[Law] What's the decision

[talbazar]

Let me try something....

The events as I see them (with replays and slow mo):
1. Kick (with 3 chasers offside by around 50cm which I'm happy to mark "not C&O")
2. White X jumps and touches the ball
3. The ball goes backwards
4. The ball hits the post and bounces back infield
5. White 4 (in an offside position from White X) grabs the ball and boots it away
6. Red 11 and red 22(with shiny boots) arrive

Analysis:
1. I chose to discard the chasers offside/onside because it's a 52m kick and these 50cm are not critical at landing. Furthermore I believe red 22 is onside which even in a "beam red 11 up Scotty" approach doesn't change the situation at landing.
2. White X intentionally plays the play the ball in what looks like "an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored" - PK offence
3. White 4 is offside and interfere with play - PK offence (unless you decide to be super emphatic and go for a scrum for unintentional but remember there is no knock on here)

Conclusion:
Good luck with your secondary signal :biggrin:, but no issue with PK against White, 5m in front of the posts.

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[Blackberry]

Pierre, good logic.
I mis-read the event insofar as I believed the white player who played the ball by the post did it as it came down off the bar, so there's me thinking he knocked it forward into the waiting arms of an offside team mate.

 

[crossref]

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".

if you think that's the right call, you are entitled to restart with a scrum for being ahead of the kick -- but to remain credible you HAVE to shout and put an advantage arm out, at the time of the kick, showing you have clocked the offence, and it was material, and you are playing a bit of advantage.

if you don't signal this offence when it happened, at kick time, you won't look credible if you come back for it later. (I am talking generally, not just this particular one)

in this particular instance I don't think it was material
and if it was material, there's not really much point playing advantage as the defenders are 50m behind the gain line, so really unlikely to ever gain one....

 

[Pegleg]

As I say I think it's more about empathy than law. I agree my stance is not backed in law. I'd be happy to explain it to my advisor. If everyone is ir error. Go for the least impact on the game option.

 

[ddjamo]

knock on. attacking 5m scrum.

 

[OB..]

The actual decision was "scrum only therefore game over" (time had expired).

There was no point in leaping to get the ball - it only risked knocking the ball up and over the bar to give away a penalty.

However they had to secure the ball to prevent a chaser from scoring (Ian Hunter for England against France 1993) since the ball had not gone dead.

At that point play was continuing so could the ref have awarded a penalty for offside and a very easy kick? That was not discussed. It would have meant playing advantage for the offside rather than blowing for the knock-on.

The defenders certainly made a mess of things.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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

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

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.

Doesn't matter, he jumped to make the attempt and missed before the ball bounced off the crossbar.

9.A.2 (d) says the player is not even allowed to attempt to do what he did.

I agree with Dan_A - PK to red in front of the posts

NOTE: Kick chasers ahead of the kick become immaterial once the defender decided to jump for the ball. You would have to call that immediately, while the ball was still in flight, if you were going to.


ETA NOTE: The consensus here makes and interesting contrast with the position on the Mainland YC

► Maitland attempted to do something legal; he failed, and was ruled to have infringed intentionally - PK & YC
► The White defender attempted to do something illegal; he failed , and got let off - scrum

Sometimes the Laws of Rugby aren't just an ass, they are a whole drove of donkeys.

 

[crossref]

The actual decision was "scrum only therefore game over" (time had expired).

There was no point in leaping to get the ball - it only risked knocking the ball up and over the bar to give away a penalty.

However they had to secure the ball to prevent a chaser from scoring (Ian Hunter for England against France 1993) since the ball had not gone dead.

At that point play was continuing so could the ref have awarded a penalty for offside and a very easy kick? That was not discussed. It would have meant playing advantage for the offside rather than blowing for the knock-on.

The defenders certainly made a mess of things.

They were very lucky to get away with that!

 

[Phil E]

I would have gone with a penalty kick.

