[Law] Tap penalty to a runner clarifcation

[didds]

U16s in England - my understanding its full rules if not specifically stated otherwise in the RFU youth regs for that age group.

Tap penalty to a runner.

can I clarify that a tap penalty, as the tap is made all players must be stationary - you cannot have a runner approaching at pace to whom a tap and pass is made?

But you can tap and pass (possibly to a stationary player who can then pass) to a player who started his run as the initial tap was made?

In the interests of avoiding pedantry, lets please for debate's sake ignore the usual caveats about safety yadda yadda yadda specifically - its taken as read that everything needs to be "safe" and i'm merely seeking clarification that my understanding is correct.

didds


PS Robbie - I was forced to choose a prefix but none of them fitted what I really wanted - I could choose junior as this is ultimately will be for an U16 side, but its not really a junior question, but a generic question about the laws at all levels. Maybe you need another prefix [FKs+PKs] ?

 

[Dickie E]

Smells like a cavalry charge to me which is forbidden at all levels:

[LAWS]'Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known as as a 'Cavalry Charge' usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. Either a single player stands some distance behind the kicker, or attacking players form a line across the field some distance behind the kicker.
These attacking players are usually a metre or two apart. At a signal from the kicker, they charge forward. When they get near, the kicker tap-kicks the ball and passes to a player who had started some distance behind the kicker.

Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of infringement[/LAWS]

Let me guess: the 15 year old receiver of the ball is built like Herman Munster.

 

[Phil E]

I agree with Dickie.
Cavalry charge as described. Banned no mater what the age group, including adults.

U16s use adult laws with U16 variations. A tap penalty at U16 is no different to adults.

 

[dave_clark]

But you can tap and pass (possibly to a stationary player who can then pass) to a player who started his run as the initial tap was made?

not sure i agree with the previous responses...

in the original scenario, all players were still when the kick was taken. effectively it's a pop pass to a player running at pace, it just happens to be the second pass from a PK.

 

[didds]

Let me guess: the 15 year old receiver of the ball is built like Herman Munster.

More like Israel Dagg!

I've been tasked with provising some tap penalty moves (because the line out is so pants). They already have "give it to the big bloke". I have some variations from a million years ago when i played but they all really only "work" because players are already moving. I was just checking that my understanding was correct - that yes, it is a cavalry charge.

didds

 

[didds]

Right... so

1) all players still
2) PK is tapped
3) players start to move
4) runner receives pass from tapper

Is fine?

And

1) all players still
2) PK is tapped
3) players start to move
4) tapper passes to static player.
5) static player passes to runner

Is also fine? (3 and 4 interchangeable?)

didds

 

[didds]

which has reminded me...

the 1970s Australian star burst move is now outlawed as-a-concept if not in actual law - correct? (without the ball up the jumper bit!)

didds

 

[Phil E]

Right... so

1) all players still
2) PK is tapped
3) players start to move
4) runner receives pass from tapper

Is fine?

And

1) all players still
2) PK is tapped
3) players start to move
4) tapper passes to static player.
5) static player passes to runner

Is also fine? (3 and 4 interchangeable?)

didds

Yes.

It's the running BEFORE the ball is tapped that might constitute a cavalry charge.

 

[crossref]

A cavalry charge is banned
But there is nothing in the law to say people have to be stationary, whether the receiver or anyone else.
What is illegal is *charging* not moving

 

[didds]

Ok... so what is "charging" ?

* running full pelt, screaming?
* running full pelt
* running hard
* running 3/4s pace
* jogging
* walking

??

This isn't a dig at CRs point, but if the nuance is "charging" then - at the risk of minutiae like queries - what does "charging" actually mean?

I suspect of course that understandably you'll all have different opinions

And it is relevant because - akin to outfielders in cricket - a player on the move finds it easier to accelerate.

didds

 

[John3822]

Ok... so what is "charging" ?

* running full pelt, screaming?
* running full pelt
* running hard
* running 3/4s pace
* jogging
* walking

??

This isn't a dig at CRs point, but if the nuance is "charging" then - at the risk of minutiae like queries - what does "charging" actually mean?

I suspect of course that understandably you'll all have different opinions

And it is relevant because - akin to outfielders in cricket - a player on the move finds it easier to accelerate.

didds

I would have thought anything more than a walk, and a slow walk at that. In order to discourage any thoughts of a cavalry charge, I usually manage it by saying something along the lines of, "Don't move until the ball is tapped." Seems to work

 

[didds]

I I usually manage it by saying something along the lines of, "Don't move until the ball is tapped." Seems to work

... even though that is contrary to the advice provided by Crossref who is also a London Society referee?

Not trying to catch you out at all - but something as simple as this I wondered might be standard across at least a society?

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Law 10.4(p) is the poorest law explanation with the possible exception of law 19.

Start by removing all references following "usually". Then ignore the sentence that starts with "Either".

What is left is the prohibition of a player charging forward, before the ball is tapped, to receive the ball.

It doesn't define "charging" but it is fair to assume that "charging" is more than a trot.

It does reference "forward" so players may move laterally. They are not required to be stationary. So a pass to a player looping into a wider channel is OK as long as he's not moving forward at the moment of the tap.

