PDA

View Full Version : late tackle - option



Browner
02-01-15, 03:01
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-late-tackle-option/2830309/

Anyone seen/got a clip ?

Dave Sherwin
02-01-15, 03:01
I got calls about this from two members of our society on the day, but not quite as odd as one a couple of weeks ago (apologies, I don't recall the game) where the ref, in a moment's fluster after an offside (under the ten metre law) offered the scrum at the place of infringement or the penalty from where the ball was last played instead of vice versa. I think, though would not swear to it, that it might have been Mr. Barnes. Just a little reassurance that we all have moments!

ChrisR
02-01-15, 04:01
Note that on the Sareferees site the referenced law reads:

The non-offending team-may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands, or where it was next played.

The current law reads:

The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played.

Did the removal of the comma change the options available from 3 to 2?

Dave Sherwin
02-01-15, 06:01
Just had a chance to watch the Bath v Exeter clip and JPD is very clear that he gives the penalty for obstruction not a late tackle, hence the mark needn't have come in 15. JPD quite right in fact, SARefs quite right in law but wrong as to what actually happened.

Dave Sherwin
02-01-15, 06:01
Note that on the Sareferees site the referenced law reads:

The non-offending team-may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands, or where it was next played.

The current law reads:

The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played.

Did the removal of the comma change the options available from 3 to 2?

Not for my money. To my mind, there were always only two possible locations, with the "or where it was next played" language being intended to address scenarios where the ball doesn't land due to being caught or otherwise played.

Phil E
02-01-15, 09:01
Just had a chance to watch the Bath v Exeter clip and JPD is very clear that he gives the penalty for obstruction not a late tackle, hence the mark needn't have come in 15. JPD quite right in fact, SARefs quite right in law but wrong as to what actually happened.

But it's obstruction of someone who has just kicked the ball, so law 10.4 (o) still applies.

10.4 (o) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent
who has just kicked the ball.
Sanction: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place
of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played.

If it was a simple case of obstruction, then there would be no option of "where the ball lands". It would just be a penalty at the place of the offence.

crossref
02-01-15, 09:01
Did the removal of the comma change the options available from 3 to 2?

do you think the two 'or' s are significant?

The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played


:wink:

didds
02-01-15, 10:01
C&O a typo.

And the clause with an "or" clearly provides an option, so three options remain.

didds

The Fat
02-01-15, 10:01
Note that on the Sareferees site the referenced law reads:

The non-offending team-may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands, or where it was next played.

The current law reads:

The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played.

Did the removal of the comma change the options available from 3 to 2?

Not sure where SArefs found the comma but the law is the same. Two places for the PK. 1st option is at the place of infringement while the 2nd one is where the ball lands and if the ball doesn't land but is caught or played/touched by an opponent, then that is the place for the 2nd option. If that place is within 15m of the touch line then the place of the PK is in line with that place but on the 15m line.

Phil E
02-01-15, 10:01
C&O a typo.
And the clause with an "or" clearly provides an option, so three options remain.
didds

No :nono:


Two places for the PK. 1st option is at the place of infringement while the 2nd one is where the ball lands and if the ball doesn't land but is caught or played/touched by an opponent, then that is the place for the 2nd option.

Yes

The Fat
02-01-15, 10:01
C&O a typo.

And the clause with an "or" clearly provides an option, so three options remain.

didds

I disagree didds.
Only 2 possible places for the PK. What you are calling the 3rd option ("where it is next played") is only there to cover for the ball that doesn't land i.e is caught by opposition player

Browner
02-01-15, 12:01
Imagine a kick ( that drew a late tackle) landing without being played/touched by a catcher and then bounced on its nose another 30m further downfield only to be picked up by a retreating fullback

Is there anyone out there that would give the kickers team the option of the PK at the place of being picked up ? Law isnt expect that as an option ,surely ????

IMO Law intends something like this :

The non-offending team have the Option to take the penalty kick either:
i) at the place of infringement, or
ii) where the ball lands. Exception: unless it was played before/as it landed, in which case the option is to take the kick from where the ball was played

The wordsmiths can improve on this if they wish.

Phil E
02-01-15, 12:01
If we print out the whole of 10.4 (o) we get the answer we all knew anyway (except Didds).

(o) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent
who has just kicked the ball.

Sanction: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place
of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played.

Place of infringement. If the infringement takes place in the kicker’s in-goal, the penalty
kick is taken 5 metres from the goal line in line with the place of infringement but at least
15 metres from the touchline.
The non-offending team may also choose to take the penalty where the ball lands or is next
played before landing and at least 15 metres from the touchline.

Where the ball lands. If the ball lands in touch, the mark for the optional penalty kick is on
the 15-metre line, in line with where it went into touch. If the ball lands, or is next played
before landing, within 15 metres of the touchline, the mark is on the 15-metre line opposite
where the ball landed or was played.

Dave Sherwin
02-01-15, 13:01
But it's obstruction of someone who has just kicked the ball, so law 10.4 (o) still applies.

10.4 (o) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent
who has just kicked the ball.
Sanction: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place
of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played.

If it was a simple case of obstruction, then there would be no option of "where the ball lands". It would just be a penalty at the place of the offence.

I'm just not sure JPD gave it under the "player who has just kicked the ball" since to me he didn't offer up the option. I think he felt the ball was long gone enough not to fall under 10.4(o). Sorry - should have been clearer in my earlier post.

I think on the audio you can hear a player asking him about the location of the penalty and he even says "no, it's here because it was just obstruction".

Phil E
02-01-15, 13:01
I think on the audio you can hear a player asking him about the location of the penalty and he even says "no, it's here because it was just obstruction".

In that case SA Refs have got it wrong (shock, horror :sarc:) and done him a disservice.

Pinky
02-01-15, 14:01
But if it was a 10.1 obstruction, is the penalty where the offence was committed, not further down-field? I've not seen the incident, but if JPD did award the penalty where the ball landed, it seems that SA Refs may have a point, but they made the wrong one?

Browner
02-01-15, 14:01
Just obstruction? :chin:. rather than .... obstruction immediately following a kick .....
Silenced the player , but wrong nevetheless. :nono: