PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] PK through dead ball/TIG



Thunderhorse1986
11-01-16, 15:01
What is the decision if a penalty is kicked through the dead ball line or into touch in goal (having not touched a defending player), when the penalty kick has been taken from outside the 22m...

a) When it is a place kick
b) When it is kicked from hand (in effect a kick to touch gone wrong)

I am pretty sure the correct decisions is a 22m drop out to the defending side, but struggled to find a specific law reference. The other option would possibly be a scrum back where the kick was taken to the non-kicking team...

crossref
11-01-16, 16:01
What is the decision if a penalty is kicked through the dead ball line or into touch in goal (having not touched a defending player), when the penalty kick has been taken from outside the 22m...

a) When it is a place kick
b) When it is kicked from hand (in effect a kick to touch gone wrong)

I am pretty sure the correct decisions is a 22m drop out to the defending side, but struggled to find a specific law reference. The other option would possibly be a scrum back where the kick was taken to the non-kicking team...

a) is a 22m drop out

b) is options : 22m dropout or scrum from where kick was taken.


22.8 Ball kicked dead through in-goal
If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the defending team has two choices:
To have a drop-out, or
To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.

OB..
11-01-16, 16:01
What is the decision if a penalty is kicked through the dead ball line or into touch in goal (having not touched a defending player), when the penalty kick has been taken from outside the 22m...

a) When it is a place kick
b) When it is kicked from hand (in effect a kick to touch gone wrong)

I am pretty sure the correct decisions is a 22m drop out to the defending side, but struggled to find a specific law reference. The other option would possibly be a scrum back where the kick was taken to the non-kicking team...
21.4 (e) Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch.
...
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.

There is an absurd Ruling that if a kick at goal hits a post and goes into touch, it is a lineout to the opposition. Go figure.

Dickie E
11-01-16, 21:01
There is an absurd Ruling that if a kick at goal hits a post and goes into touch, it is a lineout to the opposition. Go figure.

Absurd? Really? Makes perfect sense to me.

OB..
11-01-16, 23:01
Absurd? Really? Makes perfect sense to me.The kick was very clearly aimed at the posts and was not an attempt to put the ball into touch. If it is deemed that the the kick was in fact an illegal kick to touch, although not intended, the sanction is a scrum at the mark, opposition to throw the ball in.

If the ball goes into touch from a PK, the kicking team gets the throw-in. The only way to get a throw-in by the opponents is to decide that at some point the kick stopped being a penalty kick - and I see nothing in the law book (or in equity) to support that. We know that you get three points if the ball hits the post and goes over from a PK. The provision for scoring by kicking the ball over from the field of play (other than by a PK) was abolished in 1905, so it still counts as a PK even after hitting the post..

How would you justify the ruling?

Dickie E
11-01-16, 23:01
How would you justify the ruling?

Its a "2 bites at the cherry" thing. You have failed to kick the penalty goal so you don't then get the consolation prize of a lineout throw.

You may not like it but it's hardly absurd.

OB..
12-01-16, 02:01
Its a "2 bites at the cherry" thing. You have failed to kick the penalty goal so you don't then get the consolation prize of a lineout throw.

You may not like it but it's hardly absurd.It is a major law error. The kicker has done nothing wrong, yet gets punished for a fluke. When did flukes become illegal?

Dickie E
12-01-16, 03:01
It is a major law error. The kicker has done nothing wrong, yet gets punished for a fluke. When did flukes become illegal?

He has done something wrong - he missed the shot. Nobody is suggesting it is illegal - just that general play conditions now apply. And how is the kicker being punished? He had his shot at goal and missed.

On the other hand, if the kicking team were awarded the lineout (as you prefer) then the defending team is being punished for a fluke.

Decorily
12-01-16, 09:01
PK comes off post....play on.

Opposition player gathers and runs length of pitch to score...as normal.
Opposition player puts foot in touch on way.....LO as normal
Etc, etc.

Ball in touch after returning to open play is no different!!

