Was I correct?

[Na Madrai]

First league match of the season between two ladies' teams who finished second and third in their league last season. One touch judge is a higher grade referee than meself but has not officiated for twelve months due to ill health, the other, a recently retired higher grade referee using this match as a practice match on course to becoming an observer.

I award a penalty to blue, ten yards or so from their opponents' try line and fifteen yards from touch. The defenders are retreating. The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring, the pass goes a full yard forward, then off the winger's fingertips forwards and straight into touch.

What should I give? Both TJs thought that my decision was correct, all four coaches, that I was wrong.

NM

 

[Browner]

First league match of the season between two ladies' teams who finished second and third in their league last season. One touch judge is a higher grade referee than meself but has not officiated for twelve months due to ill health, the other, a recently retired higher grade referee using this match as a practice match on course to becoming an observer.

I award a penalty to blue, ten yards or so from their opponents' try line and fifteen yards from touch. The defenders are retreating. The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring, the pass goes a full yard forward, then off the winger's fingertips forwards and straight into touch.

What should I give? Both TJs thought that my decision was correct, all four coaches, that I was wrong.

NM

The "Full yard forward" pass definately preceded the 'knock on' , so I'd say scrum to the opponents of blue, at place of the errored pass.

Or .......... Oppo have ' double event' advantage still being considered, they OPT to take a QTI , and as they are now running the length of the pitch..... you shout advantage 'over'

? ! ?

 

[crossref]

red have the option of a line out or scrum (this applies both to a forward pass, and a knock on into touch)

If the ball was retrieved by a red player who hadn't retired 10 metres, I wouldn't allow her to take a QTI. No, no law reference for that but I don't think they should be advantaged by a failure to retire 10m.

good question.

 

[Ian_Cook]

PK to Blue because...

"The retreating defenders stop retiring,"

This was the first infringement (occurred before the forward pass) and may have been material in that it affected the tap kicker's ability to pass the ball.

I'll bet the coaches claimed that because the tap kicker passed the ball rather than running herself, that the retiring defenders were no longer infringing - they will be thinking 11.3(b)

Its a common misconception. Players who fail to retire from a PK/FK tap kick are not "offside" they have simply failed to retire as per Law 21.7 (or 21.8 if applicable)

[LAWS]21.7 WHAT THE OPPOSING TEAM MUST DO AT A PENALTY KICK
(a) Must run from the mark. The opposing team must immediately run towards their own goal
line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark for the penalty kick, or until they
have reached their goal line if that is nearer the mark.
(b) Must keep running. Even if the penalty kick is taken and the kicker’s team is playing the
ball, opposing players must keep running until they have retired the necessary distance.
They must not take part in the game until they have done so.
(c) Kick taken quickly. If the penalty kick is taken so quickly that opponents have no
opportunity to retire, they will not be penalised for this. However, they must continue to
retire as described in 21.7(b) above or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark
has run in front of them, before they take part in the game.[/LAWS]


If you think the failure to retire is not material, then it can only be a scrum to the opponents because the forward throw came before the knock-forward, so line-out options in 12.1 (e) are not available. For them to apply, the forward throw would have need to have gone directly into touch, or the pass needed to be legal, but the winger had knocked the ball into touch.

 

[crossref]

so Ian are you also going to advance the mark 10m ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

so Ian are you also going to advance the mark 10m ?

Technically I would, but in practical terms, that is not possible since the tap kick was already only "10 yards" (showing your age NM) from the opponent's goal line.

[LAWS]Sanction: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second penalty kick, 10
metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the
goal line. Any player may take the kick. The kicker may change the type of kick and may
choose to kick at goal. If the referee awards a second penalty kick, the second penalty kick
is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the penalty[/LAWS]


I would advance it to the 5m line.

 

[Rushforth]

PK to Blue because...

"The retreating defenders stop retiring,"

This was the first infringement (occurred before the forward pass) and may have been material in that it affected the tap kicker's ability to pass the ball.

"The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring, ..."

I have put in bold the stopping of retreat, and in italics the pass.

You seem to have reversed the order, Ian_Cook, of the narrative.

Are we not agreed that a pass by the half-back taking the actually penalty tap takes place in a rather shorter time than it takes for the retiring players to challenge the half-back in any way?

Na Madrai has not told us what his decision was, only that of the 7 observers the officials were happy with it and the coaches not. To me a pass which is clearly so far forwards that the receiver can only get fingertips to it is forwards all day long, and if - as others have posted - it thereafter bobbles into touch, it is nowadays an "option" call of scrum or line-out, to me, as described.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring, ..."

I have put in bold the stopping of retreat, and in italics the pass.

You seem to have reversed the order, Ian_Cook, of the narrative.

As i read the OP, I have done no such thing

First, "The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed" (the pass hasn't actually been made yet AIUI)

Then, "The retreating defenders stop retiring,"

Then, "the pass goes a full yard forward",

"then off the winger's fingertips forwards and straight into touch."

