PDA

View Full Version : Kick off not 10?



Gerwin
01-12-14, 21:12
Hello,
This weekend I witnessed a nice aftermatch discussion about the following:

After the team kicked the ball for the kickoff, a player catched the ball while in the air. He landed over the 10 meter line.

The ball wouldn't have reached the 10 meter without the player bringing it in through the air.

Now the discussion was about the player who catches the ball infield in the air, but lands outside is still given the throwin at the lineout. So now the referee should have let the ball been played.

In the Laws of the game it is not clearly quoted other than the game should be played on when the receiving team catches it.

How do you guys see this?

crossref
01-12-14, 21:12
(it was an attacking player who caught the ball?)

I would say this didn't go 10 and offer options.

The alternative, to play on, would mean that the only defence the defenders have would be to attempt the catch the ball themselves before it had travelled 10m - - which is exactly contrary to what the Law is trying to achieve.

Rushforth
01-12-14, 21:12
First of all, welcome.

You have your 13.6 right, but http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=13.7 is the one you want. Until it has travelled 10m, it is still a kick. It can't be caught and carried over and still be part of the kick.

Usual disclaimers that this is my opinion apply.

Blackberry
01-12-14, 23:12
Crossref, as soon as the catcher catches the ball the kick is deemed good so its play on....there's no options to give.

Taff
01-12-14, 23:12
Crossref, as soon as the catcher catches the ball the kick is deemed good so its play on....there's no options to give.
Not if the catcher is in the same team as the kicker.

Browner
02-12-14, 00:12
Hello,
This weekend I witnessed a nice aftermatch discussion about the following:

After the team kicked the ball for the kickoff, a player catched the ball while in the air. He landed over the 10 meter line.

The ball wouldn't have reached the 10 meter without the player bringing it in through the air.

Now the discussion was about the player who catches the ball infield in the air, but lands outside is still given the throwin at the lineout. So now the referee should have let the ball been played.

In the Laws of the game it is not clearly quoted other than the game should be played on when the receiving team catches it.

How do you guys see this?

The ball has to travel 10m before someone from the kicking team plays it.
Law 13.6 - If the ball does not reach the opponent’s 10-metre line but is first played by an opponent, play continues.

Therefore if its not played by an opponent, then play doesn't continue.

The Fat
02-12-14, 02:12
Simple.
If it was a defender who caught the ball before it goes 10, he had accepted the kick so play on. If it was a team mate of the kicker, then it is not 10 and ref stops play and offers receiving team captain his options.

Dickie E
02-12-14, 05:12
Simple.
If it was a defender who caught the ball before it goes 10, he had accepted the kick so play on. If it was a team mate of the kicker, then it is not 10 and ref stops play and offers receiving team captain his options.

Yes. I wouldn't draw too many parallels to "ball in touch" scenario

Stuartg
02-12-14, 08:12
I had this happen in a game last season and judged that it had not gone 10. Whistle blown. Kicking team's coach did not agree - surprise, surprise!

smeagol
02-12-14, 08:12
What happens after the player catches touches the ball in this scenario is irrelevant to the main point. If a teammate touches it before it goes 10, options.

Dixie
02-12-14, 08:12
I love the discussions you get in rugby club bars! As ever, the iRB (whom I cannot possibly call World Rugby) does not help itself through its policy of delegating the drafting of laws to the Youth Trainee while they themselves head out to a long lunch:

13.7 KICK-OFF OF UNDER 10 METRES AND NOT PLAYED BY AN OPPONENT

If the ball does not reach the opponent’s 10-metre line the opposing team has two choices:
• To have the ball kicked off again, or
• To have a scrum at the centre of the half-way line and they throw in the ball.

Read in its entirety, it is fairly clear that the scenario is that the ball is played by a team mate of the kicker before it has crossed the 10m line - in other words, you need to read (and interpret in the light of 13.6) the heading as well as the law itself. Quite why they can't make the law stand on its own two feet unsupported by its head, I don't know - but then they allow squeezeball, so perhaps it's not surprising!

