Samoa v USA

[irishref]

https://giphy.com/gifs/kick2-U7Udga...e-costs-samoa-big-time-in-pacific-nations-cup

I hope this .gif works

In the second round of the Pacific Nations cup, this incident caused controversy. I'm not so concerned with the 'what-iffery' about the final score - 13:10 to the USA - but with the challenge itself.

Basically a defender leading with his foot towards a ball carrier.

Your thoughts on this?

My tuppence worth: dangerous play and if the kick is half a second earlier we will have a kick to the hand. To my mind a strong message should be sent that this is not a legitimate way to challenge, using Law 9.11 as my reference.

 

[Dickie E]

its all about timing. half a second earlier, foul play. Now ... play on

 

[Flish]

It’s similar to sticking your leg it to intercept the ball, not illegal unless it is dangerous, here though it looks like that’s kicking the ball of his hands, certainly at first glance, and that’s a penalty all day

 

[tewdric]

Penalty only but borderline yellow card for me, but that's with the benefit of seeing this clip several times now. Reffing in real time on my own? Don't honestly know!

 

[Zebra1922]

Dangerous play, YC. In my view it does not matter whether he played the ball cleanly out of the BCs hands or not, this is inherently dangerous and covered by law, I’m going to use that law.

 

[Rich_NL]

9.23 A player must not attempt to kick the ball from the hands of the ball-carrier.

 

[L'irlandais]

I am with Dickie on this. Play on.
While Law 9.23 seems to have it covered, I will wager the Law makers never envisaged this scenario.
The law relates specifically to ball carrier brought to ground and the dangers of defending players kicking at the ball with all those heads on the deck in close proximity.
This is simply a reiteration of Law 21.11
[LAWS]If a tackled player is in the act of reaching out to ground the ball for a try or touch down, players may pull the ball from the player’s possession but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball. Sanction: Penalty.[/LAWS]

The situation in the OP is not any thing like that, at worst he will kick the ball carrier in the hand, not nearly as dangerous as kicking him in the head. Common sense can help us thru’ the mine field of poorly written laws.

We card recklessness. For me, the fact he might possibly have kicked him in the hand, isn’t reckless. If, if, if... I thought it was quite skillful actually, and overcomes the risk of being penalized for a deliberate knock-on when intercepting a predictable (poor skill) pass by the opposition.

We should be rewarding such skill in Rugby. Ymmv

 

[OB..]

its all about timing. half a second earlier, foul play. Now ... play on

Agree. Half a second earlier the ball was still in the passer's hands. My reading of the clip is that he had (just) released the ball. The passer does not seem to be bothered about his hand. A risky play that will no doubt go wrong if he keeps trying it, but I think the player and referee got it right.

 

[irishref]

While Law 9.23 seems to have it covered, I will wager the Law makers never envisaged this scenario.
The law relates specifically to ball carrier brought to ground and the dangers of defending players kicking at the ball with all those heads on the deck in close proximity.





The situation in the OP is not any thing like that, at worst he will kick the ball carrier in the hand, not nearly as dangerous as kicking

I have a couple of follow up questions if you don't mind.

1 - where do you arrive at the conclusion that law 9.23 relates to players on the ground specifically?

2 - why would you consider kicking a hand to be less dangerous than kicking a head. Playing top trumps with potential injuries isn't what we do is it?

 

[Zebra1922]

I have a couple of follow up questions if you don't mind.

1 - where do you arrive at the conclusion that law 9.23 relates to players on the ground specifically?

2 - why would you consider kicking a hand to be less dangerous than kicking a head. Playing top trumps with potential injuries isn't what we do is it?

whilst I think this is dangerous, I also believe there are instances where we play top trumps with potential injuries. Rucking for instance with stronger sanction for contact with head or joints. I understand your point, and as I noted earlier I think this isi herently dangerous and deserves a YC, but we do and should play an element of top trumps with potential injuries.

 

[crossref]

For me it's a very straightforward PK under 9.23

Even if 9.23 didn't exist it is self evidently dangerous play

 

[Dickie E]

For me it's a very straightforward PK under 9.23

Even if 9.23 didn't exist it is self evidently dangerous play

At what point, in your view, would it not be dangerous play? 1 metre from the passer, 2, 3, 10?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Play on for me

 

[Zebra1922]

At what point, in your view, would it not be dangerous play? 1 metre from the passer, 2, 3, 10?

I can't answer for Crossref but I'm not sure the question has any relevance, a player would not be lifting a foot like that 10m away from another to get the ball.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think there's a low risk of injury there, but close.

I like to think I'd play on but advise him on the quiet that if his boot makes contact with the player we have an altogether different situation.

 

[Dickie E]

I can't answer for Crossref but I'm not sure the question has any relevance, a player would not be lifting a foot like that 10m away from another to get the ball.

yes, he would. If the passer bounced his pass to a team mate an opponent would be very likely to put boot to ball. The question is: how close would that need to be to the passer to invoke 9.23. For me, it is if he makes contact with the passer's body.

 

[The Fat]

Agree. Half a second earlier the ball was still in the passer's hands. My reading of the clip is that he had (just) released the ball. The passer does not seem to be bothered about his hand. A risky play that will no doubt go wrong if he keeps trying it, but I think the player and referee got it right.

What was the referee’s decision?

 

[Dickie E]

What was the referee’s decision?

Samoa Denied Prime Chance
The rest of the half was physical, with the US dominating territory and possession but unable to score. Samoa found itself on the wrong end of a mistake from Nigel Owens in the 39th minute. Just as the Eagles were making a break in the wide left channel, Samoan wing Johnny Vaili stepped in to stop the two-on-one out wide.
Had the US pass gone to hand, it could have been a try. However, just as USA fullback Will Hooley released the ball to Iosefo on the wing, Vaili stuck his leg out into mid-air and blocked the pass with his foot. He then scooped the ball with one hand and outran everyone to score.
But Owens had already blown the play dead, saying his assistant referee had called a knock-on. He had misheard. The AR had actually said “off the foot.” Owens admitted his error and awarded Samoa a scrum, but the damage was done, and halftime came with the USA up 10-7.

https://www.florugby.com/articles/6549801-usa-edges-samoa-13-10

sounds as though both ref & AR were happy that there was no foul play.

 

[UpandUnder]

My tuppence worth: dangerous play and if the kick is half a second earlier we will have a kick to the hand. To my mind a strong message should be sent that this is not a legitimate way to challenge, using Law 9.11 as my reference.

I disagree, good timing is everything in rugby. We wouldn't penalise someone who tackles a player who has just landed because half a second earlier we will have a tackle in the air.

 

[crossref]

Notice the wording of 9.23

[LAWS]A player must not attempt to kick the ball from the hands of the ball-carrier[/LAWS]

So it's an offence just to try, ie it's still an offence if he just misses or if the ball carrier releases the ball a fraction of a second earlier .

Why is the Law written that way ? Because the practice is dangerous