Are we not agreed that a pass by the half-back taking the actually penalty tap takes place in a rather shorter time than it takes for the retiring players to challenge the half-back in any way?

No we are not. The retiring players were already in a position where they might interfere in play before the tap kick is taken, otherwise, why was there a need to be retiring in the first place?

[LAWS]21.7 (c) Kick taken quickly. If the penalty kick is taken so quickly that opponents have no
opportunity to retire, they will not be penalised for this. However, they must continue to
retire as described in 21.7(b) above or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark
has run in front of them, before they take part in the game.[/LAWS]

A player does not actually have to play or touch the ball or physically touch an opponent to be taking part in play. The mere presence of a player in a position where he is not entitled to be can have a material effect on the non-infringing side's ability to play the ball how they wish, e.g., by physically limiting the options of the non-infringing side. The infringing side must not be allowed to benefit from their infringing.

In this case, was the "forwardness" of the long pass a result of the tap kicker trying to "thread" a legal pass through opponents who had stopped retiring and were standing in her way. I have seen (in a test match) a player pass forwards directly into an offside opponent at a ruck (Will Genia into Keven Mealamu) and be awarded a PK.

Na Madrai has not told us what his decision was,

No he hasn't,

"What should I give?"

He has asked us what WE think his decision was. That is what we are discussing.

To me a pass which is clearly so far forwards that the receiver can only get fingertips to it is forwards all day long, and if - as others have posted - it thereafter bobbles into touch, it is nowadays an "option" call of scrum or line-out, to me, as described.

Not if the forward throw was first. Assuming no PK for not retiring, the forward pass came before the knock-on into touch, so scrum for the forward throw.


ETA

[LAWS]12.1 (e) Knock-on or throw forward into touch. When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on or throw forward, the non-offending team will have the option of a lineout at the point the ball
crossed the touch line or a scrum at the place of the knock-on or throw forward, or a quick
throw in.[/LAWS]


Forward-throw into touch = options 12.1 (e)
Knock-forwards into touch = options 12.1 (e)
but
Forward-throw followed by knock-forwards into touch does NOT equal options.

 

[RobLev]

Technically I would, but in practical terms, that is not possible since the tap kick was already only "10 yards" (showing your age NM) from the opponent's goal line.

[LAWS]Sanction: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second penalty kick, 10
metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the
goal line. Any player may take the kick. The kicker may change the type of kick and may
choose to kick at goal. If the referee awards a second penalty kick, the second penalty kick
is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the penalty[/LAWS]


I would advance it to the 5m line.

Watch NFL much? (Half the distance to the goal line).

 

[crossref]

He has asked us what WE think his decisions was. That is what we are discussing

ah yes.
well, knowing NM, likely he ignored the Laws and did what he considered most 'equitable'.
Perhaps : six of one , half dozen of the other, take the PK again ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Watch NFL much? (Half the distance to the goal line).

Yes I do, and the thought did occur to me at the time! :biggrin:

 

[chbg]

Rarely do I understand that 'trying to pass' results in the ball not leaving the hands. Therefore for me the OP description is that the ball has left the Blue SH's hands before the oppos stop retiring. There is no mention of interference of the oppos in the play that was occurring, only that they stopped retiring, when they should have continued. In this case that was immaterial to play, but does negate any opportunity for advantage. It is therefore a throw forward infringement, scrum to defenders at place of throw forward (although I would probably have awarded options, incorrectly). Of course NM has only stated that the ball ended up "a full yard forward" - as we all know that does not mean that it was necessarily thrown forward! A long spin pass can easily not follow a straight line. Was that the trap?

 

[Rushforth]

Forward-throw into touch = options 12.1 (e)
Knock-forwards into touch = options 12.1 (e)
but
Forward-throw followed by knock-forwards into touch does NOT equal options.

That's an excellent point. However, I disagree with you on materiality. Does it make a blind bit of difference that the winger managed to get fingers to the ball? For that matter, was the winger not perhaps in contravention of 10.4 (p) Cavalry charge? It would seem that she may have been running before the ball was passed, that the ball was passed - from a static situation, the penalty tap, in which it cannot be reasonably be argued that the SH cannot pass it "NOT towards the oppo DBL".

Furthermore, at the point of any forward-throw, surely the advantage law applies. If a forward-throw followed by a knock-forwards to which the options of 12.1 (e) would otherwise apply, and the referee has not verbally called "advantage" due to the speed of play, then - ignoring for the moment potentially infringing opponents, do you have an explanation for why the option for the second minor offence should not be offered?

I was always under the impression that although the referee is always correct by law (6) on the field, he (or she) must judge on the basis of what is seen to happen, which in this case includes three different events and therefore potentially three different decisions, as opposed to the two which I had considered before.

 

[Ian_Cook]

That's an excellent point. However, I disagree with you on materiality. Does it make a blind bit of difference that the winger managed to get fingers to the ball? For that matter, was the winger not perhaps in contravention of 10.4 (p) Cavalry charge? It would seem that she may have been running before the ball was passed, that the ball was passed - from a static situation, the penalty tap, in which it cannot be reasonably be argued that the SH cannot pass it "NOT towards the oppo DBL".

