When should ref stop the clock at a penalty? (Lei v Nor)

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Something caught my eye over the weekend in the Leicester vs Northampton game...

The score was 18 - 19, with Northampton leading, and Wayne Barnes awarded a penalty to Northampton at 79:30 on the clock. George Furbank looked a little indecisive, though I'm sure he was think he could wait for the clock to go red and then kick the ball out.

However, WB stopped the clock at 79:56 and told Furbank that he would restart the clock when he played the ball, at which time there would be 4 seconds left to full-time. Arguably the right thing to do was to tap and pass to someone 15m back who would kick it to touch, but instead he kicked up the field for a lineout, which of course ran the risk of them losing the ball and losing the game. Saints won the lineout and closed out the game, but I'm still left wondering if WB was justified in his actions.

Law 20.5 says, "A penalty or free-kick must be taken without delay."

Law 8.21 says this with regard to a penalty goal:
The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again.

Is it reasonable to take 30 seconds over a penalty kick/tap? Would WB have stopped the clock after 26 seconds if it was the middle of the first half?

Should Northampton be allowed to run the clock down 30 seconds to the end of the game or should they be forced to play another phase and risk Leicester stealing a win? It left me wondering if stopping the clock in this instance was an impartial and fair act, or WB having a personal dislike for intentionally running the clock dead; though I assume had it been a kick for goal he would have to allow the kicker the full 60 seconds stated in law without stopping the clock.

What do others think?

(For comparison, in the Bledisloe Cup, Raynal awarded the penalty at 78:25 and then blew for a scrum at 79:05.)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,823
Post Likes
3,157
Sensible management in my opinion

It's exactly what I said Raynal should have done
 

DocP


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 20, 2018
Messages
152
Post Likes
101
Location
SE London/Kent
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
Think it was good management. There had been no previous warnings for time wasting etc and the timing of the pen meant there should have been a restart. I've seen referees stop the clock in the dying seconds because scrums kept "collapsing" and needing to be reset, only restarting the clock once the scrum was reset before the scrum engagement sequence. Stopping the clock in those instances seems fair to me too.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Would you stop the clock if it was the 12th minute of the game? Should we act differently in the final minutes? Should the team in possession be allowed to run the clock down if the penalty is awarded with 5 seconds left to play? Where do you draw the line?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,823
Post Likes
3,157
Would you stop the clock if it was the 12th minute of the game? Should we act differently in the final minutes? Should the team in possession be allowed to run the clock down if the penalty is awarded with 5 seconds left to play? Where do you draw the line?
There is no time limit in the Laws is there , only 'without delay' so we necessarily have to use our judgement
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
194
Post Likes
58
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Something caught my eye over the weekend in the Leicester vs Northampton game...

The score was 18 - 19, with Northampton leading, and Wayne Barnes awarded a penalty to Northampton at 79:30 on the clock. George Furbank looked a little indecisive, though I'm sure he was think he could wait for the clock to go red and then kick the ball out.

However, WB stopped the clock at 79:56 and told Furbank that he would restart the clock when he played the ball, at which time there would be 4 seconds left to full-time. Arguably the right thing to do was to tap and pass to someone 15m back who would kick it to touch, but instead he kicked up the field for a lineout, which of course ran the risk of them losing the ball and losing the game. Saints won the lineout and closed out the game, but I'm still left wondering if WB was justified in his actions.

Law 20.5 says, "A penalty or free-kick must be taken without delay."

Law 8.21 says this with regard to a penalty goal:
The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again.

Is it reasonable to take 30 seconds over a penalty kick/tap? Would WB have stopped the clock after 26 seconds if it was the middle of the first half?

Should Northampton be allowed to run the clock down 30 seconds to the end of the game or should they be forced to play another phase and risk Leicester stealing a win? It left me wondering if stopping the clock in this instance was an impartial and fair act, or WB having a personal dislike for intentionally running the clock dead; though I assume had it been a kick for goal he would have to allow the kicker the full 60 seconds stated in law without stopping the clock.

What do others think?

(For comparison, in the Bledisloe Cup, Raynal awarded the penalty at 78:25 and then blew for a scrum at 79:05.)
The problem with setting a time limit is that now everyone will now stretch time out to that limit if it suits them.
With 30 seconds left, leading with a penalty the lowest risk option is now to indicate a kick at goal.
I assume he was out of range, but it's got to the point where you could do this from your 22.

I'm happy for there to be a clause that gives referees discretion to outlaw timewasting when it's obvious and even when the ball is in play.
Referee just needs to give a warning, and then five seconds of no action he can blow.

