[Law] TJ Perenara's Bluff

[The Fat]

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:

You are assuming that NSWRU "has it right".
Whilst I must accept their interpretation, I don't necessarily believe they have it right in Law. But I thought you would get some enjoyment/satisfaction from their response:wink:

 

[The Fat]

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.

Ok.
That is a bug-bear of mine. You see it regularly on the telly.
Ref makes the mark.
Kicker walks forward and makes the mark again and seems to be focussing on that point as he walks backwards preparing to take the kick.
Kicker walks forward, over and beyond his mark by 1, 2 or 3 metres and kicks the ball.

If it happens in one of my games, I have a word with the kicker as we are jogging to the lineout that he makes sure not to go beyond the mark when he takes his kicks. Never had a problem after that.
Your question does raise an interesting point though.
What if the kicker did it again and pinched 2 or 3 metres on the next occasion? We would have to get him to retake the kick and if his first kick was shite, he may gain an advantage by taking the kick again by this time kicking the ball further whereby gaining an extra 20m for the lineout. Maybe this is why the elite guys never pull them up on it????

 

[ChuckieB]

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

i might also reasonably disagree with an element of their interpretation but it will be a different area to yourself. By virtue of my post I am hanging my hat on viewing a kick not moving visibly as a potential retake scenario. In my mind, not visibly moving the ball is no more heinous than not kicking it at all. I can't quite get comfortable with it being treated as an infringement when it isn't in the same section that others are. It is lost in the next section which contains a mishmash of provisions.

However, in the context of things it isn't a game changer. Importantly the section after does include a sanction right at the bottom albeit it could do with a line space to ensure it is applied to the whole section and not just the final clause ? That could potentially cover it?

 

[ChuckieB]

Ok.
That is a bug-bear of mine. You see it regularly on the telly.
Ref makes the mark.
Kicker walks forward and makes the mark again and seems to be focussing on that point as he walks backwards preparing to take the kick.
Kicker walks forward, over and beyond his mark by 1, 2 or 3 metres and kicks the ball.

If it happens in one of my games, I have a word with the kicker as we are jogging to the lineout that he makes sure not to go beyond the mark when he takes his kicks. Never had a problem after that.
Your question does raise an interesting point though.
What if the kicker did it again and pinched 2 or 3 metres on the next occasion? We would have to get him to retake the kick and if his first kick was shite, he may gain an advantage by taking the kick again by this time kicking the ball further whereby gaining an extra 20m for the lineout. Maybe this is why the elite guys never pull them up on it????

per my last post I might suggest they introduce something for in with 21.4 along with their interpretaction of a non visible kick. They are both about sneaking some form of an advantage!

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

However, it is really interesting that this bit of the definition in the 1974 Laws...

"If a player fails to kick the ball, a scrummage should be ordered."

...which would indicate that AG's original scrum decision was correct, was removed from the Law in the 2000 rewrite.

Was this intentional or unintentional? Who knows with WR?

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.

Nonetheless, it is "correct" for any referees under their control. Now that TheFat knows this is NSWRU's interpretation, it is incumbent upon him to follow that, and make sure referees under his charge know what is expected of them.... you follow the guidelines and instructions of YOUR Society/Association, because that is who you answer to, NOT World Rugby.

There are plenty of Laws that other Unions interpret differently. Touch law interpretations especially, are often in dispute e.g. taken back outside the field of play - Aussie and SAF referees extend the 22m into touch... NZ and NH Unions don't. (see this long thread - http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18961-QTI-taken-behind-the-22m-line )

 

[ChuckieB]

And while we're on the subject of the mark, for those refs who just love to dig up the pitch when indicating the mark, I bet 3/4G pitches must be a real irritation for you? :biggrin:

 

[Dickie E]

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.

Not anymore, its not:

[LAWS]Clarification 4 2016

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling

4-2016


Union / HP Ref Manager

Sevens HP Referee Manager


Law Reference

21


Date

19 December 2016


Request

Below is a link showing three players taking Penalty Kicks during the recent HSBC Sevens. They are doing so by dropping the ball onto their foot and then playing the ball:

https://worldrugby.box.com/s/j02ul1dl3x309ojuv6i5dsg0t3t1lzz8

KICK- Definition. Law Book Page 6 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 (a) How Penalty and Free Kicks are taken. Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of kick, punt, drop kick, or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from knee to the foot excluding the knee and the heel.

Law 21.4 (d) A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a clear distance If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands, if it is on the ground it must clearly.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The Designated Members have reviewed this request for clarification and the below are the relevant responses.

Dropping the ball onto the foot does not constitute a correctly taken Penalty or free kick and Law 21.4 (d) must be complied with:
21.4 (d)
A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark
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.

To be applied from: January 1st, 2017[/LAWS]

 

[ChuckieB]

per my last post I might suggest they introduce something for in with 21.4 along with their interpretaction of a non visible kick. They are both about sneaking some form of an advantage!

Alternatively adjust 21.2a to add a sanction perhaps?

