Tripping Kicker

[kaypeegee]

U16s league game.
Orange kick downfield.
Kick collected on first bounce by Blue FB who neatly side-steps chasing Orange winger, kicks back down 5m channel and chases.
Orange winger deliberately trips Blue FB using foot directly in front of ref.
Ref blows immediately.
Ref YCs Orange winger and awards Blue penalty where trip occurred.
[With a bit of touchline encoragement] Blue captain asks if penalty should perhaps not have been awarded where ball landed.
Ref says as he blew whistle immediately, penalty had to be taken where infringement took place.

Fair enough?

If you blow immediately for foul play when the kicker is taken out, can you still take "or where the ball landed" as the kick placement?

 

[Stoo48]

I would, kick or kick is the option, you know the the area where the kick will have landed, give them the option

 

[andyscott]

To me it wasn't a late charge or a late tackle, so it was a seperate piece of foul play therefore PK where the offence occured.

 

[ddjamo]

kick/kick here

 

[OB..]

It was a form of obstruction. Kick or kick.

 

[SimonSmith]

K/K

Why not Red?

 

[Dickie E]

the question for the ref is "was the intent of the offender to obstruct (ie impede the progress) of the victim?". If yes - PK option. If no - PK at place of infringement.

 

[Davet]

KIck or kick.

The refs comment that he had blown the whistle and that changed things is simply silly.

Not even a very good cover up mechanism.

 

[andyscott]

Surely tripping is a seperate law? Not obstruction IMO, but trip and off to the naughty step for at least 10.

If the above you feel is obstruction, then its Kick, Kick or Kick, three options

 

[Dickie E]

Surely tripping is a seperate law? Not obstruction IMO, but trip and off to the naughty step for at least 10.

If the above you feel is obstruction, then its Kick, Kick or Kick, three options

But note that the sanction for a 10.4(d) Tripping offence is a PK at place of infringement. The only offence that comes with a kick option is 10.4(o) Late-charging the kicker.

 

[andyscott]

Yes Dickie I agree.

 

[Davet]

The trip was a late challenge.

Are you suggesting that a trip is to be treated with a lesser sanction than a late tackle?

 

[Dickie E]

The trip was a late challenge.

Are you suggesting that a trip is to be treated with a lesser sanction than a late tackle?

Not necessarily. But the requirements of 10.4(o) must still be met for the kick option.

 

[andyscott]

The trip was a late challenge.

Are you suggesting that a trip is to be treated with a lesser sanction than a late tackle?

No it was a seperate piece of foul play.
If it had been whilst he had the ball in his hand would you play on?

Its not a lesser sanction, just different, but a trip is a stone wall YC in my book, a late tackle possibly just a PK.

 

[PeterH]

Trip after a kick
PK at trip spot

No advantage on this - one option
Seems wrong - compared to late tackle - but I see it as foul play =no advantage and one option

YMMV

 

[OB..]

Surely tripping is a seperate law? Not obstruction IMO, but trip and off to the naughty step for at least 10.

The action is both a trip and obstruction. Penalise it as obstruction because that is the more severe sanction.

If the above you feel is obstruction, then its Kick, Kick or Kick, three options

No longer arguable.

The IRB notes on the changes in the 2010 law book say:
As currently written, it appears (through ambiguity) that there is a choice of location of penalty within the last two options: where the ball lands, or where it is next played. In other words, the ball may land, travel elsewhere, and then be played, resulting in the option of where it lands or where it is next played.

Law 10.4 (o) [2010]
The non-offending team may also choose to take the penalty where the ball lands or is next
played before landing and at least 15 metres from the touchline.

 

[andyscott]

The action is both a trip and obstruction. Penalise it as obstruction because that is the more severe sanction.


No longer arguable.

The IRB notes on the changes in the 2010 law book say:
As currently written, it appears (through ambiguity) that there is a choice of location of penalty within the last two options: where the ball lands, or where it is next played. In other words, the ball may land, travel elsewhere, and then be played, resulting in the option of where it lands or where it is next played.

Law 10.4 (o) [2010]
The non-offending team may also choose to take the penalty where the ball lands or is next
played before landing and at least 15 metres from the touchline.

Thanks OB, didnt know about that clarification.

 

[Stuartg]

There is another lesson to learn from this (and one I'm still trying to master) - don't blow the whistle too quickly - give it another 2 seconds and allow yourself that little extra time to think.

 

[Deeps]

To me this is a heinous crime; it's deliberate foul play of the worst kind and the offender does not deserve to remain on the park. A nice juicy red and an early bath is warranted plus the opposition can have the full benefit of taking the kick as near to the posts as I can justify; it's called equity.

 

[David J.]

Equity and logic demand a kick/kick option. Otherwise, a defender who wanted to obstruct could simply trip instead.