[Law] What's the decision

[crossref]

So this happens -- what's your decision?


[video]http://gfycat.com/CapitalYellowishKissingbug[/video]

 

[Dickie E]

kick chasers in front of kick. Scrum on the mark

 

[Pegleg]

No material effect from the chasers so play on.

Did the player playing the ball in front of the first defender to touch the ball prevent anyone playing the ball? No so no PK. So it is only a scrum. Was it C & O that the ball touched the defender closest to the line? Well the AR is calling it so yes he sees it.

So we have a scrum call to red in front of the posts and 5 out. Is that fair and equtable? No. So what I would do, and I accept that the law does not really allow for it, is...I'd order a re-take of the kick and warn both sides as to their obligations.

 

[Dan_A]

Penalty kick in front of the posts to the kicking side?

9.A.2 (d) Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is
illegally touching the ball.

Sanction:
Penalty kick

 

[Pegleg]

Doessn't it touch him AFTER coming back off the posts?

 

[crossref]

Doessn't it touch him AFTER coming back off the posts?

let's say it did --- what's your decision

 

[Pegleg]

let's say it did --- what's your decision

See my post above. There are multiple offences so for me the fairest (though not in law) answer is re-take the kick.

 

[crossref]

let's say it did --- what's your decision

See my post above. There are multiple offences so for me the fairest (though not in law) answer is re-take the kick.

It's hard to ignore 9.A.2
If you do ignore it, there's a still a knock on,

 

[Pegleg]

It's hard to ignore 9.A.2
If you do ignore it, there's a still a knock on,

And several of the kickers team were infront of the kick (first offence).

The offences are (in order)

9.B.2 (a) Kicker's team (several offenders 3 0r 4 at least)
9.A.2 (d) (possible non kicker's side)
12.1 Non kicking side
11.7 Non Kicking side.

 

[OB..]

The AR and referee discussed the situation and agreed that the ball was not going over, so presumably concluded that 9.A.2 (d) did not apply.

 

[Pegleg]

What did they give OB? And why I put "possible".

 

[crossref]

The AR and referee discussed the situation and agreed that the ball was not going over, so presumably concluded that 9.A.2 (d) did not apply.

That's a very generous interpretation of 9.A.2(d), IMO, but even then, if you make that call, there's still the question of how to restart.
- you have an intentional knock on
- you have a player in front of the knock on intentionally handling the ball

 

[Pegleg]

That's a very generous interpretation of 9.A.2(d), IMO, but even then, if you make that call, there's still the question of how to restart.
- you have an intentional knock on
- you have a player in front of the knock on intentionally handling the ball

Why do you chose to ignore the first offence? We have a situation where both sides are offending, but you have not mentioned the first one (even to dismiss it as not material). Odd.

 

[crossref]

Why do you chose to ignore the first offence? We have a situation where both sides are offending, but you have not mentioned the first one (even to dismiss it as not material). Odd.

because OB himself had skipped the first offence, and the second offence, judging them both immaterial, so I was asking about what restart he will give (having moved on to the third offence..)

what I am trying to get from people is which offence they actually penalise, and OB didn't say.
(and you are not penalising any of the offences!)



Personally I think

- the first offence was immaterial, and anyway to give that you would have to blow your whistle straightaway, long before the kick reaches the posts.. If you would have done that, fair enough, but if you let the whole thing unfold and then go back to that one it would seem to me a referee cop-out!

- and then the defender commit three separate PK offences in quick succession ...

 

[Pegleg]

But! If the runners had not been infront of the kick they woudl not have been in a position to be denied possession. So we are down to a scrum. Whilst in Law that is probably the "correct call" I believe it to be unjust to pick one of several offences.

Incidentaly, OB only refers to the issue of preventing the kick going over.

 

[menace]

It's hard to ignore 9.A.2
If you do ignore it, there's a still a knock on,

I think the in front of kicker is moot here as those players were unsighted by the referee, as they were behind him. Equally the ARs could not give that call as they were 50m away behind the posts. So that won't be a decision that I would or could make if I were the referee.

9.2a.d says "Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick"
It's unclear if the touching of the ball at any time is what matters, but logic suggests that the ball has to be touched before it reaches the uprights for the 'attempt to prevent' is considered (because afterwards the touch is not material in terms of scoring the goal). The player touches the ball after it hits the post. I don't believe that this law is interpreted that a failed attempt to touch the ball should be penalised, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

At that point the ball rebounds off the crossbar, then it's general play. It now comes down to a clear knock on, and the player in front of the knock-on deliberately and conscienciously plays at the ball to kick it away. He is offside. Enter law 11.1 a
[LAWS]A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
Interferes with play or,
Moves forward, towards the ball or
Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.[/LAWS]

It is clear he interferes with play.
So now it comes to judging the knock-on (the law says 'unintentional throw forward' but I would presume it covers unintentional knock on too). Do you think it was it intentional?
If you do, then PK. If you don't then scrum.