Dixie
12-01-16, 12:01
What is the decision if a penalty is kicked through the dead ball line or into touch in goal (having not touched a defending player), when the penalty kick has been taken from outside the 22m...

a) When it is a place kick
b) When it is kicked from hand (in effect a kick to touch gone wrong) You have the answers above, but before the thread is hijacked by the "off the posts" discussion I'm interested in why you specified that the PK was taken from outside the 22m line. I can't see that makes any difference - the answer is the same whether or not the kicker was in the 22.

OB..
12-01-16, 13:01
This is the Ruling in question (2 of 2006)
RequestLaw 19.1 (e) stipulates: “Penalty kick. When a player kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing area, the throw in is taken from where the ball went into touch.”

Law 19.4 (Exception) has the following precision. “When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw in is taken by the player of the team who took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch.”

Finally, Law 21.4 (d) requires for “kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch.”

Following a penalty kick and after the ball was kicked, the ball hits the goal post and goes into touch without having been touched by another player.
What decision should the referee give?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in.
Law 21.4(d).

If the penalty kick is for touch, therefore no place kick, then it is a lineout attacking team to throw in.


The lineout in either of these situations may not be closer than 5 metres from the goal line. Law 19.4 Exception.
Law 21.4 (d) from 2006 is now 21.4(e), same sanction.

If that law was breached, than the result should have been a scrum to the opposition at the mark for the PK.
If it was not breached, then the kick to touch is covered by 19.4 (a) Exception - throw in to the kicking team.

I find no justification for the cherry-bites argument.

If you want equity, the defending side has been lucky that after giving away a kickable penalty they have suffered nothing worse than giving away a lineout. The kicking team has not benefited from the fluke - they would have preferred the 3 points.

Blackberry
12-01-16, 15:01
This suggests that the line out throw must be taken only by the player who kicked for touch.
Law 19.4 (Exception) has the following precision. “When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw in is taken by the player of the team who took the penalty kick. "

crossref
12-01-16, 15:01
the current Law says A player..

19.4 Who throws in
(a)
The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.
Exception: When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw-in is taken by a player of the team that took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch.
(b)
When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on or throw forward, the non-offending team will have the option of a lineout at the point the ball crossed the touch line, or a scrum at the place of the knock-on or throw forward, or a quick throw in.

Decorily
12-01-16, 15:01
This suggests that the line out throw must be taken only by the player who kicked for touch.
Law 19.4 (Exception) has the following precision. “When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw in is taken by the player of the team who took the penalty kick. "

Actually it says .....a player of the team...



As crossref correctly points out!!

crossref
12-01-16, 15:01
Blackberry's point was that the clarification said "the"

OB..
12-01-16, 16:01
Blackberry's point was that the clarification [from 2006] said "the"
Things have moved on. This is a freak occurrence and I see no merit at all to the Ruling. YMMV but I think we have already spent more time on it than it merits.

ChrisR
12-01-16, 16:01
The OP reference to the 22 is this:

If a team attempts a penalty kick to touch from outside the 22 but it goes TIG or over the dead ball line does the opponent get the scrum back choice?


Re. PK at goal that goes off the post to touch. I think the defenders get the throw in. If the kick (taken in a crosswind, say) shanks off into touch I'd say the same.

If the ball comes off the post (or is shanked toward touch) and a player from the kicking team gathers it and scores do you allow the score? Yes.

Jacko
12-01-16, 17:01
This is the Ruling in question (2 of 2006)
[LAWS]RequestLaw 19.1 (e) stipulates: “Penalty kick. When a player kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing area, the throw in is taken from where the ball went into touch.”

Law 19.4 (Exception) has the following precision. “When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw in is taken by the player of the team who took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch.”

Finally, Law 21.4 (d) requires for “kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch.”

Following a penalty kick and after the ball was kicked, the ball hits the goal post and goes into touch without having been touched by another player.
What decision should the referee give?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in.
Law 21.4(d).

If the penalty kick is for touch, therefore no place kick, then it is a lineout attacking team to throw in.


[I][I][I] points.

Just to clarify, if the kicker gives it a real belt (and there's a strong wind) and the ball comes off the post, crosses the halfway line and goes into touch, the kicking team throw into the lineout according to the clarification. Good to know...

Dickie E
12-01-16, 21:01
Just to clarify, if the kicker gives it a real belt (and there's a strong wind) and the ball comes off the post, crosses the halfway line and goes into touch, the kicking team throw into the lineout according to the clarification. Good to know...

