PDA

View Full Version : Was it right?



Phil E
10-03-16, 10:03
Toulon get a last minute try and need the conversion to win.
It gets charged down, the ref goes to the TMO and says charge down was ok.
However, although the charge down was good and started when the kick began, there were players still in front of and walking back to the try line. The ref must have decided they were immaterial to the charge down.


Was the ref right in law?
Was he right in principle?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqOL_QQ4gRA

crossref
10-03-16, 11:03
great question -- it's a variation on the fast&unexpected restart and the fast&unexpected lineout questions that we discuss from time to time.

One complication here is that unlike the lineout and restart, the conversion kicker has a 90s clock running, if you were to require him to wait for everyone to be in position, you have to stop the clock if people are dawdling and deal with the dawdlers.

In this case I don't think the retiring players were material, and nor were they dawdling to waste time. Also he took the kick very quickly, he wasn't under any 90s pressure and could have waited a little if he wanted.

(and I don't think the kicker was complaining about them, I think he felt the charge was early (it was very close!))

so I think
1 - the Law doesn't really cover this
2 - in this case, right decision

good quesition

OB..
10-03-16, 11:03
Those retiring were not in the way of the kick, so I cannot see that they were material. I don't think the kicker was constrained by the 90s time limit, so he could have waited for them to retire. The kick was too low or taken too close to the posts. I would allow the charge down. Kicker at fault.

Dan_A
10-03-16, 11:03
I agree, kicker was at fault here.

Also, if the referee had allowed a re-take, and that became the norm, then surely every kicker would just rush to have a first go (e.g. take a dropkick?), knowing that if they take it before all the defenders have retired they get another bite at the cherry?

DocY
10-03-16, 12:03
No way the retiring players were material.

The only thing I'd be unhappy about if I were a Toulon player is was the left-hand charger (from the kicker's perspective, with the white boots) overstepped the line before he started charging?

ChrisR
10-03-16, 13:03
Charger has one foot in front of goal line. Enough to disallow the charge?

L'irlandais
10-03-16, 14:03
I don't know if the referee was correct in terms of the LoTG.
However it was the last kick of the game. The points would have won the game for his team. Why on earth did he not take his time about the kick and make sure it went over. The dadwlers can be forgiven for thinking that they were going to get back to the goal line in time for the kick, it's not Sevens!

That said had he attempted a drop goal, a la Sevens, the trajectory might have been too high for the charge down.
Allowing that a placekick trajectory = 40 degrees
Close range drop kick trajectory = 70 degrees
(Bio-mechanical experts refrain from criticism.)

Camquin
10-03-16, 15:03
Maurauder
Is is material? Yes he blocked the kick.
Was he over the line? Yes - as per earlier discussions on offside surely we want both feet in the in goal

So had I had that replay I would order a rekick.
Extremely tight, but - if you go to a replay it is because these things are tight.

Though I think the kicker could easily have gone back another 5 metres and got the ball over any potential charge, so morally the right decision.

RobLev
10-03-16, 15:03
Charger has one foot in front of goal line. Enough to disallow the charge?

My thought exactly; he was the charger that blocked the ball, too.

But: why kick from so close?

Waspsfan
10-03-16, 18:03
It's Toulouse not Toulon!

crossref
10-03-16, 19:03
it kind of shows the benefits of taking *every* kick exactly the same way - proper distance, proper pace, proper care and attention........ right result.

Not Kurt Weaver
10-03-16, 21:03
All posts are incorrect. The kick was not taken from correct line of where ball was touched down. Ref got it correct.

Had kick been taken from correct spot, kicker, by law, should have gotten a second kick for an improper charge on two infringements by non scoring team. Charging before all had retired and foot past goal line by chargers.

I have suggested this before to much critic, but do not allow charge until all players retire will prevent problems and will be IAWLofG. Retiring players are not material until their team mates charge. Then by law, they are material.

I will sit back and read how little I understand.

OB..
10-03-16, 22:03
The kick was not taken from correct line of where ball was touched down.How much latitude do you allow? Referees usually indicate the spot. Did he?

Charging before all had retiredI don't find anything saying that charging is conditional on all team mates having retired. If that were the case it would be to the advantage of the kicker to kick before then to get himself the chance of a second shot if the first one missed.
foot past goal line by chargers.How far into the pitch? Was any part of his foot still on the line?

