[Law] TJ Perenara's Bluff

[DocY]

I agree, but the correct decision in Law was to allow a correct restart of the game.

Sure, but my contention was more that it shouldn't be correct in law and that it's a situation the law writers didn't consider. Here's hoping for a clarification!

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.

Completely agree. It'd be a small minded referee who refused to change his mind when a player (politely) pointed out that he was wrong in law.

 

[didds]

Completely agree. It'd be a small minded referee who refused to change his mind when a player (politely) pointed out that he was wrong in law.

There is a D&W referee that still owes me a fiver following such an in game polite discussion.

didds

 

[VM75]

The spirit of QTP law is that it's hugely advantageous IF you are skilled enough to quickly kick the ball and gather it [ie not giving defences time to settle] but skill of course requires execution of 'technique under pressure', so if you fail in your 'execution ' or forget to execute [or attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the referee - as did all those historical knee ball bouncer's!] then it's tough - call it Rugby's equivalent of the 'air shot' in golf if you choose.

as one poster implied , excusable in early juniors, not so by 1st xv players of any standard.

as an aside - try this
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
21.10
21.10[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] Contrived infringements at the free kick[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular](a)

The kicker must not pretend to kick.


Maybe TJP pretended to take the kick ?

[/FONT]

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

On a side note, having seen the clips from this match with AG in general - a ref I tend to like - seems to be coming across with less authority in recent matches (including the 6N he did recently). Is his "relaxed" style creating more problems for him than benefits?

 

[crossref]

On a side note, having seen the clips from this match with AG in general - a ref I tend to like - seems to be coming across with less authority in recent matches (including the 6N he did recently). Is his "relaxed" style creating more problems for him than benefits?

that game did not go well for him!
but nevertheless I still think he's a ref with a bright future.

WR did him no favours with his 6N game, he arrived in the UK having not reffed for two (or even three?) months, he did one warm up the week before, a student game, and then England Wales in the 6N ! That seemed like a hospital pass to me

 

[ChuckieB]

On a side note, having seen the clips from this match with AG in general - a ref I tend to like - seems to be coming across with less authority in recent matches (including the 6N he did recently). Is his "relaxed" style creating more problems for him than benefits?

Style is clearly very important. I have been watching Federico Anselmi a bit and I have noted that his very polite style may be causing him problems.

Shouldn't make a difference of course but I think he is being "nibbled at" by the payers more than he deserves and more so than if he was a bit firmer.

He always says "please" and never raises his voice from what I have seen. But of course, it might quite possibly be a case of him being from one of the newer tier one nations and players then reckoning they know better than him!

 

[Shelflife]

Ian I'm not having a go at AG, i think hes a fine ref, and I also think its a sign of a good ref that will acknowledge and correct a wrong decision.

I think TJ did attempt to kick the ball and failed, even though he did not take the kick correctly he still continued on as if he had played it correctly in order to fool the officials.

By not taking it correctly he saved milliseconds that gained him an unfair advantage and without a tmo may well have been awarded the try.

So for me, he hasnt taken the pen correctly so its a scrum against him, if you want to argue the point that the game wasnt restarted then its unsportmanlike behaviour from TJ. Either way for me hes not getting a second bite of the cherry.

 

[didds]

secondary question:

If a player takes a PK incorrectly but from the wrong place anyway, does he get a 2nd go, or is it a scrum to the oppo?

didds

 

[The Fat]

secondary question:

If a player takes a PK incorrectly but from the wrong place anyway, does he get a 2nd go, or is it a scrum to the oppo?

didds

If he stuffs it up twice, i.e. wrong place and incorrect kick, I'm going for a scrum

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree with Shelflife's take on it.
Having fluffed his attempt at kicking the ball, the player should not have continued. By doing so he lets defenders' try saving tackles open to being penalised

[LAWS]21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements
(l) An offside player cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent.
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.[/LAWS]

So no second bite of the cherry. Had a try been awarded, do you think he'd have said,

"Hang on, I haven't taken the kick yet."

I think there's a difference between a referee being big enough to change his decision, should a player point out his error in LoTG, and a referee getting hoodwinked into letting a player get a second chance at a fluffed penalty taken quickly.
Yes a team may take a quick tap, but having fluffed it, no way you can say "I have not yet attempted it, sir."

