PDA

View Full Version : [Junior] Hooker standing in the FoP



DocY
07-03-16, 10:03
Hopefully a quick one:A situation came up at the weekend which got me thinking... At a lineout in the first half the throwing hooker stepped into the FoP as he threw. It was a pretty windy day and half the lineouts had been not straight, so I let it go and had a word at the next lineout.

Then about half way through the second half I caught him throwing in with both feet in the FoP, so I blew for a scrum/lineout option.

My question is: does anyone think there was a case for deliberate infringing here? I know the lineout laws specify deliberately not throwing in straight without mention of stepping into the FoP, but it got me wondering.

FWIW I was happy not to penalise him in this case - his team were 30 points down in a good-natured friendly - but just thinking about other similar situations.

crossref
07-03-16, 10:03
sounds good to me... do it again though and a PK the next time!

Ian_Cook
07-03-16, 10:03
sounds good to me... do it again though and a PK the next time!

I disagree.

This is NOT a PK or FK infringement. In fact, it is not even a sanctionable infringement at all.

19.6 HOW THE THROW-IN IS TAKEN
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step
into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it
travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches
or is touched by a player.

19.7 INCORRECT THROW-IN
(a) If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a
lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is
again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.

NOTE: There are NO specified sanctions for these Laws, and you can't just pull a PK out of thin air.

Dan_A
07-03-16, 10:03
No need to "pull a PK out of thin air"......

10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.

Sanction: Penalty kick

Ian_Cook
07-03-16, 10:03
No need to "pull a PK out of thin air"......

10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.

Sanction: Penalty kick

I repeat, an incorrect throw is ABSOLUTELY NOT a sanctionable infringement. The player who throws in incorrectly simply gives the throw in away to the opposition.


Law 19.7 instructs the referee how to deal with an incorrect throw and if he deviates from that, he is making a Law error.

DocY
07-03-16, 11:03
Thanks all!

Seems a bit of an oversight to me that one type of incorrect throw, which usually happens accidentally, can be a penalty, but another (likely more deliberate) incorrect throw in can't be.

Hey-ho. We all know the law book isn't perfect.

Ian_Cook
07-03-16, 12:03
Thanks all!

Seems a bit of an oversight to me that one type of incorrect throw, which usually happens accidentally, can be a penalty, but another (likely more deliberate) incorrect throw in can't be.

Hey-ho. We all know the law book isn't perfect.

Its not an oversight, its intentional. Its no different from some of the other clauses in Law 19.

Would you ever consider a PK against a player because he took a QTi from the wrong place, or tried to take one after the lineout formed, or tried to use the wrong ball, or tried to take it after it had been touched by another person?

There are also similar clauses in Law 13...

- Player not kicking the ball 10m
- 22DO not reaching 22M line
- Ball going directly into in-goal
- Player kicking the ball out on the full

None of these are infringements, and that last one is the perfect illustration of this. WR actually had to change the Law on this recently when teams, in certain circumstances (usually winning by seven points or less) were intentionally kicking the ball out at the restart after a try was scored close to half time or no side, and time had expired before the restart is taken. The correct action for kicking the ball directly into touch from a restart is to award a scrum, but if time has expired, the half or match would be over and the scrum would not be set. There is NO option in Laws 13.7, 13.8 or 13.9 for the referee to award a PK or FK for intentionally kicking the ball out, as kicking the ball out is not an infringement.

WR had to issue a clarification (which has been included the 2016 Laws) by adding two new clauses to Law 5: TIME

Law 5.7 OTHER TIME REGULATIONS

(g) A team scoring a try near the end of the match may take the conversion kick or not. Providing they decline to take the kick or take the kick within the time remaining, a restart will occur and the match will end at the next stoppage within Law. Time is taken from the strike on the ball.

(h) If there has been a score towards the end of the match and there is time for the restart kick to take place, but time will expire immediately after the kick, and the kicker:
• does not kick the ball ten metres
• kicks the ball directly into touch
• kicks the ball dead on or over the opponents touch-in-goal or dead ball line the referee will offer the non-offending team the options provided by Law 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 respectively and the match continues until the ball next becomes dead.

If you look at these two clauses in the 2016 Laws, you will see that they are highlighted in green. This indicates that it is a new/amended Law to this edition.