We had this ridiculous scenario in 7s. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/r...core-waits-TWO-MINUTES-putting-ball-down.html
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,823
Post Likes
3,157
I'm happy for there to be a clause that gives referees discretion to outlaw timewasting when it's obvious and even when the ball is in play.
Referee just needs to give a warning, and then five seconds of no action he can blow.
no ! if the ball is in play oppo don't like it then it's up to them try and get the ball . Not up to the ref.
 

Locke


Referees in America
Joined
Jan 23, 2022
Messages
248
Post Likes
150
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
With 30 seconds left, leading with a penalty the lowest risk option is now to indicate a kick at goal.
I assume he was out of range, but it's got to the point where you could do this from your 22.
Mostly changing the subject. In such a situation, if a player chose a kick at goal from a penalty in order to run the clock out and then clearly and obviously made no attempt to successfully make the kick, but instead deliberately kicked it into touch so there would be no live ball and the game would end, should that be a penalty for bad sportsmanship?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,148
Post Likes
1,839
presumably they wouldn't kick it into touch for exactly that reason
id imagine neither wold they indcate a kick at goal in their own 22 (say) - the ball will fall short and effectively be given to the oppo to launch a counter attack - which in a tight game probably aint gonna be a good idea.

Its more like a crack from a tighht angle or a bit further than normal in the hope that a huge wallop will go dead over DBL if its not successful

I would imagine.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,408
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Law 8.20

If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick
at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled
by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on
the ground.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Additionally

Law 20.8 Taking a penalty or free-kick
The kicker may punt, drop-kick or place-kick (other than for touch) the ball.
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
194
Post Likes
58
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Mostly changing the subject. In such a situation, if a player chose a kick at goal from a penalty in order to run the clock out and then clearly and obviously made no attempt to successfully make the kick, but instead deliberately kicked it into touch so there would be no live ball and the game would end, should that be a penalty for bad sportsmanship?
Probably, but it's a loophole and when last did you see a penalty for bad sportsmanship?
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
194
Post Likes
58
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
no ! if the ball is in play oppo don't like it then it's up to them try and get the ball . Not up to the ref.
This scenario was different. Both teams ran the clock down together, it was mutually beneficial to them both progressing to the knock outs.

There was a similar stalemate situation in badminton I think in the London Olympics.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,148
Post Likes
1,839
There was a similar stalemate situation in badminton I think in the London Olympics.
this one? deliberately trying to lose?



It culminated IIRC in two pairs in the same match BOTH trying to lose.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,823
Post Likes
3,157
This scenario was different. Both teams ran the clock down together, it was mutually beneficial to them both progressing to the knock out
Yes, but I dont think that is an issue for the referee to deal with, it's one for the competition organisers.
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
194
Post Likes
58
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Yes, but I dont think that is an issue for the referee to deal with, it's one for the competition organisers.
agreed, or WR.

The case in sevens is quite interesting. Often players will make a linebreak and with the space have a clean run to the try, which remains that way as defending players don't need to be behind the goal line for the conversion. They will often then "camp" behind the poles until a competing player has to then come and approach them, forcing a touch down - in the meantime the ref stands there with nothing to do! This doesn't really happen if either team is chasing the game and time is crucial, but you often see it even in the first half when the result is far from concluded. My theory is the game (and the weekend tournament format) is so strenuous that the players will take any opportunity to slow it down where possible.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,148
Post Likes
1,839
I suppose for 7s IF the PTB are concerned about time wasting, they could introduce a requirement one the ball carrier has crossed the try line he has to "score" within 3 seconds or similar. It is however beset with "what ifs" I suppose following on from that.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,823
Post Likes
3,157
I suppose for 7s IF the PTB are concerned about time wasting, they could introduce a requirement one the ball carrier has crossed the try line he has to "score" within 3 seconds or similar. It is however beset with "what ifs" I suppose following on from that.
I don't think so - it's up to the oppo to go and get the ball if they want it.

(and it's up to tournament organisers to devise a format so that we don't end up in games where both sides are happy with the result, so don't play)
 

DocP


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 20, 2018
Messages
152
Post Likes
101
Location
SE London/Kent
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
I suppose for 7s IF the PTB are concerned about time wasting, they could introduce a requirement one the ball carrier has crossed the try line he has to "score" within 3 seconds or similar. It is however beset with "what ifs" I suppose following on from that.
If they really wanted they could add to the law, "touch down without delay" like they have for a restart that ends up in in-goal. If you want the scrum back you have to touchdown immediately otherwise it will be GLDO (used to be 22). Then it is up to the referee's discretion about what is "without delay"
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
If they really wanted they could add to the law, "touch down without delay" like they have for a restart that ends up in in-goal. If you want the scrum back you have to touchdown immediately otherwise it will be GLDO (used to be 22). Then it is up to the referee's discretion about what is "without delay"
This can be circumvented by not entering the in-goal area and instead "take a breather" still in the FOP
 
Top