Especially if it's a mouthy scrumhalf that has been loudly contesting your calls for the last 40 minutes. Was Gold9 the captain? Why would the match referee have such a conversation? And then let the arrogant sod walk off while your are still talking to them. Call the team captain over straight away and tell the team captain any more of the 9 shouting at him and he will be left with left with very few options.

[LAWS]10.2 Unfair play
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS] The way the quick tap was (not) taken was unfair of Gold9. Repeated infringements (10.3) also merit 10 minutes on the naughty step. Take your pick, scrum to Red or penalty against Gold9 for far too much lip.

 

[ChuckieB]

As I said in a previous response.

You can see a conversation going this way.


"Sir, ......I thought I kicked it....... but if 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".

TJP Boxes him in to a spot.

AG can't say what he is thinking and really wants to say.

TJP gets his second bite of the cherry!

 

[L'irlandais]

Specifically about the point that TJP was repeatedly shouting at the match referee.
A quiet word earlier, with TJP turning his back on the referee before AG had finished, was (perhaps) not dealing with the problem effectively.

[LAWS]10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle except at a kick-off or at a penalty kick following admonishment, temporary suspension, or send-off.[/LAWS]

TJP saying "I was not shouting at you," shouldn't be happening. The ref is telling him something, not asking his opinion.

Since when does the offending player get to dictate the conversation with the match referee?
How about?
I told you your are NOT the captain, yet you insist on having your say. Even though you are the captain, you have no right to dispute my decisions in that way. [WR jurisprudence : Barnes versus Hartley January 2014]

No! Not happening. YC, secondary signal for yapping. That way TJP might at least learn some respect.
Restart - Let's scrum it down here please, Red ball. Incorrectly taken PK.

 

[L'irlandais]

Perhaps he is simply captain, because even his coaching staff cannot get a word in edgeways.

 

[ChuckieB]

.........
[LAWS]10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct

All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle except at a kick-off or at a penalty kick following admonishment, temporary suspension, or send-off.[/LAWS]

..........

Ahh! The irony!

That they need to state such things in the laws but then can't see their to way to clarify such things around a missed tap kick!

 

[L'irlandais]

The laws are constantly being rewritten. The problem is that Elite squads will always seek to get around the LoTG. It is difficult to see what impact a new law will have, or what new problems the amendment will create.
For example for along time the ball carrier had to release the ball once brought to ground. Both for his own safety and to allow play continue.
Recent changes have added [LAWS]When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.[/LAWS]. This has resulted in tackled players rolling forward after being brought to ground or in extreme cases getting back to their feet as if not held in the tackle. While this might be good for TV rugby, I personally think it's bad for the Game itself. Before it was simple you were either held or you were not. Now it become a matter for interpretation.

:shrug: But hey what do I know. Let's leave it to the "experts", they surely know what they are doing, right?

 

[VM75]

secondary question:

If a player takes a PK incorrectly but from the wrong place anyway, does he get a 2nd go, or is it a scrum to the oppo?

didds

If he fails to take it correctly then he hasn't legitimately 'taken' it - so wrong place can't yet apply , so scrum.

 

[The Fat]

I asked for clarification from NSWRU and have received advice that in their opinion, AG was correct to allow the kick to be "retaken". They say that if TJP had made the slightest contact with the ball but not moved it, a scrum would have then become the correct decision.

So there you go.

 

[Dickie E]

I asked for clarification from NSWRU and have received advice that in their opinion, AG was correct to allow the kick to be "retaken". They say that if TJP had made the slightest contact with the ball but not moved it, a scrum would have then become the correct decision.

So there you go.

I can live with that. Its a bit like the smart-arse who pretends to take a tap to upset the opposition

 

[The Fat]

How did Cooky miss my update Dickie???

 

[L'irlandais]

Extensive flooding in NW just now, perhaps? Spin off from the cyclone Debbie. :sad:


I suggest AG's decision was correct because of Law 6
[LAWS]During the match..
6.A.4 The duties of the referee in the playing enclosure
(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.[/LAWS]
... can NSWRU read more into Law 21 than is written there? Or must they in turn write to WR, the sole authority in Law after the game.