It is worth noting that WR have chosen to deal with the issue this way, rather than making intentionally kicking the ball out a sanctionable infringement. This is clearly inentional on their part.

DocY
07-03-16, 13:03
Its not an oversight, its intentional. Its no different from some of the other clauses in Law 19. Would you ever consider a PK against a player because he took a QTi from the wrong place, or tried to take one after the lineout formed, or tried to use the wrong ball, or tried to take it after it had been touched by another person?

No, I wouldn't consider a PK for those situations but that wasn't my point. I was meaning that it seems inconsistent to me that repeatedly or deliberately throwing not straight is deemed worth of a penalty, but other repeated or deliberate incorrect throws are not. Personally I have a bit of patience for a hooker who struggles to throw straight, particularly if the conditions are poor, as that's usually down to incompetence.

I accept your point that it isn't an infringement and agree that 10.3 doesn't apply (this is much clearer to me now than it was on Saturday) - I'm just surprised that 19.7(c) singles out not straights rather than covering all incorrect throws (or all incorrect throws at a lineout).

Pegleg
07-03-16, 15:03
I'm with Ian here it is not a PK offence. You could possibly take it as deliberate time wasting but you'd be pushed to sell that even if the side was winning let alone losing.

OB..
07-03-16, 15:03
The argument as to what constitutes an infringement seems to be predicated on it having a related "Sanction:" clause. If so, I am unconvinced..

The new Law 6 includes6.A.7 (b) (iv) Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred...Is there supposed to be a difference? Neither is defined.

The term "offence of foul play" is used in 6.A.8 (d), referring to breaches of law under Law 10, but Law 10 itself includes a paragraph on "repeated infringements".

See also 12.1 (a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.There is no "Sanction:" attached, but it is referred to as an infringement.

We have recently argued over22.13 If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, ...Again, no "Sanction:" appears.

"Sanction" is defined as The punitive action taken by the referee against an infringing player or team.Offering the opponents a choice of lineout or scrum seem to me to be a punitive action.

crossref
07-03-16, 15:03
in general terms, once you have told player not to do something, and he keeps doing it, you can't back down and I don't see where else you can go other than (at some stage) a PK and then a YC.

this is why you are careful about what you insist on.

In practice a hooker is going to keep his feet behind the line and it won't get to a PK

but for argument's sake - let's imagine he keeps on doing it .... why would a hooker deliberately put his feet over the line, having been warned once, and having given away a scrum/lineout option once or twice? why would he do it again and again?

presumably because he thinks the ref is a twat and he is picking a fight - winding you up by standing deliberately with his toe over the line --- -- whaddya going to do about it then, Sir ?

Ian_Cook
07-03-16, 19:03
in general terms, once you have told player not to do something, and he keeps doing it, you can't back down and I don't see where else you can go other than (at some stage) a PK and then a YC.

Or, you can do what the Law tells you to do.

For mine, if a player keeps wanting to give the throw in to the lineout away, then that is his problem


In practice a hooker is going to keep his feet behind the line and it won't get to a PK

I have yet to see a single lineout this season where the hooker doesn't have at least one foot on the line.

Camquin
07-03-16, 19:03
Toes on the line is fine - the line is not part of the field of play.
Toes across the line is problematical.

Of course with everything else a ref has to deal with, they may well decide this one is not material.
But in the few games I have refereed - all juniors - I have mentioned it at the first throw and been obeyed and it has not been an issue.

Stupid question, if there is not sanction can you play advantage, or must you offer the options.
For example if the ball slips from the hooker's grasp and does not go five metres but bounces into the non-throwing sides hands - can they play on?

crossref
08-03-16, 00:03
I have yet to see a single lineout this season where the hooker doesn't have at least one foot on the line.

it's OK not to mention it, if you don't think it's material. Once you have mentioned it you are committed to enforcing it...

OB..
08-03-16, 02:03
The law as everybody practices it seems to be "When the ball is released, the thrower must have both feet on the ground and in touch."

Dickie E
08-03-16, 04:03
The escalation process would seem a sensible way to go. After all, we use it in other situations. Sanction for early engage is FK until you've done it often enough to warrant a PK. And then cards after that if needed.