13.7 KICK-OFF OF UNDER 10 METRES AND NOT PLAYED BY AN OPPONENT

If the ball is played by a team mate of the kicker before it crosses the 10m line the opposing team has two choices:
• To have the ball kicked off again, or
• To have a scrum at the centre of the half-way line and they throw in the ball.

An important point to note, and often missed by the bar wallahs, is that the ball is not required to travel 10m in the air.

ctrainor
02-12-14, 14:12
Reading the initial post the catcher of the kicking team caught the ball inside the ten but then landed past the 10 clearly offer options

what about catcher of the kicking team caught the ball inside the ten but then landed past the 10 and directly into touch. would you allow the receiving team to accept the kick especially if they wer getting hammerred in the scrums as that could give them an advantage to take the line out?

RobLev
02-12-14, 14:12
I love the discussions you get in rugby club bars! As ever, the iRB (whom I cannot possibly call World Rugby) does not help itself through its policy of delegating the drafting of laws to the Youth Trainee

I always thought it was a toddler with a crayon.


while they themselves head out to a long lunch:

13.7 KICK-OFF OF UNDER 10 METRES AND NOT PLAYED BY AN OPPONENT

If the ball does not reach the opponent’s 10-metre line the opposing team has two choices:
• To have the ball kicked off again, or
• To have a scrum at the centre of the half-way line and they throw in the ball.

Read in its entirety, it is fairly clear that the scenario is that the ball is played by a team mate of the kicker before it has crossed the 10m line - in other words, you need to read (and interpret in the light of 13.6) the heading as well as the law itself. Quite why they can't make the law stand on its own two feet unsupported by its head, I don't know - but then they allow squeezeball, so perhaps it's not surprising!

13.7 KICK-OFF OF UNDER 10 METRES AND NOT PLAYED BY AN OPPONENT

If the ball is played by a team mate of the kicker before it crosses the 10m line the opposing team has two choices:
• To have the ball kicked off again, or
• To have a scrum at the centre of the half-way line and they throw in the ball.

An important point to note, and often missed by the bar wallahs, is that the ball is not required to travel 10m in the air.

It doesn't subtract from your point, but the video that the IRB has chosen to illustrate 13.7 involves a kick-off that is dropping short of 10m when it is caught by a member of the kicker's team; St Nige (for it is he) blows up and offers options before he gets to the 10m line.

smeagol
03-12-14, 02:12
what about catcher of the kicking team caught the ball inside the ten but then landed past the 10 and directly into touch. would you allow the receiving team to accept the kick especially if they wer getting hammerred in the scrums as that could give them an advantage to take the line out?

IME, the first offense is catching the ball, and you cannot play advantage.

Dickie E
03-12-14, 02:12
IME, the first offense is catching the ball, and you cannot play advantage.

I would agree to go with the scrum in the scenario but why can't advantage be played? If, for example, the chap from the kickers team knocked the ball on while trying to catch it within the 10.

matty1194
03-12-14, 21:12
In my game this afternoon between 2 high level Army teams following a restart kick the kicker totally ballsed it up, the ball travelled about 5 meters from the line but landed in the 15m channel, cue lots of shouts of "leave it" from the kickers team, opposition winger is wide awake and strolls over and picks the ball up and makes 30m break upfield.

Kicking team at next breakdown were like,"sir, that never went 10m it should of been options to the other team!" I replied with, "I played my option of advantage to the oppostion and he was well within his rights to play on!"

At another restart the kicker again ballsed it up, this time however his tream killed it before it could be played again.

Dickie E
03-12-14, 22:12
I replied with, "I played my option of advantage to the oppostion ...

at the risk of pedantry, this technically isn't an advantage situation. By that I mean that if the receiver had immediately knocked-on, it would be a scrum to the kicking team.

Stuartg
03-12-14, 23:12
,"sir, that never went 10m it should of been options to the other team!"

