PDA

View Full Version : Charging the conversion from a penalty try



oldman
24-01-16, 12:01
Fellow Referees please help.
After watching my clubs first team yesterday (level 7) I overheard a conversation between the referee, who in my opinion refereed very well, and his assessor/mentor/coach. The referee had awarded a penalty try for a high tackle on the winger, no problem, yellow card issued as per. Summing up the discussion the referee had allowed the non scorers to charge the conversion attempt. His a/m/c told him this was wrong, they cannot charge a conversion after a penalty try.
Try as I might I cannot find this in the law book, in fact I can find no reference to the charge at a penalty try being different to a normal try. Your comments most welcome.

Phil E
24-01-16, 12:01
Assessor was wrong. A conversion is a conversion is a conversion, it can be charged like any other.
Assessor needs to quote the law that says you can't...but there isn't one.

This is an urban myth usually touted by players. I am amazed that an assessor should say it! :wow:

The Fat
24-01-16, 12:01
Assessor needs to read Law 9.
It's not a big section, only about one page so won't take him long. As a matter of fact, he should have time to read it a couple of times so it sinks in.

Pegleg
24-01-16, 12:01
An assessor being wrong. Fancy that! Her probably wrote "You have to let him up!" too.

Balones
24-01-16, 13:01
Why are you blaming an assessor? The original post mentioned a coach or mentor.:hap:
Anyway we are called Match Observers nowadays. (Even that is likely to change.)

Rushforth
24-01-16, 13:01
Try as I might I cannot find this in the law book, in fact I can find no reference to the charge at a penalty try being different to a normal try. Your comments most welcome.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=penalty%20try&law=22.4
(i) A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts. The defending team may charge the conversion kick after a penalty try.

OB..
24-01-16, 16:01
I have seen this myth shot down many times, but it still keeps coming back. Why? The specific point only entered the laws in the 2000 re-write, and is in Law 22 rather than Law 9. People seem to assume that because you cannot charge a PK, that must also apply to the conversion of a PT.

I sincerely hope it was not an adviser/assessor/match observer getting it wrong..

Not Kurt Weaver
24-01-16, 16:01
Another thing that may have happened here. Did the offending team have all 15 on the goalline?

That is, were there any of non-scoring team waiting at halfway or elsewhere.

Quite often we say this prevents a charge, but it may also be myth or not directly covered by law.

BTW this happens quite often with unfit players at the level I ref, I disallow charge to expedite. I guess ,by law, if the kick is not good, we should allow another attempt on a charge.

Pegleg
24-01-16, 18:01
Why are you blaming an assessor? The original post mentioned a coach or mentor.:hap:
Anyway we are called Match Observers nowadays. (Even that is likely to change.)

The OP mentions "his assessor/mentor/coach." Please attribute accurately. What every you want to call him he was wrong! The role is clearly indicated as the role of an assessor / adviser in these parts.

Taff
24-01-16, 21:01
The "assessor / mentor / coach" was wrong, but if it helps, I think I know where the myth comes from. I'll put 10 on it, that it's 9.B.4

If the opponents balls up the charge and the kicker misses, eg they charge too soon like Ireland did against the All Blacks, the conversion is retaken but the opponents cannot charge the 2nd time.

9.B.4
If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker may take another kick and the opposing team is not allowed to charge.

Dixie
25-01-16, 16:01
The "assessor / mentor / coach" was wrong, but if it helps, I think I know where the myth comes from. I'll put 10 on it, that it's 9.B.4

If the opponents balls up the charge and the kicker misses, eg they charge too soon like Ireland did against the All Blacks, the conversion is retaken but the opponents cannot charge the 2nd time.

9.B.4
If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker may take another kick and the opposing team is not allowed to charge. Taff beat me to it. This is my view as well

Dickie E
25-01-16, 20:01
Another thing that may have happened here. Did the offending team have all 15 on the goalline?

That is, were there any of non-scoring team waiting at halfway or elsewhere.

Quite often we say this prevents a charge, but it may also be myth or not directly covered by law.

BTW this happens quite often with unfit players at the level I ref, I disallow charge to expedite. I guess ,by law, if the kick is not good, we should allow another attempt on a charge.

I've never heard of this nor seen it happen.

IMO if you've got big fat wheezers on halway then the gazelles can still charge as long as they commence from their goal line.

Rushforth
25-01-16, 20:01
9.B.4 The opposing team
(a)
All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal line and must not overstep that line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions.

Sanction: (a)-(c) If the opposing team infringes but the kick is successful, the goal stands.

If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker may take another kick and the opposing team is not allowed to charge.

Not Kurt Weaver
25-01-16, 20:01
I've never heard of this nor seen it happen.

IMO if you've got big fat wheezers on halway then the gazelles can still charge as long as they commence from their goal line.

By law the wheezers are wrong.

