What would you do?

[Browner]

Will he really notice?

Perhaps if he does (stores it in a brain compartment) and then cites it as reason he missed does that mean he's too easily distracted?

It is an infingement of the law but in this case and similar ones I'd suggest it is ignored.

Arms waving, leaning over with your arms up, shouting whaaaay and waving arms - where do you step in and say 10m forward (if that's the sanction - I don't know if it is) and another kick.

21.5(e)
[LAWS ]If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands. A further penalty is not awarded for the infringement.[/LAWS]

Which implies that a further penalty is awarded, if the kick isn't successful. Presumably at the place of the offence, which might be 10m , but it could also be 20m nearer ??!

 

[RobLev]

21.5(e)
[LAWS ]If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands. A further penalty is not awarded for the infringement.[/LAWS]

Which implies that a further penalty is awarded, if the kick isn't successful. Presumably at the place of the offence, which might be 10m , but it could also be 20m nearer ??!

The opposing team infringements are set out at 21.7, ending with:

[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]

21.5(e) is simply saying that 21.7 doesn't operate if the kick succeeds; but if it does, then the new kick is advanced 10m.

 

[ddjamo]

If its a conversion of course... you can't advance it...

didds

they would be behind the goal line eh?

 

[Browner]

The opposing team infringements are set out at 21.7

21.5(e) is simply saying that 21.7 doesn't operate if the kick succeeds; but if it does, then the new kick is advanced 10m.

Fair enough, but more often than not sanctions for each law (21.5(e) would be listed at the end of it, and not two laws later on.

Interestingly, that as well as the pictorial example , the wording of 21.5(c) seems unyielding... [LAWS]If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.[/LAWS]

The Sarries 'offence' looks more of a nailed on example then an Irishman misreading a Kiwi approach to kick routine !

 

[crossref]

Id ignore it, player with hands on his head ensuring that he fills his lungs with air in case he has to go again and you penalise him?

Pedantic Pat might pint him but most refs im sure wouldnt. Alot of players assume this position trying to get their breath back it would be extremely harsh to penalise him.

that's not the position here, he's standing directly in the line of sight, I think we can assume he's trying to be distracting.

what makes me hesitate is that intervening to sort this out before the kick is taken might be even more distracting for the kicker, achieving exactly what the defender wanted... I mean many kickers might say they hadn't even noticed the hands on head, but having the referee gesturing and fussing was the most off-putting thing ever.

 

[Browner]

.

what makes me hesitate is that intervening to sort this out before the kick is taken might be even more distracting for the kicker, achieving exactly what the defender wanted... I mean many kickers might say they hadn't even noticed the hands on head, but having the referee gesturing and fussing was the most off-putting thing ever.

I agree Crossref, why intervene?
Attempting a distraction carries a strong sanction/deterrent, and 99% of players don't attempt it.
Just apply the law correctly (isn't this our oath?) if the kick is unsuccessful.

 

[Na Madrai]

Well, I reckon that Browner has it nailed - the law is explicit, hands on head, missed kick, re-kick awarded. At this level, the players should be aware of the laws so, hands on head, deliberate infraction, no argument.

In more grass roots' action, I am normally standing to the side and slightly behind the kicker. Should I see a defended in this pose, I will normally point at him and if I get his attention, signal hands down. If he ignores me or I fail to get his attention, if kick misses, re-take.

NM

 

[Stuartg]

But this situation is one of the 50% of laws not applicable to TV/glamour rugby. In the same set are the laws on scrum input, staying on feet at breakdown, shoulders above hips in scrum, ......... Complete your own list.

 

[Browner]

But this situation is one of the 50% of laws not applicable to TV/glamour rugby. In the same set are the laws on scrum input, staying on feet at breakdown, shoulders above hips in scrum, ......... Complete your own list.

Sorry, Stuart I should've made clear, my advise to Crossref ( and answering the OP question of " what would you do" ) was don't sit on the 'betwixt' position.