(But then this was all just your little joke, n'est-ce pas?)

Phil E
10-03-16, 22:03
I will sit back and read how little I understand.

I don't think you need us for that.

Not Kurt Weaver
10-03-16, 22:03
How much latitude do you allow? Referees usually indicate the spot. Did he?
I don't find anything saying that charging is conditional on all team mates having retired. If that were the case it would be to the advantage of the kicker to kick before then to get himself the chance of a second shot if the first one missed. How far into the pitch? Was any part of his foot still on the line?

(But then this was all just your little joke, n'est-ce pas?)


Latitude ? None that is visible to naked eye. This try was scored behind rt side post, it was kicked from center.

Did ref indicate spot? No I do not believe he did. He may have indicated the spot incorrectly. Is there law or guidance that a ref must indicate spot? I always have, but I just did; TBH I don't know why.

The law pertaining starts will All players must retire..... goes further.......and may charge.....
I suggest the two in the same sentence are together and best managed together.

In your scenario with the clever kicker, the counter is simple; do not charge. The retiring player are only material if their team mates charge. Material because the criteria for changing has not been meet.

My suggestion is disallow the charge if any player has not retired, to include injured. If kick is missed then no second attempt. That IMO is management with LoG and also applies materiality.

- - - Updated - - -


How much latitude do you allow? Referees usually indicate the spot. Did he?
I don't find anything saying that charging is conditional on all team mates having retired. If that were the case it would be to the advantage of the kicker to kick before then to get himself the chance of a second shot if the first one missed. How far into the pitch? Was any part of his foot still on the line?

(But then this was all just your little joke, n'est-ce pas?)


Latitude ? None that is visible to naked eye. This try was scored behind rt side post, it was kicked from center.

Did ref indicate spot? No I do not believe he did. He may have indicated the spot incorrectly. Is there law or guidance that a ref must indicate spot? I always have, but I just did; TBH I don't know why.

The law pertaining starts will All players must retire..... goes further.......and may charge.....
I suggest the two in the same sentence are together and best managed together.

In your scenario with the clever kicker, the counter is simple; do not charge. The retiring player are only material if their team mates charge. Material because the criteria for changing has not been meet.

My suggestion is disallow the charge if any player has not retired, to include injured. If kick is missed then no second attempt. That IMO is management with LoG and also applies materiality.

Phil E
10-03-16, 22:03
Latitude ? None that is visible to naked eye.............That IMO is management with LoG and also applies materiality.

But shows absolutely zero empathy for the players or their game.

OB..
10-03-16, 22:03
Such a good joke that you had to play it twice?!

MrQeu
10-03-16, 23:03
I don't know if the referee was correct in terms of the LoTG.
However it was the last kick of the game. The points would have won the game for his team. Why on earth did he not take his time about the kick and make sure it went over. The dadwlers can be forgiven for thinking that they were going to get back to the goal line in time for the kick, it's not Sevens!

That said had he attempted a drop goal, a la Sevens, the trajectory might have been too high for the charge down.
Allowing that a placekick trajectory = 40 degrees
Close range drop kick trajectory = 70 degrees
(Bio-mechanical experts refrain from criticism.)

Get 5m further back and it's a fully safe kick: no charge and high enough. But hey, it's karma. Doussain's kick against MHR and Bézy against Brive account for both last second kicks missed by Beauxis l'année dernière :/

RobLev
10-03-16, 23:03
...How far into the pitch? Was any part of his foot still on the line?

...

Clear of the whitewash and no, respectively, in my view.

Not Kurt Weaver
10-03-16, 23:03
But shows absolutely zero empathy for the players or their game.

the latitude, i believe OB questioned, was the distance from the correct line of where the kick is taken. In this case, centered between posts and touched down behind post.

ChrisR
11-03-16, 00:03
Ran it again from YouTube, full screen and stop motion. Charge timed perfectly and charge down player may well have had heel on the line. I see no cause to disallow the charge down.

I don't know if the referee indicated in any way where the line for the kick but NKW has a valid point that it was not taken on the line from where the try was scored.

Rushforth
11-03-16, 01:03
heel on the line

So foot in the field of play, which would be a very good reason to disallow, in theory.

But apparently hookers are supposed to be reminded not to have their feet in the field of play 4 or more times nowadays, too.