Rushforth printed the applicable law. Kinda the chicken/egg first thing.

Camquin
25-01-16, 21:01
The wheezers are indeed wrong, but are they material?

Frankly, if a gazelle like winger has run in 80 metres, I am not holding up the game while a fat prop crawls back behind the dead ball line and then have to wait until they get back to half way before their sides kicker takes the restart. I am happy for them to be out of the way.

Not Kurt Weaver
25-01-16, 23:01
The wheezers are indeed wrong, but are they material?

Frankly, if a gazelle like winger has run in 80 metres, I am not holding up the game while a fat prop crawls back behind the dead ball line and then have to wait until they get back to half way before their sides kicker takes the restart. I am happy for them to be out of the way.

No not material, just fat.

The counter to that argument is for non scoring team to never retire to goali-line , just the fullback to charge the kick or quickly collect ball for a well rested pack and KO. Why retire at all?

where do you draw line for materiality? how many players? when do we apply law?

I suggest disallow charge in such situation

SimonSmith
26-01-16, 00:01
An Assessor told me that the retreat back to the goal line was part of the punishment for shipping the score.

YMMV

Dickie E
26-01-16, 01:01
The wheezers are indeed wrong, but are they material?

Frankly, if a gazelle like winger has run in 80 metres, I am not holding up the game while a fat prop crawls back behind the dead ball line and then have to wait until they get back to half way before their sides kicker takes the restart. I am happy for them to be out of the way.

NKW is not suggesting holding up the game, just preventing any charge.

I've not thought or heard of this before. There seems to be some basis in law but I am generally not an advocate of "if player A doesn't comply then I'll punish player B". Anyone else do this?

FlipFlop
26-01-16, 10:01
If the trip back to the line, and then back to the half is too much for you, then by staying at the half means you get extra recovery time. So you benefit by not complying with the law.

So at the lower levels where this is more common, I will allow them to do that, but not allow the charge (under equity, not law, less pressure on kicker, but fatties get to rest more). Higher levels, I want the teams behind the posts.

crossref
26-01-16, 10:01
I'd be wary of this approach - if you disallow the charge as a penalty for not retiring, then you have effectively given them options (retire and charge or don't retire and don't charge) and in doing so given them permission not to retire.

They may well decide its a great bargain - give up the right to charge (a virtually pointless activity anyway) and they can gather on the half way line planning a rapid restart.

Pegleg
26-01-16, 10:01
I'd be wary of this approach - if you disallow the charge as a penalty for not retiring, then you have effectively given them options (retire and charge or don't retire and don't charge) and in doing so given them permission not to retire.

They may well decide its a great bargain - give up the right to charge (a virtually pointless activity anyway) and they can gather on the half way line planning a rapid restart.

If they don't retire then they don't get the chance to take an quick restart. It's about game management. They should (MUST) go behind the goal line 9.4 (b) if they don't then they lose the rights that compliand gives them. So no charge and no quick restart.

crossref
26-01-16, 11:01
that's not really my point.
if you offer them the choice -- "if you are not all behind the line, you don't get to charge, and I'll slow you down at the restart" they may well say "That's fine, in that case we'll all 15 of of us rest at the centre line then -- and no problem waiting for you to give the nod on the restart"

and now you have all the team middle while the conversion is taking place, which looks all wrong, and you're possibly wishing you hadn't offered them the choice, and just made them get behind the line like they are supposed to.

Pegleg
26-01-16, 11:01
that's not really my point.

Is it not?



They may well decide its a great bargain - give up the right to charge (a virtually pointless activity anyway) and they can gather on the half way line planning a rapid restart.

The point is you manage the game. A player left behind waiting for a normal restart is really not a problem unless you are a jobsworth. a team trying to sneak a quick restart with no one back in the other half is a problem.

Are you really telling me that at "no side" you'd make a player trudge 100 yards back to stand behind the posts following a break away try? Use common sense. Don't let their non-complience lead to an advantage for them. If you like adopt the principle of "material effect".

crossref
26-01-16, 11:01
you are missing my point. What I don't agree with is this made-up sanction of not-charging.

no, of course it's not necessary for every single knackered player trudge back 100m after a break away try. It's not important.

But what I wouldn't do, if one or two are missing, is impose a completely made-up sanction on the team, and tell them they can't charge.

I mean WTF! If you think the missing trudgers are important, then make them hurry up, and make everyone else wait. If they are not important then just ignore them. You can't start making up alternative sanctions of your own.

And illustrating the danger of made-up punishments (over and above just being dreadful thing in itself), you punishment invites all the other 13 players to also not bother next time. They simply might prefer not to.

Pegleg
26-01-16, 12:01
So instead you slow the game down? They have to get back if the don't comply as a team the team is sanctioned. A little common sense is required here

The correct sanction is:


Sanction: (a)-(c) If the opposing team infringes but the kick is successful, the goal stands.

