which is a PK offence...
[Law] What's the decision
- Thread starter crossref
- Start date
which is a PK offence...
Womble
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,277
- Post Likes
- 47
- Current Referee grade:
- National Panel
menace, yes I left through my choice, I am coaching the club that I have been a member of for 45 years, banned kicking 
won 6 out of 6 average score 55 7, something is going right ! Yes I'm back in the weeds lvl 8 in England so I have the opportunity to see many referees and offer my thoughts, tends to work well.
Dickie E is going along the lines of my thought process, a bit of game management can go a long way towards helping you enjoy a pint of scrump after the game
won 6 out of 6 average score 55 7, something is going right ! Yes I'm back in the weeds lvl 8 in England so I have the opportunity to see many referees and offer my thoughts, tends to work well. Dickie E is going along the lines of my thought process, a bit of game management can go a long way towards helping you enjoy a pint of scrump after the game
Womble
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,277
- Post Likes
- 47
- Current Referee grade:
- National Panel
How many PK offences do you not ping in a game ? 20, 30, 40 ? could this be one of them? just asking xx
Not IMHO.
womble I just don't think you're explaining your thought process very well
- you say that he was trying to catch it, as though that's relevant. It isn't relevant, he isn't allowed to catch it, any more he can knock it
- you say that it wasn't C&O whether it hit player or cross bar first -- but that isn't relevant, whichever - his team mate is still offside
- you say it was accidental offside, but don't explain how that could be the case under the law
Look, if what you really mean is - "yeah by the Laws there are three different reasons why it's a PK , but nevertheless I'll go with the scrum because that's the option that comes with the pint of scrumpy after" then just say so! Fair enough. But don't couch it as a spurious Law argument.
- you say that he was trying to catch it, as though that's relevant. It isn't relevant, he isn't allowed to catch it, any more he can knock it
- you say that it wasn't C&O whether it hit player or cross bar first -- but that isn't relevant, whichever - his team mate is still offside
- you say it was accidental offside, but don't explain how that could be the case under the law
Look, if what you really mean is - "yeah by the Laws there are three different reasons why it's a PK , but nevertheless I'll go with the scrum because that's the option that comes with the pint of scrumpy after" then just say so! Fair enough. But don't couch it as a spurious Law argument.
Womble
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,277
- Post Likes
- 47
- Current Referee grade:
- National Panel
Why can't he catch it? the ball is not going over the bar ! Are you saying that every missed attempt at goal can't be caught?
I will give my full reasoning when this thread has run its full course , forums like this are to enlighten people but I was hoping we would kick on from Dickie E's coments earlier and discuss. Not Womble bash epper:epper:epper:
I will give my full reasoning when this thread has run its full course , forums like this are to enlighten people but I was hoping we would kick on from Dickie E's coments earlier and discuss. Not Womble bash
epper:epper:epper:RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Last edited:
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Delete all - wrong offence.
If it was objectively clear at the time of the attempt to catch the ball was not going to clear the bar, then I can see the argument that, even if the attempter didn't know that, his action isn't to be taken as an attempt to prevent the penalty goal being scored. It was legitimate for him to try to catch the ball, and his misconceived intention shouldn't convert that legitimate action into an offence.
Oh: and <insert gratuitous Womble-bash>.
Last edited:
MrQeu
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 440
- Post Likes
- 37
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
I'd say it's only 11.7 that should be looked into as it's the applicable law for the actions:
[LAWS]11.7 Offside after a knock-on
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]
Did he prevent an opponent from gaining an advantage? That's the discussion, IMHO.
[LAWS]11.7 Offside after a knock-on
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]
Did he prevent an opponent from gaining an advantage? That's the discussion, IMHO.
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
The argument has been put that if the sequence was kick->white hand->crossbar/post->white #4 then the ball wasn't knocked on. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference which way you look at it, because the question of whether white #4's playing of the ball was material is closely akin to the question of whether he thereby prevented the opposition gaining an advantage.
he kicked it off the field and ended the game!
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Womble, in your initial post you stated that it was not C&O that the ball came in contact with the White jumper. It was obvious that it came off the crossbar.
If it was not played by the first White then White #4 is not "accidentally offside", can legally play the ball and the result will be a lineout.
I took a long hard look in the mirror this AM. Sixty years of playing, refereeing and coaching hasn't made me any prettier. The mirror didn't have much to say about my understanding of this great game I love. But I'd be happy to debate you next time you make it to my neck of the woods.
OB, before the referee calls full time shouldn't he signal the reason for stoppage of play?
Womble
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,277
- Post Likes
- 47
- Current Referee grade:
- National Panel
time is immaterial,
Last edited by a moderator:
Womble
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,277
- Post Likes
- 47
- Current Referee grade:
- National Panel
Never been over the pond, may be just the excuse I've been looking for !
