[Law] TJ Perenara's Bluff

[Ian_Cook]

How did Cooky miss my update Dickie???

I didn't miss it Fat, I just didn't think I needed to comment.

However, if you insist...



Some of us had it right five days ago, as early as Post #8 epper::tongue::horse:

 

[ChuckieB]

I didn't miss it Fat, I just didn't think I needed to comment.

However, if you insist...



Some of us had it right five days ago, as early as Post #8 epper::tongue::horse:

#3 in my case, although I was loitering at the time.

 

[Ian_Cook]

#3 in my case, although I was loitering at the time.

 

[Dixie]

I always enjoy a bit of cross-Tasman banter, so excuse me for wading in here rather late.

There is no Law in the book that allows a scrum to be ordered for what happened because TJP did not commit any infringement. He simply picked up the ball and ran... it wasn't an incorrect type of kick or a bounce off the knee, which are the only infringements for which a scrum can be ordered. Why should Gold be disadvantaged because the AG initially failed to notice that TJP hadn't kicked the ball.

If you can show me a Law that says a player failing to kick the ball at all at a PK/FK is an infringement, I'll happily recant.

OB has already addressed this, but did so on the assumption that the debate was an April Fool. So returning to his argument (with which I agree): The law clarifies that neither a tap with the heel nor a bounce on the knee constitute kicks. It also confirms (21.3b) that at least one example of not taking a kick (bouncing on the knee) is an offence. I'd invite Ian to say whether he feels that this is a considered confirmation from WR that not taking a kick by bouncing on the knee is so substantively different from not taking a kick by heeling the ball that the former is an offence but the latter is not. Only if one takes that view can you argue as Ian has done that only bouncing on the knee is sanctioned. Given the imprecision that we all recognise in the drafting of the laws, I think it is far more likely (by a factor of perhaps 1000) that the sanction for the offence of not kicking the ball by bouncing off the knee is intended to cover heeling the ball as well - and in fact all instances of accidentally not taking a kick.

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.

ChrisR, taking a quick tap from the wrong place can be a simple misjudgement of the position of the correct place. Taking it with the wrong type of kick is a failure of skill. I see no problem with the laws adopting different outcomes for those two errors. It strikes me as sensible and rational rather that lazy.

 

[didds]

Not sure if my chopperesque query got answered before...

what happens if the tap penalty is taken with the wrong sort of kick from the wrong place?
scrum or retake?

didds

 

[DocY]

Not sure if my chopperesque query got answered before...

what happens if the tap penalty is taken with the wrong sort of kick from the wrong place?
scrum or retake?

didds

The scrum takes precedence, I think. But in practice I'm probably jogging to the mark and not paying much attention to a quick tap from the wrong place.

 

[Rich_NL]

Not sure if my chopperesque query got answered before...

what happens if the tap penalty is taken with the wrong sort of kick from the wrong place?
scrum or retake?

didds

I'd say scrum: the more serious mistake takes precedence.

If someone knocks on while offside you don't give the opposition a scrum, right?

 

[didds]

I'd say scrum: the more serious mistake takes precedence.

If someone knocks on while offside you don't give the opposition a scrum, right?

indeed.

but I can see that some would make the argument that as the tap was taken from the wrong place, the kick was redundant anyway...

didds

 

[OB..]

The law clarifies that neither a tap with the heel nor a bounce on the knee constitute kicks. It also confirms (21.3b) that at least one example of not taking a kick (bouncing on the knee) is an offence.

Here we are, treating the laws as if they were Parliamentary Statutes. They are not. They are an attempt to set down the rules in a fashion that can be understood by ordinary players with no legal training. That means they will always be flawed to a greater or lesser extent.

The relevant points are not covered in the 1959 Laws, so my earliest reference is 1974, and the law was next changed in 2000.[LAWS]1974
Law 27 PENALTY KICK
[...]
Penalty:for an infringement by the kicker's team - a scrummage at the mark.