If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker may take another kick and the opposing team is not allowed to charge.

So why not cut to the chase? You way we allow the kick and if he misses we go through the process again. Why waste time? Let's apply the laws with common sense.

crossref
26-01-16, 12:01
if there are a couple of trudgers I reckon the sensible ref has a few choices

1 - ignore them completely as not material and the kick stands/fails
2 - manage everyone to ensure - one way or another - they are behind the line before the kick is taken
3 - as you say above, you allow the kick and if it misses, follow the letter of the Law, and give the kicker a second chance

In different circumstances I have done both (1) and (2).
I wouldn't completely rule out (3), never say never, perhaps there are scenarios where that's the right method, but can't really think of one and that's my least favoured option.

I DON'T think there is a 4th option : allow the trudgers to remain where they are and make up your own special sanction that's not in the Law book 'in that case, boys, if those two are going to carry on trudging, I am going to say : no charging' . I just don't think you can do that. What will you do if the captian looks you in the eye and charges anyway? YC him?
you are putting yourself in a tricky situation when you make up Laws.

Pegleg
26-01-16, 12:01
Make it clear to him that if he charges you will allow a retake. Or he gets his team complient. His call.

crossref
26-01-16, 12:01
Make it clear to him that if he charges you will allow a retake. Or he gets his team complient. His call.

so let's say he say 'fine, we won't charge' and they don't charge; the kicker misses and his captain cannily demands to re-take the kick as the opponents weren't behind the line and weren't compliant. So he's entitled to re-take as per the Law you just quoted.

what are you going to do now?
- you can hardly say it wasn't material, as a moment ago you made clear that it WAS material
- the fact that you offered a no-charging deal to the oppo is neither here nor there, that's not in the Laws, the kicking captain doesn't want to hear anything about that.


as soon as you make up Laws you set off down a path where there is nothing but trouble.

didds
26-01-16, 13:01
I've not thought or heard of this before. There seems to be some basis in law but I am generally not an advocate of "if player A doesn't comply then I'll punish player B". Anyone else do this?

We quite often read here of referees that suggest carding the captain for his players' misdemeanours?

didds

didds
26-01-16, 13:01
So instead you slow the game down?

Stop the clock and restart it at KO?

didds

SimonSmith
26-01-16, 14:01
you are missing my point. What I don't agree with is this made-up sanction of not-charging.

no, of course it's not necessary for every single knackered player trudge back 100m after a break away try. It's not important.

But what I wouldn't do, if one or two are missing, is impose a completely made-up sanction on the team, and tell them they can't charge.

I mean WTF! If you think the missing trudgers are important, then make them hurry up, and make everyone else wait. If they are not important then just ignore them. You can't start making up alternative sanctions of your own.

And illustrating the danger of made-up punishments (over and above just being dreadful thing in itself), you punishment invites all the other 13 players to also not bother next time. They simply might prefer not to.

[my bold] As soon as you allow them to not go to the goal line, you're in the territory of MSU. Once you allow that, then the 'no charge' idea has equal validity. The principle is the same, and I'm not sure that the degree of difference is all that big.

crossref
26-01-16, 14:01
[my bold] As soon as you allow them to not go to the goal line, you're in the territory of MSU. Once you allow that, then the 'no charge' idea has equal validity. The principle is the same, and I'm not sure that the degree of difference is all that big.

no, if you ignore a couple of trudgers you are in the territory of not material, which is different.

if you think it is material, and it may well be, then get them all behind the goal line.
But don't offer them a deal : "those two can stay up field as long as the rest of you don't charge"

ChrisR
26-01-16, 15:01
Personally I'd advocate a law change to require players from the scored upon side to move either to the goal line or the 10m line. Players on the goal line may charge the kick. This would facilitate restarts.

Taff
26-01-16, 22:01
.... of course it's not necessary for every single knackered player trudge back 100m after a break away try. It's not important.
They don't have to be "knackered". I had a conversion last weekend, where there were 2 injured players being treated nearby - but not close enough to be material. The kicker wasn't bothered by them, so if he's happy, I'm happy. One of the injured players had a mate with him, so that made a total of 3 players well in front of the goal line.

Some of the players behind the goal line charged; the ones in front either couldn't ... or had enough common sense to not even try.

Simon Thomas
27-01-16, 13:01
An Assessor told me that the retreat back to the goal line was part of the punishment for shipping the score.

YMMV

which side of the Atlantic was he from ?

bit harsh.....yes at 1st XV league match levels behind the posts please, but in more social levels of rugby mange it - we are there to help the players get enjoyment from the match.

Taff
27-01-16, 18:01
which side of the Atlantic was he from? bit harsh.....yes at 1st XV league match levels behind the posts please, but in more social levels of rugby mange it - we are there to help the players get enjoyment from the match.
Exactly. There's no point being too fussy about it. It's not really important is it?