- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
It was neither, it was a case of not taking a kick at all.
[Law] TJ Perenara's Bluff
- Thread starter The Fat
- Start date
It was neither, it was a case of not taking a kick at all.
Bouncing the ball on your knee is not taking a kick - 21.3 says so.
When a Penalty Kick is awarded, play naturally has to be restarted with a kick. 21.3 specifies how it is to be taken, and 21.4 gives some other options.
Yesterday was April Fools Day. Today we are back to normality.
Cross
Getting to know the game
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2015
- Messages
- 176
- Post Likes
- 32
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Quick question: if, as Ian claims in your first post, the try could have been allowed because #8 touched the ball with his foot before TJP grabbed it and tried to score, AND, since that touch by #8 was inside the 5m area, wouldn't that mean that #8 took the penalty from the wrong place, hence a scrum for red?
If we are nit picking we should do so both ways i suppose.
If we are nit picking we should do so both ways i suppose.
If the quick tap is taken at the wrong place, i.e. not on the mark or behind the mark and on a line through it, the referee can simply make the player retake the quick tap at the correct place. It is an incorrectly taken PK/FK quick tap that triggers the scrum i.e. not a clear kick
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
I 100% support Ian's position. A kick has not occurred, play has not restarted, make the mark at the correct location and signal the PK.
If the ball doesn't travel a visible distance then a kick has not occurred.
In general, after awarding a PK to a team for foul play by their opponents and then giving possession back to that opponent on a technical infraction strikes me as unfair.
If the ball doesn't travel a visible distance then a kick has not occurred.
In general, after awarding a PK to a team for foul play by their opponents and then giving possession back to that opponent on a technical infraction strikes me as unfair.
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,133
- Post Likes
- 2,155
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
what then would be an example of an infringement that would trigger this?
[LAWS]Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball. [/LAWS]
The Laws do not support your sentiment.
Blue infringe at a scrum.
A PK is awarded to Red.
Red 9 holds the ball in both hands, lifts his right foot and taps his foot with the ball so he can go quickly.
The correct decision in such a situation is that a scrum is awarded to blue at the original mark.
Might not sound fair, but that's the way it is.
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
And I say that the restart has not occurred because a kick has not occurred.
If a quick tap is taken from the wrong place the kick must be taken again. But if the ball doesn't leave the 9's hand the opponents get the scrum? I think that this is a product of lazy law writing.
If a quick tap is taken from the wrong place the kick must be taken again. But if the ball doesn't leave the 9's hand the opponents get the scrum? I think that this is a product of lazy law writing.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,367
- Post Likes
- 1,469
Anyone up for nailing Perenara for unsportsmanship?
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
a teammate materially ahead of the kicker
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I agree, in that situation, but that isn't what happened.
It order to commit a kicking infringement, you have to attempt to kick the ball, and get it wrong. This means the player attempts to kick and...
a. the ball does not leave the hand
b. the ball does not leave the mark.
c. the ball is kicked with the knee or the heel
d. the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick (punted when it should have been a drop-kick or place kicked when it is not allowed to be a place kick)
These are the ONLY kicking infringements listed in the LotG.
Perenara did not kick, or even attempt to kick the ball at all, ergo, he did not commit an infringement, and no interpretation of the law can make it so. If you think what he did was an infringement, then you are making it up out of whole cloth.
I'm not defending Perenara and what he did, I'm defending Angus Gardner and his decision to change from a Red scrum to a replay of the PK to Gold. IMO. AG got this right on the money and is to be commended for making the correct decision in a pressure situation.
On a rugby field, I want ALL the referee's decisions to be correct. Just because it is not realistically going to happen doesn't mean we should not strive for that perfection, and I don't much care how we get there. If a referee changes his decision to the correct one because a player tells him he has it wrong, that's just fine with me.
Last edited:
No, it's lazy players. The idea is that the opponents (and referee) must be able to see that the kick has been taken. Players should know how to do it and not try to take short cuts. Caveat calcitro.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,098
- Post Likes
- 2,358
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
Can't be viewed outside of Australia.
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/gb...to-be-schooled-on-the-rules-by-tj-perenara-2/
TJ has tried to take the pen but has failed to do so correctly, if hes using the excuse that the pen wasnt taken at all then he needs to explain his actions of simulating the scoring of a try.
In my book he doesnt get two bites of the cherry, so its either an incorrect kick as in he hasnt kicked it or unsportsmanlike behaviour in trying to deceive the officials that he has scored a try.
Otherwise we are just encouraging players to chance their arm if they know they still get the pen.
TJ has tried to take the pen but has failed to do so correctly, if hes using the excuse that the pen wasnt taken at all then he needs to explain his actions of simulating the scoring of a try.
In my book he doesnt get two bites of the cherry, so its either an incorrect kick as in he hasnt kicked it or unsportsmanlike behaviour in trying to deceive the officials that he has scored a try.
Otherwise we are just encouraging players to chance their arm if they know they still get the pen.
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,068
- Post Likes
- 1,798
ye.e.e.e.ssss... but had he tapped it he still would have scored. Its a cock up on his behalf that cost his side a try. "knowing" you get two bites of the cherry is useless if on the 2nd bite the defense is set. I can't believe anybody would deliberately fake a tap kick in these circumstances and risk losing a nailed on score.
didds
ChuckieB
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Messages
- 1,057
- Post Likes
- 115
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Here's my explanation.
"Sir, ......I thought I kicked it....... but of I didn't, I am sure I am entitled to a correct restart. How do you see it as a scrum restart? Surely, still my penalty?
AG: "Fair point"
TBH I think this thread is getting bogged down in technicalities and making decisions based on technicalities is seldom a good thing.
The spirit of the law is that it's a turn over if the kick is incorrectly taken. Sure, you can argue that *technically* it wasn't because the kick wasn't taken at all, but I don't see that being in the spirit of the law at all, particularly since players are so often trying to squeeze out those extra milliseconds.
Sure, there might be some leeway in a U14s game where they might lack the knowledge or the skills, but he's a f****** All Black!
The spirit of the law is that it's a turn over if the kick is incorrectly taken. Sure, you can argue that *technically* it wasn't because the kick wasn't taken at all, but I don't see that being in the spirit of the law at all, particularly since players are so often trying to squeeze out those extra milliseconds.
Sure, there might be some leeway in a U14s game where they might lack the knowledge or the skills, but he's a f****** All Black!
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I agree, but the correct decision in Law was to allow a correct restart of the game. Its difficult to criticise a referee who has come to the correct decision in Law, even of he was prompted by a player. Its not the first time I have seen this happen.
In a 2008 NZ v SA test at Cape Town few years ago, SA took a 22DO that went the whole length of the field and into the NZ in-goal where a NZ player made it dead. The referee, Matt "Its My Ball" Goddard, awarded a 22DO, but McCaw told him that the Law allowed him an option of a scrum back at the SA 22 with NZ to feed.
https://youtu.be/39SJGBr0EPU?t=1960