Definitions
Kick. A kick is made by propelling the ball with any part of the leg or foot (except the heel), from knee to toe inclusive. If the player is holding the ball, he must propel it out of his hands, or if it is on the ground, he must propel it a visible distance.

Instruction and Notes on the Laws
27 (3) A player taking a penalty kick may not bounce the ball on his knee. The kick must be made with the foot or lower leg. If a player fails to kick the ball, a scrummage should be ordered.

2000
Definitions
Kick - a kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground

Law 21
3. HOW THE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any kind of kick: punt, drop kick or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the leg from knee to toe but not with the heel.
(b) Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.
(c) The kicker must use the ball that was in play unless the referee decides it was defective.
Penalty: Any infringement by the kicker's team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
[/LAWS]

As I pointed out in my #22, a team has been awarded the right to take a penalty KICK. They can formally ask for a scrum or a lineout, but otherwise play can only be restarted with a valid kick. Any other attempt to restart play is invalid and gives the opposition a scrum.

IMHO that is common sense, and is the way it has been refereed for many years.

(Taking the kick quickly, before the referee makes the mark, but from the wrong place is generally accepted as a permissible error, hence a re-take.)

 

[ChuckieB]

Rereading this whole thread, I think there remains a confusion as to whether or not the ball not being seen to move visibly, is also anything other than "take it back,do it properly". just like not kicking the ball at all.

Are people suggesting it's a scrum?

It then helps with our understanding of bouncing the ball which you can argue is likely to be a deliberate act, as opposed to these two which might both be accidental and so bracketed together. Take it back do it again!

kicking with the knee or the heel are equally covered in this bracket as just not being attempts in the nature of kick. Go back try again!

Bouncing the ball is different again. they have just chosen to differentiate it and call it an infringement,

so an incorrect tap is an incorrect tap, take it back. Bounce it on you knee and we'll go for the scrum!

This is then supporting dixie's reasonable question of clarification to Ian, OB's explanation and Ian's own view.

 

[ChuckieB]

How do we view taking the kick through the mark with extra steps taken before the kick is actually completed?

 

[L'irlandais]

Could be viewed as fftopic:, I suppose.

I like OB..'s common sense approach.
I strongly disliked TJP's continually disputing the referee's decisions. Being team captain gives a player no right to shout at the match referee, nor to get involved in the decision making process of changing a decision.
[LAWS]6.A.6 Referee altering a decision
The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to signal touch.
The referee may alter a decision when an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play.[/LAWS]TJP is neither Touch Judge nor Assistant Referee. I notice Ian excludes not kicking the ball from being considered an offense, as it is not specifically mentioned in the Laws. Captains are not specifically mentioned in 6.A.6, following that logic TJP should hold his tongue.

His walking away from the referee at 39 minutes of play was disrespectful. And his involvement in altering the referee's decision here I see as being equally so. What ever one feels about a ref being big enough to change his mind about the call, the rise in players disputing referee's decisions needs to be stamped out.

Ireland captain repeatedly asked referee Jerome Garces about English late hits.
3 times The Irish Captain was sent away by the match referee, who could have used the TMO.
Source.

Best's concerns were legitimate, while TJP's position was tenuous to say the least. In the interests of the game he should have been sent packing.

 

[ChrisR]

There is a difference between disputing a referees judgement and questioning the sanction (in this case correctly) after after the judgement has has been executed.

 

[L'irlandais]

The 1974 wording of the Law makes it abundantly clear that when taking the kick quickly, if the ball on the ground does not move a visible distance then it is an offense. i.e. Incorrectly taken. The rewording of the Law doesn't use the same wording, probably because they like OB.. felt it was common sense and went without saying.

That the Aussie Union thinks otherwise doesn't necessarily make their interpretation correct. Seeking clarification from WR is the only way to pronounce on the matter. Their opinion, like TJP's they should keep for themselves.

Also the match referee was not asking for TJP's opinion, he was being given it whether he like it or not.