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
This is one of those cases that I can agree with any of several different calls so long as the rational for the call is supported by law.
If you think the first White was "attempting to interfere" then I'm OK with PK. Not my choice, tho.
If you think that he attempted to catch and played the ball, and White 4 knowingly and willfully then played it then give the PK. Also, not my choice.
If you think that White 4 either didn't know that the ball had been touched or was unable to avoid it then award the scrum. That is the empathetic call and fine by me.
If you think that there is doubt as to the first White playing the ball then it's OK for White 4 to play it and clear it to touch. I fall into the "if you don't know, don't blow" category so that would most likely be my call.
We can all disagree on what we judge, but should mostly agree on how we judge it.
If you think the first White was "attempting to interfere" then I'm OK with PK. Not my choice, tho.
If you think that he attempted to catch and played the ball, and White 4 knowingly and willfully then played it then give the PK. Also, not my choice.
If you think that White 4 either didn't know that the ball had been touched or was unable to avoid it then award the scrum. That is the empathetic call and fine by me.
If you think that there is doubt as to the first White playing the ball then it's OK for White 4 to play it and clear it to touch. I fall into the "if you don't know, don't blow" category so that would most likely be my call.
We can all disagree on what we judge, but should mostly agree on how we judge it.
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Well then, do it. You'd be most welcome.
kicking the ball off the field is clearly a material intervention.
(and I don't agee about time not being material - in the last few seasons we have had several clarifications that ensure that a team can't bring a match to a close when it suits them -- by ensuring scrum resets until time expires (doesn't work), or by deliberately kicking a restart or 22m in touch so that options are offered (doesn't work) or dawdling after a conversion waiting for time (doesn't work))
Womble I think you are awarding a scrum simply because it seems to you to be instinctively the best outcome given your understanding of the game you love.
It's probably the same as what Wayne Barnes called the "safe" decision at a talk I heard him give recently.
Or another way of saying it is the decision that means you're greeted in the bar with a pint of scrumpy rather than chilly silence.
In that respect I've no doubt you speak wisely
Last edited:
He did, though I agree it was was none too obvious. I had to check carefully. He certainly stated it: "knock-on, so that's final".
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I'm not sure the ball is actually knocked on at all. Its not C&O on the video.
To me, it looks more like the ball hits the front underside of the crossbar, and being odd-shaped, takes a sideways bounce and hits the left upright just above the top of the padding. I dont think it is touched because the way it tumbles after the first impact with the goalposts doesn't change until it hits the upright
NOTE: In Firefox you can use CTRL+ and the horizontal scroll bar to zoom in and position to take a really close look at the slo-mo.
To me, it looks more like the ball hits the front underside of the crossbar, and being odd-shaped, takes a sideways bounce and hits the left upright just above the top of the padding. I dont think it is touched because the way it tumbles after the first impact with the goalposts doesn't change until it hits the upright
NOTE: In Firefox you can use CTRL+ and the horizontal scroll bar to zoom in and position to take a really close look at the slo-mo.
Chris_j
Referees in England
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 83
- Post Likes
- 31
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
I came upon the thread a few days ago, saw some of the posts discussing knock on and offside, watched it once from the op link and decided it was never a penalty.
There is nothing C & O about it.
Didn't realise until tonight it was a Pro 12 game, so experienced and wired up TO3. The reaction (or lack of) from the two ARs says it all. They were focussed on the ball and the bar. They would have called any obvious attempt to prevent the penalty crossing the bar and were very close after the rebound to call in knock on or offside.
In real time in a game no one would call this a penalty. Even with the benefit of endless analysis of step through video the experts here can't agree on it being a penalty. What more evidence is needed that there is no clear and obvious offence.
We could though look at the inconsistencies of those happy to dismiss the several attackers in front of the kicker (not material?) whilst in the same breath claiming that because those same players were within a few metres of the defender who caught it he prevented them playing the ball. How did they get there? If they had started behind the kicker they would have been around the 22 when the defender caught it.
There is nothing C & O about it.
Didn't realise until tonight it was a Pro 12 game, so experienced and wired up TO3. The reaction (or lack of) from the two ARs says it all. They were focussed on the ball and the bar. They would have called any obvious attempt to prevent the penalty crossing the bar and were very close after the rebound to call in knock on or offside.
In real time in a game no one would call this a penalty. Even with the benefit of endless analysis of step through video the experts here can't agree on it being a penalty. What more evidence is needed that there is no clear and obvious offence.
We could though look at the inconsistencies of those happy to dismiss the several attackers in front of the kicker (not material?) whilst in the same breath claiming that because those same players were within a few metres of the defender who caught it he prevented them playing the ball. How did they get there? If they had started behind the kicker they would have been around the 22 when the defender caught it.