Furthermore, at the point of any forward-throw, surely the advantage law applies. If a forward-throw followed by a knock-forwards to which the options of 12.1 (e) would otherwise apply, and the referee has not verbally called "advantage" due to the speed of play, then - ignoring for the moment potentially infringing opponents, do you have an explanation for why the option for the second minor offence should not be offered?

Since your argument cites the advantage Law, lets quote it

[LAWS]8.5 MORE THAN ONE INFRINGEMENT
(a) When there is more than one infringement by the same team:
• If advantage cannot be played or does not accrue to the second offence, the referee
applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the nonoffending
team.
• If either sanction is for foul play the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence
which is most advantageous to the non-offending team. The referee may also temporarily
suspend, or order off, the offending player.[/LAWS]

The scrum for the forward pass would be about 10m the from the goal line, the defending team to feed.

The line-out for the knock forward into touch would be at least 1m (the amount the pass was forward) closer to the defending team's goal-line plus however far the ball was knocked on before it crossed the touchline (if it did not go directly into touch at the exact point where it was knocked forward) could be another few metres.

The lineout would therefore be in a less advantageous position for the non-infringing side, therefore apply 8.5 (a) and go back to the "most advantageous to the nonoffending team", the scrum for the throw forward.

 

[The Fat]

The actions and timing of the retiring players is critical.
AIUI the players were retiring when the pass was thrown so all good.
Ian is correct as to no LO option available as the ball was touched by the winger so the 1st infringement is the throw forward from the tap kick.
Scrum at place of throw forward, defenders to throw the ball in.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Rarely do I understand that 'trying to pass' results in the ball not leaving the hands.

How about "I tried to pass the ball but an opponent was in my way"?

Therefore for me the OP description is that the ball has left the Blue SH's hands before the oppos stop retiring. There is no mention of interference of the oppos in the play that was occurring, only that they stopped retiring, when they should have continued. In this case that was immaterial to play, but does negate any opportunity for advantage. It is therefore a throw forward infringement, scrum to defenders at place of throw forward (although I would probably have awarded options, incorrectly). Of course NM has only stated that the ball ended up "a full yard forward" - as we all know that does not mean that it was necessarily thrown forward! A long spin pass can easily not follow a straight line. Was that the trap?

For me, that is self-contradictory.

How can the illegal actions of a player "negate any opportunity for advantage" being played to the opposition without those actions being material?

 

[The Fat]

Taking up space thereby limiting options has a material effect. As Ian has said, an offside player doesn't need to touch the ball or a player to limit the options of the team with the ball.

 

[Rushforth]

The lineout would therefore be in a less advantageous position for the non-infringing side, therefore apply 8.5 (a) and go back to the "most advantageous to the nonoffending team", the scrum for the throw forward.

I'm not in the position of Na Madrai, nor of you, Ian.

With the introduction of the "option" offered, however, although the nonoffending team chose the scrum both times yesterday (in less complex situations, I should add) I cannot see the need to not offer them the option for for the second offence, when the first was similar but without option.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm not in the position of Na Madrai, nor of you, Ian.

With the introduction of the "option" offered, however, although the nonoffending team chose the scrum both times yesterday (in less complex situations, I should add) I cannot see the need to not offer them the option for for the second offence, when the first was similar but without option.

I sympathise with that position, but it isn't what the Law says.

Imagine this taking place on the half way line and instead of a forward pass, the blue team knocks it on (you play advantage). 7m upfield, the blue winger attempts to pick up the ball and in so doing knocks it on again (say, accidental boot to the ball), and the ball bounces another 8m upfield and into touch.

Are you going to go back to the halfway for a scrum to the non-fringing team or offer them the option of a scrum 7m closer to their own goal-line (a less advantageous position), or a line-out 15m closer to their goal line (an even less advantageous position)?

 

[crossref]

Since your argument cites the advantage Law, lets quote it

[LAWS]8.5 MORE THAN ONE INFRINGEMENT
(a) When there is more than one infringement by the same team:
• If advantage cannot be played or does not accrue to the second offence, the referee
applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the nonoffending
team.
• If either sanction is for foul play the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence
which is most advantageous to the non-offending team. The referee may also temporarily
suspend, or order off, the offending player.[/LAWS]

The scrum for the forward pass would be about 10m the from the goal line, the defending team to feed.

The line-out for the knock forward into touch would be at least 1m (the amount the pass was forward) closer to the defending team's goal-line plus however far the ball was knocked on before it crossed the touchline (if it did not go directly into touch at the exact point where it was knocked forward) could be another few metres.

The lineout would therefore be in a less advantageous position for the non-infringing side, therefore apply 8.5 (a) and go back to the "most advantageous to the nonoffending team", the scrum for the throw forward.

I like this argument - but you are neglecting the value of the option. you are saying it's better to have a metre of territory than the option of a scrum/lineout.

for a team that is being mullered in the scrums they may prefer a lineout.