One player with his arms over his head, another attempting to block the kick. Both PK offences, and both happened before any knock on.

 

[crossref]

ETA NOTE: The consensus here makes and interesting contrast with the position on the Mainland YC

► Maitland attempted to do something legal; he failed, and was ruled to have infringed intentionally - PK & YC
► The White defender attempted to do something illegal; he failed , and got let off - scrum

Sometimes the Laws of Rugby aren't just an ass, they are a whole drove of donkeys.

I am not sure the Laws are at fault -- seems crystal clear to me that the Laws dictate a PK under 9.2.A(d)

 

[chbg]

One player with his arms over his head

[LAWS]The opposing team only have to stand with their hands beside their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked. (21.5(c)).[/LAWS]
White 4 raises his arms only as the ball starts to drop in the air.

 

[irishref]

Bloody hell, pick the bones out of that!

I haven't read the replies as yet so will go "blind" as it were, albeit with the benefit of the viewing the material provided a few times.

- Chasers ahead of the ball as the ball is kicked - for me immaterial since they have to cover 50m faster than Usain Bolt to get to the ball

- Player interfering with the penalty kick - doesn't that only apply up to the point that the ball is kicked?

- the ball seems to have come off the crossbar before it is touched by white.

- white second row in front of the knock-on and plays it - more immateriality since there was little chance of red taking an advantage from his playing the ball.

My call would thus be: 5m scrum to red for the knock-on by white.

 

[Pegleg]

I think the call in the game makes sound magagement sense.

 

[Pegleg]

Doesn't matter, he jumped to make the attempt and missed before the ball bounced off the crossbar.

9.A.2 (d) says the player is not even allowed to attempt to do what he did.

Again, material effect?

 

[menace]

Doesn't matter, he jumped to make the attempt and missed before the ball bounced off the crossbar.

9.A.2 (d) says the player is not even allowed to attempt to do what he did.

.

But is that what it really means? As it doesn't really say that IMO.

[LAWS]Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick"[/LAWS]

If there is a failed attempt that did not touch the ball before the post...then no harm done so why PK it?

 

[Taff]

So this happens -- what's your decision?

Knock on. No advantage. Scrum to Blue - 5m out.

 

[talbazar]

Am I really the only to see there is no knock-on there?

I know you can't really see the ball clearly on this kind of screen-shots, but have a look at the White player's head and where he is looking:
on the third pic, his head turns backward (after he touched the ball).

On pics 4, 5 & 6, it really looks like the ball is bouncing off the post (not the cross bar).

And then 4 White gathers the ball.

I stay with my original conclusion:
No knock-on, two PK offences by white (trying to prevent PK to be scored and then offside by White 4).
PK for Red 5m out in front of the post. :shrug:

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

- Player interfering with the penalty kick - doesn't that only apply up to the point that the ball is kicked?

Nope

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

It was reworded in the 2000/01 rewrite

1996 Laws

LAW 11. METHOD OF SCORING
A goal may be awarded if the ball is illegally touched by any player of the opposing team and if the referee considers that a goal would otherwise probably have been scored.

 

[Pegleg]

But is that what it really means? As it doesn't really say that IMO.

[LAWS]Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick"[/LAWS]

If there is a failed attempt that did not touch the ball before the post...then no harm done so why PK it?

THis is one of the problems with Material Effect. IT is a moveable feast.

 

[OB..]

The second frame from the left shows the moment the player first touched the ball (The referee was confident that he did touch it.) Clearly the ball is not going to clear the bar unless the player knocks it up and over. Can he be guilty of attempting to stop a score when the PK has failed? That would seem to be a legalistic "Gotcha".

Since it was a knock-on and time had expired, the only question then is should the referee have awarded a penalty against the offside player picking up the knock-on? If he awarded a scrum after the knock-on, then play was over. If he played advantage, was there actually any, since no opponents were anywhere near?

The only clear conclusion is that it is really stupid to go for the ball under those circumstances.