retaken conversion

[crossref]

There you go again ..

But if you had said. . the Law says same kicker, but probably better game management to allow them to change. .. that would be a defensible viewpoint

 

[OB..]

[unnecessary comment redacted]

But if you had said. . the Law says same kicker, but probably better game management to allow them to change. .. that would be a defensible viewpoint

... and if you had said "the surface reading suggests the same person should take the kick, but in practice it would seem unrealistic to insist on that" then we would not be having an argument.

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

However you take the legalistic line, even though it has been pointed out countless times that the "Laws" are not actually written in legal language.

The laws are not perfect (as you yourself have sometimes pointed out) so we have to referee then sensibly, not rigidly.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

... and if you had said "the surface reading suggests the same person should take the kick, but in practice it would seem unrealistic to insist on that" then we would not be having an argument.



However you take the legalistic line, even though it has been pointed out countless times that the "Laws" are not actually written in legal language.

The laws are not perfect (as you yourself have sometimes pointed out) so we have to referee then sensibly, not rigidly.

Common sense OB. Not all are born with it!

 

[crossref]

I think when the Law is clear , you have to stick with it, don't youl?

Even if you don't like it

 

[L'irlandais]

I think the correct decision was made, as was already pointed out.
[LAWS]8.15
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.[/LAWS]Red didn’t win simply because they infringed. Blaming the match referee is nothing more than sour grapes. They and their coach should look at controlling things in their control, ie numpties who cannot prevent themselves from shouting.

Crossref, if the law meant the same kicker, don’t you think they would have included that particular adjective?

 

[Balones]

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

Yes I would. I was merely raising the point that if you allow a change of kicker for an injury then why not for any reason. If it is universally accepted, in law or without law, that you would accept a change of kicker through injury then allow it anyway because if I was a coach I would merely ask my first kicker to feign injury so it could happen.

 

[crossref]

Yes I would. I was merely raising the point that if you allow a change of kicker for an injury then why not for any reason. If it is universally accepted, in law or without law, that you would accept a change of kicker through injury then allow it anyway because if I was a coach I would merely ask my first kicker to feign injury so it could happen.

Yes , but then he would have to leave the field

 

[Balones]

Yes , but then he would have to leave the field

Why? Depends on injury. Stubbed toe on first kick? (Perhaps shows my age and kicking style.�&#56832 I’ve played on with broken bones.

 

[crossref]

Why? Depends on injury. Stubbed toe on first kick? (Perhaps shows my age and kicking style.��) I’ve played on with broken bones.

A player who is too injured to take a kick at goal, but is ok to play on? That's a real edge case. I will reserve my decision on that one until I encounter it !

 

[Balones]

A player who is too injured to take a kick at goal, but is ok to play on? That's a real edge case. I will reserve my decision on that one until I encounter it !

I can remember playing on with a broken/cracked metatarsal. I didn’t realise how painful it was until I attempted my first penalty after ten minutes. I played on because it was only x-rayed after the game. I thought it was a bad bruise from a stamp after two minutes. I was replaced as a kicker for the remainder of the game. Are you suggesting that players are a bit softer nowadays?

 

[Dickie E]

in our brave new world, mental impairment is as real as physical impairment.

What if the first kicker was so distraught at missing the first kick that he couldn't take the second?

Just having a bit of fun here, no responses needed.

Not really joking ... do you think this could become a thing?

Maybe clubs will have a sideline head shrinker who will recognise the signs of anxiety and take players off for a different type of HIA

 

[SimonSmith]

In any instance where there is a gap in the law, and I believe that there is here, my natural inclination would be to err on the side of the non-offending team.

As has been cited, where TPTB want the same player to do something (mark, kick) they have no trouble saying so. I equally hold to the OB view that parsing the laws like a pedantic lawyer serves you no good as a referee.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes I would. I was merely raising the point that if you allow a change of kicker for an injury then why not for any reason. If it is universally accepted, in law or without law, that you would accept a change of kicker through injury then allow it anyway because if I was a coach I would merely ask my first kicker to feign injury so it could happen.

Remember the old days where Doctors had to say that a player was injured and could be replaced. Every team had a doc who would "comply" with the desire of the team. As you rightly say this would happen here.