I'd be inclined to:

1st occurrence: (on the run) "mate, you need to have both feet outside FoP"
2nd occurrence: (peep) "mate, I told you already. Now take the throw again and do it proper-like"
3rd occurrence: (peep) "thrower infringement. Scrum or lineout?"
4th occurence: (peep) "now you're taking the pi5s. Penalty"

ianh5979
08-03-16, 09:03
watching top level games we would never have a lineout, all the hookers are in the field of play before they throw!!

didds
08-03-16, 10:03
The escalation process would seem a sensible way to go. After all, we use it in other situations. Sanction for early engage is FK until you've done it often enough to warrant a PK. And then cards after that if needed.

I'd be inclined to:

1st occurrence: (on the run) "mate, you need to have both feet outside FoP"
2nd occurrence: (peep) "mate, I told you already. Now take the throw again and do it proper-like"
3rd occurrence: (peep) "thrower infringement. Scrum or lineout?"
4th occurence: (peep) "now you're taking the pi5s. Penalty"


I'd agree - but depending on the age grade or level, that 1st ref/thrower interaction may not occur and you may well start at the second listed.

And TBH, as writ above, would be no higher than U14 and/or MAYBE 4th XV occasional type level. Anybody playing regularly (ie every week) even at 3rd XV level SHOULD/WOULD know what they are doing.

Much higher levels may probably even start at 3. They know what they are doing. And if they don't - they should. And that is probably as "low" as level 7 or even 8. (English levels used here)



didds

L'irlandais
08-03-16, 10:03
Or, you can do what the Law tells you to do.

For mine, if a player keeps wanting to give the throw in to the lineout away, then that is his problem



I have yet to see a single lineout this season where the hooker doesn't have at least one foot on the line.19.7 Incorrect throw-in
(a)
If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.
If as in the opening post, the hooker cannot throw straight, his team might prefer to concede the throw-in (for stepping onto the FoP) rather than a penalty for "not straight".

DocY
08-03-16, 11:03
If as in the opening post, the hooker cannot throw straight, his team might prefer to concede the throw-in (for stepping onto the FoP) rather than a penalty for "not straight".

That is sounding like a 10.4(m) to me! It further illustrates the inconsistency in 19.7(c) though.

TBH though, I've never penalised anyone (or even seen anyone penalised) for repeatedly throwing not straight and would the players really be confident enough in their knowledge of the laws to try such a ploy? And if they did know the laws that well, you'd expect them to be capable of throwing in straight!

Phil E
08-03-16, 11:03
Depending on the level of game.

First time. Peep, "lets take that again and this time don't stand in the field of play please".
Second time. Peep, "options? you have been warned once".
If he does it a third time "options, next time it's a PK".

If he does it a fourth time it's got to be deliberate, so PK for me. There has to be an escalation process if he is ignoring you.

DocY
08-03-16, 11:03
There has to be an escalation process if he is ignoring you.

Indeed, but it's not clear that it's allowed for in law.

Phil E
08-03-16, 11:03
Indeed, but it's not clear that it's allowed for in law.

It's very clear to me.

10.3 REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe ANY Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick

He has repeatedly infringed Law 19.6

DocY
08-03-16, 12:03
It's very clear to me.He has repeatedly infringed Law 19.6

I think the crux of it is whether you can infringe Law 19.6 - I found Ian's argument that you couldn't quite compelling, coupled with 19.7(c) which I'd think would be unnecessary if you could infringe 19.6 (though I appreciate this reasoning isn't necessarily very strong).

I do expect it was the law makers' intention that this should be penalisable (it definitely passes the "is the player being a dick?" test) and that they've just not made the law absolutely clear.

crossref
08-03-16, 12:03
in practice : the only time someone is going to repeatedly stand in the FoP, after been told not to several times is in order to test the authority of the ref -- the player is being a dick, no doubt because he thinks the referee is a being a twat... this is not going to end up with smiles and songs in the bar after.

OB..
08-03-16, 13:03
I think the crux of it is whether you can infringe Law 19.6 - I found Ian's argument that you couldn't quite compelling, coupled with 19.7(c) which I'd think would be unnecessary if you could infringe 19.6 (though I appreciate this reasoning isn't necessarily very strong).In my #10 I suggested the argument might be wrong.

Camquin
08-03-16, 19:03
didds
By that logic elite refs should never need to tell a front row how to pack down.

