in front of your eyes and you have to deal with it.

Personally Id be on the OPs side here rather than having to try and explain the nuance of a word to an irate coach after the game.

I haven't analysed the grammar and nuance !! It's just the plain meaning of the sentence.

So - I'd apply the Laws as written - the kicker must retake the kick

if something unusual happened that wasn't covered by Law I'd have to make a judgement about the equitable way to proceed - that's what we do

 

[Ian_Cook]

What did I tell you Dickie?

.....Now, if one was being a pedantic, jobsworth grammar Nazi, one could interpret "the kicker" as meaning that it must be the same kicker (and I can think of at least one other member here who would probably do so just to be a contrarian)

 

[Ian_Cook]

I would like to point out this

[LAWS]RESTARTING PLAY AFTER A MARK
5. The player who claimed the mark takes the free-kick (in accordance with Law 20).[/LAWS]

Now the Law does specify this for Free Kick from a Mark. However, for a conversion it does not, therefore, IMO, it is reasonable to assume that if the intent was for the same player to take the conversion again, the Law would say so.

It doesn't!

 

[crossref]

what is with the childish name calling? Why can't you stop yourself?
Why don't the other mods stop you?

your orginal post starts off by acknowledging what the plain meaning of the Law is ... before you then go on to give a convoluted account of why it should be interpreted to mean something different

 

[Ian_Cook]

what is with the childish name calling? Why can't you stop yourself?
Why don't the other mods stops you?

This site is was supposed to be about "Better Officials, Better Game", not about showing what clever Dicks posters could be in their attempts to be the edgelords of rugby refereeing. It is about helping referees with decisions and situations they encounter, either during their own matches, or matches they have seen, and for them to seek and receive good, sound advice from more experienced referees.

Your constant taking of a deliberately opposite view from the more experienced members here serves only to confuse rather than enlighten those who come here for advice, and thereby, diminishing the value and effectiveness of the site.

One of the main reasons I don't post here as often as I used to is you. Your constant contrarian attitude, your insistence reinterpreting Laws in strange and unconventional ways that no-one else does, grew tiresome and boring, and I got sick of it.