And a pass to a stationary player, then to the charging player? The law doesn't limit it to the first pass from the tap as it is the "charging forward" at the moment of the tap that is restricted.

Can one player be a Cavalry Charge? The term seems to imply more than one player but the restriction really only applies to the player receiving the ball so in this case one player is the cavalry.

 

[crossref]

First - there are tap PK and tap PK

On the one hand is prearranged moves -- which is where we beware cavalry charges, and on the opther hand are Danny Care like quickly take taps.

Clearly when Danny care taps and runs we don't mind if the players around him run with him, and may well receive a pass

On the other hand when we have an organised tap-PK move we have to think about charges.

I reckon you know a charge when you see it.
It's legal to be moving when you enter a ruck, but it's illegal to charge into a ruck. This doesn't cause us problems, we all know a charge when we see it.

 

[Phil E]

... even though that is contrary to the advice provided by Crossref who is also a London Society referee?

Not trying to catch you out at all - but something as simple as this I wondered might be standard across at least a society?

didds

Didds you know full well that the laws are not black and white, but in this instance you seem to be trying to get them to be.
Charging is whatever the referee deems it to be. You see it and then decide if it is or isn't. That may sound vague, but it's a case of "you just know it when you see it".

charge verb (MOVE FORWARD)
to ​move ​forward ​quickly and ​violently, ​especially towards something that has ​caused ​difficulty or ​anger:
The ​bull ​lowered ​its ​horns and charged.
The ​violence ​began when the ​police charged (at) a ​crowd of ​demonstrators.
informal to ​hurry from one ​place to another:
I've been charging about/around all ​day and I'm ​exhausted.
He came charging up the ​stairs to ​tell me the good ​news.

 

[SimonSmith]

Part of what worries me about applying the "no charge" edict to the runner who gets it from the first receiver is that at some point you have to say that a strike runner is OK. Second receiver? Third?

Where does that line get drawn?

 

[didds]

I reckon you know a charge when you see it.
.

So - would a jog be a charge? Some clearly think so ...

Thing is as a coach to 15 year olds, some of who are quite literal, others who are not overly bright, and many of which seem to want to turn every decision and instruction into an opportunity to hold an inquest, I am trying to come up with something they can

- easily understand
- easily put into practise
- are not going to find out one week its OK and the next it isn't.
- faced with the immediate above don't then (rightly or wrongly) exacerbate the scenario with the referee asking him why it was Ok last week
- then doing the same to me at next practise.

we can all say as their coach I need to teach them discipline and respect etc - but i get these lads for 40 minutes a week, and clearly their parents and teachers have failed to do it. Or I suppose have suppressed them so much this is their one chance to actually query and question - which on the whole as their coach I am happy for them to do but it needs to focussed and not generalised.

Christ, last Friday I had to spend time explaining why ONE line was the tryline and not some other TOTALLY UNMARKED AND NON EXISTENT LINE!

So apologies for being dog at a bone like... but I just need to make my life simple as much as these lads!

LOL - I think...

didds

 

[didds]

Didds you know full well that the laws are not black and white, but in this instance you seem to be trying to get them to be.
Charging is whatever the referee deems it to be. You see it and then decide if it is or isn't. That may sound vague, but it's a case of "you just know it when you see it".

all with you there Phil - I know.

Thing is you see,... a jog could never surely be classified as "to ​move ​forward ​quickly and ​violently". Yet its clear that some here wouldn't even permit a jog. I can however understand that a binary situation is a simple one

I'm happy anyway that a jog is not charging. WADR to you all I can not see that it would ever be.

didds


didds

 

[OB..]

Let's forget the precise wording and think about the basic tactic that WR decided was sufficiently dangerous to warrant putting something in the laws.

Near the goal line, the defenders are on the line and have to stop the attackers well short of that line. They cannot move until the ball is tapped. The attackers are spread out so it is not clear who is going to get the ball, which means tackles are likely to be one-on-one. If the attackers are moving before the ball is tapped, they will also have momentum to help them penetrate the defence.

The defenders will be on a hair trigger to charge out as fast as they can the moment the ball is tapped. The resulting collisions are what IMHO WR decided were far too risky to be allowed.

The speed at which the attackers are moving (they have a choice) may well be less significant than the speed of the defenders (who have no cboice).

I would have thought anything more than a walk, and a slow walk at that. In order to discourage any thoughts of a cavalry charge, I usually manage it by saying something along the lines of, "Don't move until the ball is tapped." Seems to work

I endorse that approach.

(It is called a cavalry charge simply because that was the name given to the tactic when it first appeared.)

 

[Robert Burns]

The tap is the point at which the Opposition can start to move from their 10m line towards the ball, so it makes sense to me that to remain equitable, the ball carriers team have the same requirement. Once the original tap is made it's open play and all tactics around this are fair (second runner on, looping, etc..).

I don't have any issues with either team moving, but running at speed to take a ball at momentum at the time of tap, which gives the attackers an unfair advantage to break a stationary line doesn't sound right.

And while there is no reason the defence could not try the same thing, every coach knows it would be a logistical nightmare to get right, and provide a huge weakness to the defensive line.

So in essence, to me it's a law to provide equity of the restarting of general play. YMMV