'Walk Ten' option.

[chopper15]

What section should I have posted this query into, please? Can't find a suitable one.

What is the equitable equivalent for the 'walk ten' sanction when it's not a practical option?

 

[Robert Burns]

This forum is fine, Yellow card is the equivalent as if it's not a practical option then it must be close to the oppositions goal line.

 

[PaulDG]

This forum is fine, Yellow card is the equivalent as if it's not a practical option then it must be close to the oppositions goal line.

Certainly a good option. Depending on the level, taking time off & giving a general warning might also be right - in low level or junior games, carding a player who kicks away the ball without thinking might not be equitable. Or then again, it might be.

That's why we don't "rote ref".

 

[chopper15]

Touché, Paul.:biggrin:

At elite level not a particularly equitable trade off is it?

Given a choice I'm sure the offending side would prefer the walk-ten to the YC . . and vice versa. On the face of it there doesn't seem to be any justification for introducing it in the first place.

 

[Dickie E]

I guess a PT may also be an option if the situation warrants it.

 

[Bryan]

On the face of it there doesn't seem to be any justification for introducing it in the first place.

Can you be more specific? When you say "introducing it" I'm not sure what "it" means. Is it the Yellow Card? The additional 10m?

I would apply the Yellow Card sanction independently of the not 10m e.g. at a quick-tap, if a defender cynically slapped the ball away, I would not only advance the PK another 10m, but I would likely yellow card the defender for cynical play, regardless of the location of the first infringement i.e. whether it was within 5m of the defending team's goal line, or on the halfway line (arguably, 5m from the non-offending team's goalline might be a bit of a stretch for a quick tap!).

Whether you can advance the mark for the Penalty another 10m or not should not be the defining factor as to whether you issue a yellow card in this situation.

 

[chopper15]

'it' being the walk-ten sanction, Bryan.

Not sure about your reply. Are you suggesting that a YC is an equitable equivalent to a walk-ten?

My point being, if a YC is a justified sanction why should the field position determine otherwise . . . and, of course, vice versa?

I dare say if the ref gave the non-offending side the choice it would be a YC every time.

 

[Adam]

'it' being the walk-ten sanction, Bryan.

Not sure about your reply. Are you suggesting that a YC is an equitable equivalent to a walk-ten?

My point being, if a YC is a justified sanction why should the field position determine otherwise . . . and, of course, vice versa?

Close to goal line often means a cynical and deliberate act.

 

[Bryan]

Not sure about your reply. Are you suggesting that a YC is an equitable equivalent to a walk-ten?

No. They are independent. Didnt I just write that? Hold on, lemme check...

I would apply the Yellow Card sanction independently of the not 10m

OOh look at that, I did. So, in summary:

Depending on circumstances:
1. I could issue a yellow card, without advancing the mark 10m
2. I could advance the mark 10m without issuing a yellow card
3. I could advance the mark 10m AND issue a yellow card

The proximity to an offending team's goal line has some effect on my decision to award a yellow-card, but really the judgment call is down to cynical play and cutting down major scoring options (the closer to the goal-line, the easier it is to "sell" the decision, but that doesnt mean that it's "unsellable" elsewhere).

The only time I cannot advance a PK 10m is when I'm already within 15m of the offending team's goal-line. Even in this case, I am not obliged to issue a yellow card in lieu of advancing the mark (Reference Post #3) but I would at the very least be having some "serious words" with the offending team's captain.

Hope that helps.

 

[chopper15]

Should a player interfere with taking a PK whether in touch or on the FoP it must surely be a YC, or as Dickie suggested a PT?

Or if the 'walk' is just a substitute for a warning why not keep it at that?

PS this is in reply to Adam's post, Bryan. Hadn't read yours then, sorry.

 

[beckett50]

The walk is generally given for back chat or "acts contrary to good sportsmanship" when a penalty (be it PK or FK) is already awarded.

For the offence of deliberately infringing a quick tap then a YC is (generally) produced. If the referee deems that a further march of 10m
Is warranted then it will happen.

 

[Davet]

Would you ever issue a yellow card without advancing 10 metres if that space was available?

Law would indicate the advance for an offence at PK or FK.

 

[PaulDG]

Should a player interfere with taking a PK whether in touch or on the FoP it must surely be a YC, or as Dickie suggested a PT?

Thinking about it, I've given a PT, but no card for interfering with a PK.

Merit table game, played in good spirit. Less than perfect fitness prop laying on the ball 5m from the goal. Penalty, no card as it's obvious he's simply not good enough to be doing this deliberately.

As attacking side hurry to take a quick tap before the defence can get organised, retiring scrum half knocks the ball out of the opposition SH's hands.

No defenders in front of attacking SH, so clear that a try would have been scored (unless he'd dropped the ball which was unlikely). Penalty Try.

If I hadn't been completely certain (and I was) that the defending SH had batted the ball "for a laugh", he'd have gone to the bin. (I don't think he actually realised the how serious the tactical situation was until he saw me step under the posts.) He'd also have gone to the bin if the temper of the game had been more serious.

Rest of the game played in great spirit. Defending SH eventually awarded both the Man of the Match and Dick of the Day!

Or if the 'walk' is just a substitute for a warning why not keep it at that?

The walk is effectively one of our "management tools". When there's a second offence, we can ignore it, "have a word", walk 10, upgrade from FK to PK, YC/RC or some combination of the above.

 

[didds]

The only time I cannot advance a PK 10m is when I'm already within 15m of the offending team's goal-line.

for my own clarification, you could however advance it TO the 5m line presumably?

didds

 

[chopper15]

for my own clarification, you could however advance it TO the 5m line presumably?

didds

. . . . or the full ten diagonally towards the posts perhaps? :biggrin:

 

[Phil E]

. . . . or the full ten diagonally towards the posts perhaps? :biggrin:

:chair:

 

[Bryan]

for my own clarification, you could however advance it TO the 5m line presumably?

didds

Correct. I guess the better statement was "I can advance it, but it wont be the full 10m as I can only go as far as the 5m line".

 

[didds]

thanks Bryan

didds

 

[chopper15]

Correct. I guess the better statement was "I can advance it, but it wont be the full 10m as I can only go as far as the 5m line".

Meaning no disrespect, Bryan, but is it customary for refs to ask this particularly at elite levels?

. . . and what is so ridiculous, Phil, about the idea of walking diagonally towards the post should the non-offending wish it? The wording, . . the ref . . advances the mark . . 10 m. appears to allow refs a little leeway to manage it that way.:hap:


PS Isn't this an interesting discussion I initiated? Perhaps you would all join me and rate this thread in the excellent category?

 

[Bryan]

Meaning no disrespect, Bryan, but is it customary for refs to ask this particularly at elite levels?

To ask what?

Chopper: USE YOUR WORDS.