Simple ploy:

Player suddenly needs treatment. He gets treatment without being subbed /replaced. He goes to the side of the pitch and is "treated" whilst the replacement kicker takes over. The kick is completed and player's "treatment is now completed and he is able to return. Who'd
have thought it.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

in our brave new world, mental impairment is as real as physical impairment.

What if the first kicker was so distraught at missing the first kick that he couldn't take the second?

Just having a bit of fun here, no responses needed.

Not really joking ... do you think this could become a thing?

Maybe clubs will have a sideline head shrinker who will recognise the signs of anxiety and take players off for a different type of HIA.

Football world cup back in the 1990s. Gazza has lost it and is in tears. Gary Linaker looks to the bench and indictes to the manager that Gazza needs to be replaced because his "head is gone".

Rugby situation where referee "suggests" Captain your six is losing his discipline. I suggest you think about subbing him before i have to give him 10 minutes to calm down!

Two situation where judgement have been made bassed on a player's "state of mind"

So, yours is not such a daft idea.

 

[irishref]

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.

I agree with Ian_Cook about the law, it's neither pro or contra, open to interpretation so no mistake on your part in my opinion.

As for your second question: you were absolutely correct to allow the conversion to be retaken. I would hazard a guess that Red weren't vocal at any previous conversion attempts but with their win down to this final kick, they would seem to have tried to pull a fast one on their opponents. Well spotted.

 

[irishref]

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

With respect, and now we have an Englishman, a New Zealander and and Irishman in this non-joke, it's not at all plain language. I can see both sides of the argument, so that has to tell you it's not so cut and dried.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Off on a slight tangent.


7s on Saturday.

Blue team goes into a small lead (1 point) with the conversion to come. We are very close to time.


Kicker: " Will there be a restart?"
Me: "Depends whether you kick the ball before or after time is up."
Kicker: "How long do I have until that happens?"
Mw: "If you delay unduly you might find that there is a second left when you kick it!" (Said with a knowing look).

He got the message.

We don't want "gamesmanship" deciding matches. I was not going to let him run the clock down. His normal preperation ? Fine. A tad longer on this one? Who'd notice? Taking the piss? No way!

Same with the OP. Big pressure on the kicker and the side CHEATING try to gain by ramping up the pressure (unfairly) on him. I'd have no problem with changing the kicker.

 

[crossref]

So to make sure I understand, if you felt he was guilty of "gamesmanship" you would restart the game, even though your watch told you time had expired?

 

[Pablo]

In any instance where there is a gap in the law, and I believe that there is here, my natural inclination would be to err on the side of the non-offending team.

As has been cited, where TPTB want the same player to do something (mark, kick) they have no trouble saying so. I equally hold to the OB view that parsing the laws like a pedantic lawyer serves you no good as a referee.

Full agreement. And by analogy with the law governing the mark:

[LAWS]Law 17:
5. The player who claimed the mark takes the free-kick (in accordance with Law 20).
6. If the player is unable to take the free-kick within one minute, a scrum is awarded to the team in possession.[/LAWS]

An equivalent on a retaken conversion is conspicuous by its absence. If the lawmakers had wanted us to insist a retaken conversion should be taken by the original kicker, they could have made it as plain as they did with the mark.

 

[Pablo]

Off on a slight tangent.


7s on Saturday.

Blue team goes into a small lead (1 point) with the conversion to come. We are very close to time.


Kicker: " Will there be a restart?"
Me: "Depends whether you kick the ball before or after time is up."
Kicker: "How long do I have until that happens?"
Mw: "If you delay unduly you might find that there is a second left when you kick it!" (Said with a knowing look).

He got the message.

We don't want "gamesmanship" deciding matches. I was not going to let him run the clock down. His normal preperation ? Fine. A tad longer on this one? Who'd notice? Taking the piss? No way!

Same with the OP. Big pressure on the kicker and the side CHEATING try to gain by ramping up the pressure (unfairly) on him. I'd have no problem with changing the kicker.

We're drifting off topic (how unusual!) here, but I would advise a better way of managing those questions is simply to tell the player how long you have left on your watch. It's then up to them to know the law well enough about time allowances to decide their course of action.