With such English, viz. lack of auxiliary verb, I assume they were infantry squaddies?

Stuartg
03-12-14, 23:12
at the risk of pedantry, this technically isn't an advantage situation. By that I mean that if the receiver had immediately knocked-on, it would be a scrum to the kicking team.

It's not pedantry at all. You're right and what was previously written was plainly wrong.

ChrisR
03-12-14, 23:12
Catching the ball and then landing past the 10 has no bearing. Unlike the touch line, 22, goal line and dead ball line the 10m line is not a line where there is a change of "zones".

It is a reference line for the referee to determine how far the ball traveled, similar to the 5 & 15m from touch.

Phil E
04-12-14, 10:12
Kicking team at next breakdown were like,"sir, that never went 10m it should of been options to the other team!" I replied with, "I played my option of advantage to the oppostion and he was well within his rights to play on!"

As other have pointed out, it's not an advantage situation. It's a "Play On" situation.

13.6 Kick-off of under 10 metres but played by an opponent
If the ball does not reach the opponent’s 10-metre line but is first played by an opponent, play continues.

matty1194
04-12-14, 11:12
With such English, viz. lack of auxiliary verb, I assume they were infantry squaddies?

Actualy Im in the Infantry and have been for 15 years and have no clue what an auxillary verb is and I make no apologies if my grammar is not up to the level of other members of the forum, but im sure at my school we didnt worry to much about grammar as we most of the people couldnt even speak a decent level of english never mind write it.

And in reply to the other comments I know its not an advantage situation, i wrote quickly with out thinking after a long day on my feet.

SimonSmith
04-12-14, 14:12
Take not offence - you're only 230 posts in. There is a Grammar Police squad on the site (and I admit I'm one of them, occasionally).

Just be grateful it wasn't a Navy guy picking you up on it!

Phil E
04-12-14, 14:12
i wrote quickly with out thinking after a long day on my feet.

That's the infantry for you!
Should have joined the Navy :wink:

Stuartg
04-12-14, 16:12
Actualy Im in the Infantry and have been for 15 years and have no clue what an auxillary verb is and I make no apologies if my grammar is not up to the level of other members of the forum, but im sure at my school we didnt worry to much about grammar as we most of the people couldnt even speak a decent level of english never mind write it.

And in reply to the other comments I know its not an advantage situation, i wrote quickly with out thinking after a long day on my feet.

I had assumed you were quoting verbatim what had been said to you, warts and all, on the pitch.

matty1194
05-12-14, 13:12
Take not offence - you're only 230 posts in. There is a Grammar Police squad on the site (and I admit I'm one of them, occasionally).

Just be grateful it wasn't a Navy guy picking you up on it!

To be honest I have noticed the grammar police on here are a rergular occurence, and i take no interest in them, a vast majority of members of the site may not have a great grasp of english or have english as a first language so they wont have a clue on verbs etc and I spent all my life in an english school but still dont have a clue myself!



That's the infantry for you!
Should have joined the Navy :wink:

No thanks mate lol

Phil E
05-12-14, 13:12
To be honest I have noticed the grammar police on here are a rergular occurence, and i take no interest in them, a vast majority of members of the site may not have a great grasp of english or have english as a first language so they wont have a clue on verbs etc and I spent all my life in an english school but still dont have a clue myself!

You did that on purpose didn't you?
You naughty Pongo :nono:

Browner
05-12-14, 14:12
Catching the ball and then landing past the 10 has no bearing. Unlike the touch line, 22, goal line and dead ball line the 10m line is not a line where there is a change of "zones".

It is a reference line for the referee to determine how far the ball traveled, similar to the 5 & 15m from touch.

In fact its not supposed to be a continuous line at all, its supposed to be a distance indicator ( Law 1 shows a dashed line) - pitch markering groundstaff often get this wrong , and don't mark out a 'broken' line.

Browner
05-12-14, 14:12
just be grateful it wasn't a navy guy picking you up ! on it!

ftfy ....