I must admit when I first saw the clip, I thought PK for offside and denying a regather. Ie if the offside player did not grab the ball how far down field would it have gone? The camera angle didn't show where the chasers were, but I assume they were close as the kick away was hurried.

Therefore depending on chasing players position I would be going PK or scrum (at minimum) to kicking side.

 

[Pegleg]

I'd not argue with that call

I was judging it on what we see in the video. The correct call smacks, to me of being unfair and lacking empathey IF you've seen the whole picture.

Clearly the referee is not aware of the back up runners so that issue would not, understandably, have been part of his consideration.

However he should look across the line and then turn to see where the ball is going. It takes a millisecond and the "in front of the kicker" should be to checked.

 

[crossref]

I think

scrum for being in front of the kicker
- well go on then, but you have give that [arm out & shout, or peep] when the ball is kicked. It can't be an afterthought.
- and that answer makes this a rather boring thread, as all the interesting and unsual stuff happens at the other end!

When the ball arrives at the posts...

1 - there is a clear attempt to block it PK under 9.2.A(d).
- you can make an argument (generous I feel) for ignoring this as the kick hits cross bar anyway

2- alternatively it is a deliberate knock on - he was fully intending to block the ball with one hand, and for it to fall forward from the posts. You can't possibly argue (IMO) that he had a realistic chance of catching that

3 - and then you have a player in front handling the ball
- you can make an argument for this to be immaterial as the attackers are so far away.

So three PK offences.
I can see that you can make an argument that you only have one or two reasons to give a PK, not three, but surely a PK it has to be.

 

[RobLev]

I think the in front of kicker is moot here as those players were unsighted by the referee, as they were behind him. Equally the ARs could not give that call as they were 50m away behind the posts. So that won't be a decision that I would or could make if I were the referee.

9.2a.d says "Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick"
It's unclear if the touching of the ball at any time is what matters, but logic suggests that the ball has to be touched before it reaches the uprights for the 'attempt to prevent' is considered (because afterwards the touch is not material in terms of scoring the goal). The player touches the ball after it hits the post. I don't believe that this law is interpreted that a failed attempt to touch the ball should be penalised, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

At that point the ball rebounds off the crossbar, then it's general play. It now comes down to a clear knock on, and the player in front of the knock-on deliberately and conscienciously plays at the ball to kick it away. He is offside. Enter law 11.1 a
[LAWS]A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
Interferes with play or,
Moves forward, towards the ball or
Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.[/LAWS]

It is clear he interferes with play.
So now it comes to judging the knock-on (the law says 'unintentional throw forward' but I would presume it covers unintentional knock on too). Do you think it was it intentional?
If you do, then PK. If you don't then scrum.

I must admit when I first saw the clip, I thought PK for offside and denying a regather. Ie if the offside player did not grab the ball how far down field would it have gone? The camera angle didn't show where the chasers were, but I assume they were close as the kick away was hurried.

Therefore depending on chasing players position I would be going PK or scrum (at minimum) to kicking side.

Ah; but there's also 11.7:

[LAWS]When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.

Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

So if the knock forward was deliberate it's a PK 5m out (12.1(f)). I think it was, but would play advantage.

If not, and white #4 denied the kicking team an advantage then it's a PK 5m out (but a little closer to the centre of the posts) under 11.7. I think he did since the chasers weren't far away (they are a couple of meters away as the kick is completed). If he didn't play at it, they'd regather.

If the k-f was not intentional, and he didn't deny Red/Black an advantage, then scrum for the non-intentional knock on.

Another thought. There are two Red/Black players advancing on White #4. Beam him up. That leaves the knocker-on, and two White players well behind the goal-line doing nothing very fast. There's an argument for a PT here.

 

[Pegleg]

I think

scrum for being in front of the kicker
- well go on then, but you have give that [arm out & shout, or peep] when the ball is kicked. It can't be an afterthought.
- and that answer makes this a rather boring thread, as all the interesting and unsual stuff happens at the other end!

When the ball arrives at the posts...

1 - there is a clear attempt to block it PK under 9.2.A(d).
- you can make an argument (generous I feel) for ignoring this as the kick hits cross bar anyway

2- alternatively it is a deliberate knock on - he was fully intending to block the ball with one hand, and for it to fall forward from the posts. You can't possibly argue (IMO) that he had a realistic chance of catching that

3 - and then you have a player in front handling the ball
- you can make an argument for this to be immaterial as the attackers are so far away.

So three PK offences.
I can see that you can make an argument that you only have one or two reasons to give a PK, not three, but surely a PK it has to be.

Well the referee in the video did not have his hand out as he did not see the offence. As a great ref once said keep ypur hand in your pocked and let it breathe. When things develop you see that the offside players gain a material advantage by arriving in time to tur nthe Scrum into a PK. If that is not material what is? I'd rather work with empathy than play "gotcha".