I see what you did there. Don't be naughty.

Dickie E
12-01-16, 21:01
I find no justification for the cherry-bites argument.

If you want equity, the defending side has been lucky that after giving away a kickable penalty they have suffered nothing worse than giving away a lineout. The kicking team has not benefited from the fluke - they would have preferred the 3 points.

Out of curiosity. With your passionate view on this how do you discuss this with a referee who has given the lineout to the wrong (ie attacking) team?

OB..
13-01-16, 03:01
Out of curiosity. With your passionate view on this how do you discuss this with a referee who has given the lineout to the wrong (ie attacking) team?My usual approach: I ask the referee to review the incident and how he came to his decision. (That does not always mean I disagree with it.)

If he knew the Ruling and had a reason why he decided it did not apply, I would naturally be sympathetic.

If he didn't know the Ruling, I would mention it and explain why I thought it was absurd.

I would be unlikely to include it in my report, but would use it as an opportunity to raise the issue with the appropriate people, asking if it was still supposed to apply, and rehearsing my criticism of it.

Dickie E
13-01-16, 03:01
If he knew the Ruling and had a reason why he decided it did not apply, I would naturally be sympathetic.

If he didn't know the Ruling, I would mention it and explain why I thought it was absurd.



I'm not sure what level of referees you coach/assess/mentor/etc. But I wonder about the appropriateness of editorialising the laws and/or clarifications that you don't like in what is effectively a teacher/student relationship.

OB..
13-01-16, 11:01
I'm not sure what level of referees you coach/assess/mentor/etc. But I wonder about the appropriateness of editorialising the laws and/or clarifications that you don't like in what is effectively a teacher/student relationship.I think it is important to be prepared to discuss such issues rather than just rubber stamp everything.

Thunderhorse1986
13-01-16, 13:01
Thanks for clarification. Glad it has also generated further (albeit slightly off topic) debate.

A follow up question to the "exceptions" to the ball being kicked through the in-goal for kicks at goal and drop kicks... why is this exception in place? I can remember it being that way for as long as I have played and now refereed...but why bother having it? Why not give the option of the 22 drop out or the scrum from where the kick was taken to the defending side for all kicks... possible implications:
1) Fewer long range speculative penalty kicks at goal (the downside of missing would be higher than at present)
2) Fewer speculative drop goals (as above)
3) More kicks to the corner (instead of kicking for goal from difficult angles/distances)
4) More tries, fewer penalties (apparently what a number of new law variations/trials have been attempting for many years)

Would love to hear people's thoughts on this idea...

crossref
13-01-16, 13:01
are you thinking about the pro game or community game ?

OB..
13-01-16, 15:01
A follow up question to the "exceptions" to the ball being kicked through the in-goal for kicks at goal and drop kicks... why is this exception in place? I can remember it being that way for as long as I have played and now refereed...but why bother having it?
A penalty is a punishment for a significant breach of the laws. Offering the option in case of a miss makes it more attractive to risk a penalty.

Personally I would rescind the exception for an attempted drop goal.

Dickie E
13-01-16, 21:01
Would love to hear people's thoughts on this idea...

It kind of went the other way.

Back in the day the only outcome for any kick that went dead was a 22 drop out. So a speculative punt in general play from half way was a good option for the kicking team. It put the defenders under pressure if the ball stopped in or near in-goal or gave them back possession from a 22 if they overcooked the kick.

To dissuade this action, the scrum back option was introduced for the situation where the kick was in general play. I agree with OB.. regarding a missed drop goal restart.

Dickie E
18-09-16, 12:09
[QUOTE=OB..;310319
There is an absurd Ruling that if a kick at goal hits a post and goes into touch, it is a lineout to the opposition. Go figure.[/QUOTE]

happened in the Wallabies v Argentina Test on Saturday night. Nigel & Wayne made the right decision regarding the restart.

OB..
18-09-16, 13:09
happened in the Wallabies v Argentina Test on Saturday night. Nigel & Wayne made the right decision regarding the restart.The "right" decision being ...?

Dickie E
19-09-16, 00:09
The "right" decision being ...?

you'll have to watch the game to find out.