Either ignore it, or penalise it. Don't preventative manage it ( for the disruption reasons he identifies) For the Irish kick v nzab a lot of PoC actions were designed to disrupt concentration ... I was pleased he didn't gain!

If you want to scale the ladder then some form of Law 'prostitution' comes with the appointment/desire to progress/criticism avoidance strategy, as is a realisation that its a different code! If NO can take issue with an early charge , then that mandates all refs to deal with distraction - surely?

 

[Dixie]

Can anyone, anywhere explain why it is illegal? Because I can't work it out.


Myself included. If I'm honest I can't imagine any ref making an issue of it. In the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't warrant a 2nd thought surely. If the IRB quietly dropped it, let's be blunt ... nobody would notice.

Taff, would you be happy at a PK at goal if the entire oppo were to form up in front of the kicker and jump up and down, wave arms, scream and shout and otherwise attempt to put the kicker off from a distance of 10m? If not, you need a law to prevent it - and that means you have to draw a line somewhere. The line the iRb has drawn (and with which I agree) is: you have to stand quietly, stand still and stand naturally. Do anything else, and the kicker gets another go if he misses - and quite likely from 10m closer.

 

[andyscott]

Just play on either way.

 

[Na Madrai]

Totally ignoring the law, Andyscott?

NM

 

[andyscott]

Totally ignoring the law, Andyscott?

NM

Apply materiality

 

[Shelflife]

Totally ignoring the law, Andyscott?

NM

NM if the winger way over on the wing assumes the same position ie catching his breath would you order a retake then ?

For me if the player is standing still and not actively trying to distract the kicker and has his hands on his head then its play on for me.

 

[Taff]

Taff, would you be happy at a PK at goal if the entire oppo were to form up in front of the kicker and jump up and down, wave arms, scream and shout and otherwise attempt to put the kicker off from a distance of 10m?

No.

... you have to draw a line somewhere. The line the iRb has drawn (and with which I agree) is: you have to stand quietly, stand still and stand naturally. Do anything else, and the kicker gets another go if he misses - and quite likely from 10m closer.

Standing with my hands on my head while gasping for breath or standing bent double was "natural" to me. How off-putting can a player with his hands on his head be? TBH, as long as he was standing still, I don't think the kicker would even know he had his hands on his head.

... For me if the player is standing still and not actively trying to distract the kicker and has his hands on his head then its play on for me.

That's how I see it.

 

[FightOrFlight]

This sort of thing happens a lot in underage rugby and in some of the lower social leagues in Ireland. It's a simple result of the fact most people here are persecuted as kids with Gaelic Football and standing with the arms up is par for the course from a free kick in the GAA.

When I stand behind the kicker I will usually cast a quick eye to ensure the kicking team are behind the ball, that all the defenders are 10 and have their hands down and if applicable the have a go heroes with flags are there(and if not I may bust slightly more got to get to the posts to be sure it gets the distance). If they have their hands up above the head I tell them to take them down but if they have their hands behind the head as seen in the picture I will let it go as long as they stay there. For me it is no more distracting than their head being there in the first place.

 

[Jacko]

NM if the winger way over on the wing assumes the same position ie catching his breath would you order a retake then ?

For me if the player is standing still and not actively trying to distract the kicker and has his hands on his head then its play on for me.

This with bells on. We're trying to not be the centre of attention! There would have been absolute uproar if they'd ordered a retake for that.

 

[crossref]

For me if the player is standing still and not actively trying to distract the kicker and has his hands on his head then its play on for me.

I agree - but that particular picture I think he IS actively trying to distract the kicker... so ?

 

[andyscott]

I agree - but that particular picture I think he IS actively trying to distract the kicker... so ?

Then manage it.

 

[RobLev]

Then manage it.

Presumably by letting the kicker complete the kick (to avoid distracting him further) and having a word with the player to get his arms down next time; but penalising if the kick fails?