Ian_Cook
08-03-16, 20:03
The argument as to what constitutes an infringement seems to be predicated on it having a related "Sanction:" clause. If so, I am unconvinced..

The new Law 6 includes6.A.7 (b) (iv) Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred...Is there supposed to be a difference? Neither is defined.

The term "offence of foul play" is used in 6.A.8 (d), referring to breaches of law under Law 10, but Law 10 itself includes a paragraph on "repeated infringements".

See also 12.1 (a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.There is no "Sanction:" attached, but it is referred to as an infringement.

We have recently argued over22.13 If an attacking player commits an infringement in in-goal, for which the sanction is a scrum, for example, a knock-on, ...Again, no "Sanction:" appears.

"Sanction" is defined as The punitive action taken by the referee against an infringing player or team.Offering the opponents a choice of lineout or scrum seem to me to be a punitive action.

OB.. All the examples you quote state that they are an offence or infringement even if no formal sanction is listed,

However, 19.6 does not have a formal sanction, and nor does it say that an incorrect throw is an infringement. It merely outlines a course of action that the referee must take.

In a similar fashion, starting or restarting with a kick that is short or goes directly into touch is not an infringement. Would you start dishing out PK's if one team repeatedly does it?

How about repeatedly kicking the ball dead through in-goal? Its not an infringement, but it does have consequences, which can sometimes be quite punitive.

OB..
08-03-16, 22:03
OB.. All the examples you quote state that they are an offence or infringement even if no formal sanction is listed,

However, 19.6 does not have a formal sanction, and nor does it say that an incorrect throw is an infringement. It merely outlines a course of action that the referee must take. The knock-on is specifically referred to as an infringement.

In a similar fashion, starting or restarting with a kick that is short or goes directly into touch is not an infringement. Would you start dishing out PK's if one team repeatedly does it?

How about repeatedly kicking the ball dead through in-goal? Its not an infringement, but it does have consequences, which can sometimes be quite punitive.
If you are claiming that something contrary to law is only an infringement if "Sanction:" is specified, then I disagree. As far as I am concerned they are all infringements, because the player has done something contrary to law. As you know I don't usually trust arguments based on wording alone, but a knock-on is specifically referred to as an infringement - no magic word.

Some infringements are very unlikely to be intentional, so escalation to a PK would indeed be highly unusual.

talbazar
09-03-16, 04:03
Anyway, the discussion about either it's an infringement or not is IMHO irrelevant here.

The player has been told to do something by the referee... And that several times.
At one point of time (which seemed to be agreed to be the 4th in earlier posts) he starts to demonstrate an act contrary to good sportsmanship --> 10.4.(m) --> PK

crossref
09-03-16, 09:03
really, I think, this is a management question rather than a Law question --

A hooker doing this repeatedly has to be doing it to wind up the ref.

I wouldn't fault Ian for refusing to rise to the bait and simply giving options each time. I reckon the hooker's team-mates would tire of his antics pretty quickly and put a stop to it themselves. Sorted. Arguably this is even the best way to deal with it...

Ian_Cook
09-03-16, 11:03
really, I think, this is a management question rather than a Law question --

A hooker doing this repeatedly has to be doing it to wind up the ref.

I wouldn't fault Ian for refusing to rise to the bait and simply giving options each time. I reckon the hooker's team-mates would tire of his antics pretty quickly and put a stop to it themselves. Sorted. Arguably this is even the best way to deal with it...

You make a valid point. How long are his team-mates going to put up with him giving away set piece possession?

When I was still refereeing, I mostly followed the Teddy Roosevelt school of thought when it came to discipline... "Speak softly and carry a big stick!" If you can get a player to change his behaviour without wielding the big stick, everyone is better off.

Phil E
09-03-16, 12:03
I wouldn't fault Ian for refusing to rise to the bait and simply giving options each time. I reckon the hooker's team-mates would tire of his antics pretty quickly and put a stop to it themselves. Sorted. Arguably this is even the best way to deal with it...

There is an accepted escalation process for referees to stop this happening and to make sure teams are responsible for their actions.
I would suggest that any referee who just keeps giving options over and again would be marked down by an assessor for not dealing with the situation once and for all. A PK for repeat offending would almost certainly solve this instantly.

crossref
09-03-16, 13:03
yes, a PK is what I would do (as above). but seems to me Ian's approach would also work.