 

[The Fat]

Not anymore, its not:

[LAWS]Clarification 4 2016

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling

4-2016


Union / HP Ref Manager

Sevens HP Referee Manager


Law Reference

21


Date

19 December 2016


Request

Below is a link showing three players taking Penalty Kicks during the recent HSBC Sevens. They are doing so by dropping the ball onto their foot and then playing the ball:

https://worldrugby.box.com/s/j02ul1dl3x309ojuv6i5dsg0t3t1lzz8

KICK- Definition. Law Book Page 6 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 (a) How Penalty and Free Kicks are taken. Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of kick, punt, drop kick, or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from knee to the foot excluding the knee and the heel.

Law 21.4 (d) A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a clear distance If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands, if it is on the ground it must clearly.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The Designated Members have reviewed this request for clarification and the below are the relevant responses.

Dropping the ball onto the foot does not constitute a correctly taken Penalty or free kick and Law 21.4 (d) must be complied with:
21.4 (d)
A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark
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.

To be applied from: January 1st, 2017[/LAWS]

Hhhmmm....... I must watch more 7s.
I should have been more specific in my description. I should have said, when a player holding the ball drops it and kicks it back into his own hands.
That's the first time I have seen how those 7s players were taking quick taps. I would have bucked at that right from the get go. They are definitely not kicking the ball.
Thanks for highlighting that clarification.

 

[Dickie E]

its an interesting continuum:

I swing my boot and miss the ball : penalty outcome to me
I do slightly better and contact the ball but ball doesn't move: scrum outcome against me
I do even slightly better, contact the ball and move ball: penalty outcome to me

 

[ChuckieB]

Not anymore, its not:

[LAWS]Clarification 4 2016

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling

4-2016


Union / HP Ref Manager

Sevens HP Referee Manager


Law Reference

21


Date

19 December 2016


Request

Below is a link showing three players taking Penalty Kicks during the recent HSBC Sevens. They are doing so by dropping the ball onto their foot and then playing the ball:

https://worldrugby.box.com/s/j02ul1dl3x309ojuv6i5dsg0t3t1lzz8

KICK- Definition. Law Book Page 6 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 (a) How Penalty and Free Kicks are taken. Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of kick, punt, drop kick, or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from knee to the foot excluding the knee and the heel.

Law 21.4 (d) A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a clear distance If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands, if it is on the ground it must clearly.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The Designated Members have reviewed this request for clarification and the below are the relevant responses.

Dropping the ball onto the foot does not constitute a correctly taken Penalty or free kick and Law 21.4 (d) must be complied with:
21.4 (d)
A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark
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.

To be applied from: January 1st, 2017[/LAWS]

That's clearly ridiculous and a poor use of the English language. I had an issue with hitting in the definition. Now I'm sure!

Use a word that can at least really imply some freedom of movement of the foot towards the object. In other ball sports, now let me think...........strike! A motion that in itslef can potentially achieve the ball being moved a distance. Covers a range from a small tap to a full blooded kick to touch or conversion.

now try a quick tap, foot in the air stationary and drop a ball on it. Not so easy without your foot moving or risking losing some control of the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hhhmmm....... I must watch more 7s.
I should have been more specific in my description. I should have said, when a player holding the ball drops it and kicks it back into his own hands.
That's the first time I have seen how those 7s players were taking quick taps. I would have bucked at that right from the get go. They are definitely not kicking the ball.
Thanks for highlighting that clarification.

Agree.

Those are just RL style tap kicks, except they are taking the ball down to the foot, instead of bringing the foot up to the ball.

 

[ChuckieB]

However, it is really interesting that this bit of the definition in the 1974 Laws...

"If a player fails to kick the ball, a scrummage should be ordered."

...which would indicate that AG's original scrum decision was correct, was removed from the Law in the 2000 rewrite.

Was this intentional or unintentional? Who knows with WR?



Nonetheless, it is "correct" for any referees under their control. Now that TheFat knows this is NSWRU's interpretation, it is incumbent upon him to follow that, and make sure referees under his charge know what is expected of them.... you follow the guidelines and instructions of YOUR Society/Association, because that is who you answer to, NOT World Rugby.

There are plenty of Laws that other Unions interpret differently. Touch law interpretations especially, are often in dispute e.g. taken back outside the field of play - Aussie and SAF referees extend the 22m into touch... NZ and NH Unions don't. (see this long thread - http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18961-QTI-taken-behind-the-22m-line )

Don't we create a rod for our own back sometimes on these things seeking to interpret something that isn't really there? For the above, and I am talking principle rather than detail (I'm sure you'll all breath a sigh of relief), if you consider a quick throw in as a new phase of play after the ball is dead, why should should it matter if there is or isn't an entitlement to manipulate a gain in ground, or not, as the case may be? Sometimes it is right for WR to state that it is what it is, clarify it that way, and move on.

It's perhaps knee jerk reaction on a problem that isn't there or is not really important? On some things at least?

 

[OB..]

A player taking a PK is not under pressure from the opposition. The technique is not demanding, so why does he not do it properly? Not doing so is his own fault. I see no reason to excuse him. He is probably just trying it on because he thinks he can get away with it.