 

[VM75]

Not sure if my chopperesque query got answered before...

what happens if the tap penalty is taken with the wrong sort of kick from the wrong place?
scrum or retake?

didds

I replied, & offerred "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]

Just for the record, I did shoot an email back to NSWRU pointing out that the Laws only say the kick is retaken if the player takes it from the wrong place and that for any incorrectly taken kick, the Laws clearly state the sanction is a scrum. I pointed out that what TJP did was not a "clear kick" and should therefore fall into the latter category. My contention was that their opinion (TJP allowed to take the kick again) had no Law to back it up whereas my opinion (award a scrum to opposition) did have a Law to back it up.
Their reasoning was, "The definition of a kick is at the front of the law book - and requires 'hitting' the ball. No contact, no kick - not even an incorrect one. If you make contact and the ball doesn't move from the mark, then you've taken the kick incorrectly and can award a scrum."
My final comment was that whilst I didn't agree with their interpretation, I accept it and would make our local members aware of their interpretation. (ChuckieB please take note of this last sentence:wink

 

[ChuckieB]

The 1974 wording of the Law makes it abundantly clear that when taking the kick quickly, if the ball on the ground does not move a visible distance then it is an offense. i.e. Incorrectly taken. The rewording of the Law doesn't use the same wording, probably because they like OB.. felt it was common sense and went without saying.

That the Aussie Union thinks otherwise doesn't necessarily make their interpretation correct. Seeking clarification from WR is the only way to pronounce on the matter. Their opinion, like TJP's they should keep for themselves.

Also the match referee was not asking for TJP's opinion, he was being given it whether he like it or not.

With respect, these iterations don't clearly say what you have suggested. They initially define only what a valid kick is. This shouldn't be taken to mean that just by not falling within the definition they are necessarily to be considered as an infringement.

That issue is then clarified in subsequent clauses identifying certain situations that do not meet the definition and are then to be judged as infringements. In these cases they are supported by a sanction.

 

[The Fat]

How do we view taking the kick through the mark with extra steps taken before the kick is actually completed?

If you are asking what happens if a player taking a quick tap puts the ball on the ground and taps/kicks the ball and it rolls forward say a metre or so forcing him to take a couple of steps before picking it up, that is fine. He has made a legitimate kick, it was a clear kick, and it was taken from the correct place. All good, play on.
If a player holding the ball attempts the old drop it on the foot and catch it style of quick tap and he stuffs it up and the ball shoots forward off his foot and rolls/bounces along the ground, forcing him to take a step or two forward (or in any direction) to pick it up again, he has complied with the law and it is also play on.

 

[The Fat]

The 1974 wording of the Law makes it abundantly clear that when taking the kick quickly, if the ball on the ground does not move a visible distance then it is an offense. i.e. Incorrectly taken. The rewording of the Law doesn't use the same wording, probably because they like OB.. felt it was common sense and went without saying.

That the Aussie Union thinks otherwise doesn't necessarily make their interpretation correct. Seeking clarification from WR is the only way to pronounce on the matter. Their opinion, like TJP's they should keep for themselves.

Also the match referee was not asking for TJP's opinion, he was being given it whether he like it or not.

The ARU or NSWRU didn't release a statement via the media or send an instruction to all referees via a memo etc, I asked for their interpretation and simply received an answer.

 

[ChuckieB]

If you are asking what happens if a player taking a quick tap puts the ball on the ground and taps/kicks the ball and it rolls forward say a metre or so forcing him to take a couple of steps before picking it up, that is fine. He has made a legitimate kick, it was a clear kick, and it was taken from the correct place. All good, play on.
If a player holding the ball attempts the old drop it on the foot and catch it style of quick tap and he stuffs it up and the ball shoots forward off his foot and rolls/bounces along the ground, forcing him to take a step or two forward (or in any direction) to pick it up again, he has complied with the law and it is also play on.

no it's the not the quick tap, it's the stepping through the mark and then kicking it into touch from beyond the mark.