ChrisR
11-03-16, 01:03
No. Any part of the foot on the line means the player is in goal. The whole foot must be in the field of play for the player to have "overstepped" the line into the FOP. Same for touch.

Camquin
11-03-16, 09:03
So at a tap penalty or 5m scrum, you would be happy with players taking up three point stance with one heel behind the goal line and onefoot and both hands in the field of play. I thought we had discussed that and decided we would not accept that.

L'irlandais
11-03-16, 09:03
The charge down player in the OP has overstepped the goal line before the kicker began his run up
. So it is NOT a question of one heel on the line amounts to being ingoal.
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.:shrug: still the kicker's choice to take the kick quickly and close in was what created the situation where a charge down was possible.

didds
11-03-16, 09:03
This approach is seen at rucks and mails though, wrt the offside line...

???

Didds

L'irlandais
11-03-16, 09:03
It's a conversion kick. The LOTG clearly say no player must overstep the goal line. Simple enough.
Is the player still ingoal, Yes. Does that mean he has complied with the Law, No.
Has he overstepped the goal line, Yes. Law 9 B 4

DocY
11-03-16, 10:03
Retiring players are not material until their team mates charge. Then by law, they are material.

I don't think that's quite right - something is material if it benefits the offending team. In this case, the retiring players had no effect, so were immaterial.

By law this was a contravention of 9.B.4(a), yes, but it's then up to the referee to decide if these players in front of the line had a material effect. He clearly thought they didn't.

Interestingly, there's no obvious sanction for the kick being taken from the wrong place.

crossref
11-03-16, 10:03
generally speaking : if players that have not retired are disturbing the concentration of the kicker is he entitled to wait for them to get behind the line before taking the kick?

If they are retiring very slowly - or are half way up the pitch having a drink and waiting for the restart - what happens to his 90s ? should he expect the referee to stop the clock while he waits ?

DocY
11-03-16, 10:03
generally speaking : if players that have not retired are disturbing the concentration of the kicker is he entitled to wait for them to get behind the line before taking the kick?

If they are retiring very slowly - or are half way up the pitch having a drink and waiting for the restart - what happens to his 90s ? should he expect the referee to stop the clock while he waits ?

For me, I'd treat the first the same way as early charging (assuming I agreed that they were disturbing his concentration). Players (usually front rows) having a rest on the half way line are par for the course in the games I generally referee and we just get on with it!

ChrisR
11-03-16, 13:03
So at a tap penalty or 5m scrum, you would be happy with players taking up three point stance with one heel behind the goal line and onefoot and both hands in the field of play. I thought we had discussed that and decided we would not accept that.

No. Here's the definition for "overstep'.

Oversteps: A player steps across a line with one or both feet; the line may be real (for example, goal-line) or imaginary (for example, offside line).

To me that means the entire foot beyond the line. So, heel on the line is not "overstepping".

Perhaps a picture would help.

L'irlandais
12-03-16, 07:03
In the OP there is a video. Freeze frame at 1minutes 13 seconds, you will see that the charging player has stepped across the goal line with one foot before the kicker has started his run up. The fact that the heel of his other foot is still on the line, is neither here nor there. He has clearly and obviously overstepped the goal line, by your definition of "overstepping". TMO didn't see it that way, but that's a different matter, the LotG are categoric in the case of charging a conversion.

ChrisR
12-03-16, 12:03
In the OP there is a video. Freeze frame at 1minutes 13 seconds, you will see that the charging player has stepped across the goal line with one foot before the kicker has started his run up. The fact that the heel of his other foot is still on the line, is neither here nor there. He has clearly and obviously overstepped the goal line, by your definition of "overstepping". TMO didn't see it that way, but that's a different matter, the LotG are categoric in the case of charging a conversion.

Clearly and obviously in a freeze frame? That's a bit of a stretch.

Camquin
12-03-16, 14:03
Unfortunately that seems to be the criteria we use once someone goes to the TMO for example for in touch on the way to scoring a try
Which makes it very different to all the other calls made on one viewing.


Question, if you are an AR, you will be calling offside at other breakdowns, so should you look for an early charges and call that?

Camquin

RobLev
12-03-16, 15:03
Clearly and obviously in a freeze frame? That's a bit of a stretch.

I called it on live viewing - the freeze frame confirms that impression.

crossref
12-03-16, 23:03
The whole point of the TMO is to call things that were not clear and obvious in real time