Taking from the wrong place is different in that he is guessing before the referee makes the mark so that he can capitalise on the opposition's disarray. That is legitimate. As long as he is not obviously trying to gain an unfair advantage, he cannot be blamed for not reading the referee's mind.

 

[VM75]

it's the stepping through the mark and then kicking it into touch from beyond the mark.

It's an increasingly used & obvious territory theft that pro refs seem to condone through their non action. i.e. the kicker starts on the mark & walks forwards & kicks 3-8m ahead of it !!

At first PK for each team I stand 2m alongside the mark*, and as kicker collects the ball I tell him "i'm alongside the mark so don't kick ahead of it - start your approach further back if you need" - then I enforce C&O non compliance after that.

then i never get any issues.

* i can then also step forward to follow the flight of the ball with my eyes, & easily see how far the 'biased' TJ has mis-positioned the LO & then correct the C&O ones !

 

[ChuckieB]

It's an increasingly used & obvious territory theft that pro refs seem to condone through their non action. i.e. the kicker starts on the mark & walks forwards & kicks 3-8m ahead of it !!

At first PK for each team I stand 2m alongside the mark*, and as kicker collects the ball I tell him "i'm alongside the mark so don't kick ahead of it - start your approach further back if you need" - then I enforce C&O non compliance after that.

then i never get any issues.

* i can then also step forward to follow the flight of the ball with my eyes, & easily see how far the 'biased' TJ has mis-positioned the LO & then correct the C&O ones !

If people see a kick from a penalty, one that does not then move visibly, as an infringement, they must presumably treat this the same?

I see it as common sense approach to adopt something along the lines of what you have advocated, but to both situations, for the sake of good game magement. I can't see the law adequately evidences either as an infringement and I suggest this approach shows consistency. Best just stamp out the possibility of repeating instances with firm guidance from the off. As you suggest, it seems to work.

This could even help support an explanation why the scrum option dropped out in the 2000 rewrite. The ball not moving visibly is also just a failed kick, rather than something to be treated as an infringement? No scrummage required?

 

[The Fat]

This could even help support an explanation why the scrum option dropped out in the 2000 rewrite. The ball not moving visibly is also just a failed kick, rather than something to be treated as an infringement? No scrummage required?

If the player makes contact with the ball but the ball doesn't move (i.e. no clear kick), the restart is still a scrum

 

[ChuckieB]

If the player makes contact with the ball but the ball doesn't move (i.e. no clear kick), the restart is still a scrum

Trying to see it that way and no doubt would fall into line with whatever direction I am required to follow. At the low end of the food chain, I have observed discretion being exercised on this one, one instance though it may be, so I am quoting from experience on something that I have seen applied.

Observed it didn't move, allowed to take it again, be more proactive to get it right in the future! My SH son (not at all like TJP, I might add. More's the pity!) was adamant he'd released the ball and kicked it and was naturally irritated by the inference. I'm always going to back him, aren't I! As one who believes that laws should be applied the same at all levels, where it is practical to do so, to me it doesn't matter it was an u15's game. He knew what he was doing,

In my view we have just another scenario where crappy wording in the laws has led to this discourse. Something that is not viewed as visible to one person does not mean it has not happened. It could have been quite visible to everybody else, hence to treat it as an infringement is in my view actually a disproportionate response.

it could take us into a debate on c&o vs not c&o. I can only suggest we remind ourselves of the level of attention paid to ensure these judgements are applied correctly in respect of the laws they relate to.

 

[DocY]

In my view we have just another scenario where crappy wording in the laws has led to this discourse. Something that is not viewed as visible to one person does not mean it has not happened. It could have been quite visible to everybody else, hence to treat it as an infringement is in my view actually a disproportionate response.

If the referee didn't see it properly and awarded the wrong restart (or a restart at all) then that's his mistake rather than a mistake in the laws, but it's no different to any other refereeing mistake.

But you really can help by making sure what you do is obvious to the referee. If you get in the habit of taking quick taps by nudging the ball a quarter of an inch along the ground (I'm not saying that's what happened, by the way) then you run the risk of the referee not seeing it.

But if you make it very obvious what you're doing - a clear kick where the ball travels about a foot - the referee has no such excuse. In fact I used to play with a SH who actually practised taking quick taps (he was a bit of a strange one) and they were always very obviously legitimately taken.

 

[The Fat]

If the referee didn't see it properly and awarded the wrong restart (or a restart at all) then that's his mistake rather than a mistake in the laws, but it's no different to any other refereeing mistake.

But you really can help by making sure what you do is obvious to the referee. If you get in the habit of taking quick taps by nudging the ball a quarter of an inch along the ground (I'm not saying that's what happened, by the way) then you run the risk of the referee not seeing it.

But if you make it very obvious what you're doing - a clear kick where the ball travels about a foot - the referee has no such excuse. In fact I used to play with a SH who actually practised taking quick taps (he was a bit of a strange one) and they were always very obviously legitimately taken.

Fully agree and hence the requirement, in Law, for a "Clear Kick"