PDA

View Full Version : Last minute penalty shenanigens!



Ovey
24-10-16, 11:10
Hi all, long time, no post for various reasons!

On saturday I had a L9 game, that was actually a good standard and could have been higher, however.....

Last minute (last kick of the game), score is 26-26, and red awarded a penalty half way inside the blue 22, about 6m in from the left touchline. Skipper chooses to kick at goal. Kicking tee brought on, blue all behind their own line, all going well.

A vocal Red 7 stands there saying to the kicker, "just dink it forward and I'll run on and pick it up, can we do that Sir?" I smile and his skipper tells him to shut up.

Kick is taken, but two inexperienced blue players attempt to charge the kick (which misses). I call for a re-take due to the charges and warn blue.

Vocal red 7 pipes up again, "can we change our mind and go for touch Sir?" Skipper pipes up and once again tells him to shut up and the kick is taken. Kick misses, final score 26-26.

My question is twofold:

1. Can the kicker "dink" the ball forwards and one of his (onside) players pick it up, despite the call of going for goal?

2. Could the retake have been changed to a different option, bearing in mind that the original decision was to kick at goal and it was an infringement during this choice that caused the kick to be retaken?

My take on 1 is that it's contrary to the spirit of the game but legal. As for 2, I don't know!

Cheers guys.

FlipFlop
24-10-16, 11:10
Q 1 - no. They must take a clear shot at goal. A credible one (as defined by you the referee).

Q 2 - yes. It is a new PK. I assume you advanced it 10m as well....

DocY
24-10-16, 11:10
1. Can the kicker "dink" the ball forwards and one of his (onside) players pick it up, despite the call of going for goal?

2. Could the retake have been changed to a different option, bearing in mind that the original decision was to kick at goal and it was an infringement during this choice that caused the kick to be retaken?

My take on 1 is that it's contrary to the spirit of the game but legal. As for 2, I don't know!

Cheers guys.

No and no, for me. I think they're both covered by 21.5 (b) - once the kicker's indicated his intention to kick at goal he must kick at goal and can't change his mind. I don't see the re-kick changing that, but in reality, I can't imagine it ever coming up.

I'm sure we can have a good argument about the appropriate sanction for 1!

DocY
24-10-16, 11:10
Q 2 - yes. It is a new PK. I assume you advanced it 10m as well....

Good point - my brain isn't working properly this morning! Second penalty for not back 10.

Ovey
24-10-16, 11:10
Thanks for the reply.

1. I felt that it wasn't in the spirit of the game to do so, but wasn't sure I was correct in law. My feeling" at the time was that it had to be a credible kick for goal. If it had have been that, but had fallen short and then gathered by the kickers team, play on, but anything less than a credible kick at goal would have been whistle and end of game for me. It wasn't an issue anyway, due to the skipper quashing any such move.

2. No, I didn't move it 10m, I only ordered the re-take. The kick was being taken from around half way between the 22 and the goal line, so I doubt the kicker would have wanted me to move the kick any further forward.

didds
24-10-16, 11:10
2nd PK is presumably a new PK so whatever they want I'd say

didds

beckett50
24-10-16, 12:10
2nd PK is presumably a new PK so whatever they want I'd say

didds

Interesting comment didds. My initial reaction was "No, it isn't", but then using a logical argument - which can be very dangerous when discussing or studying the LotG - an offence was committed; namely charging the PK which is forbidden in Law. So, I checked the good book and found this in Law 217

Sanction: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second penalty kick, 10 metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the goal line. Any player may take the kick. The kicker may change the type of kick and may choose to kick at goal. If the referee awards a second penalty kick, the second penalty kick is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the penalty.

That would seem to suggest that the non-offending could have elected to kick for touch and go for a catch and drive, or even a 'tap and go'.

Ovey
24-10-16, 12:10
Good point! I think I was thinking of it as a "retake" of the original, as opposed to a second penalty (which it is). So the skipper would have been within his rights to change the type of kick as he's not actually "changing" it, merely stating for the first time what kick he wishes to use for the second penalty.

As I say, neither of these had any impact on the outcome, but interesting points of view, and a learning experience nonetheless.

didds
24-10-16, 12:10
in most normal circumstances it tends to be a PK that is just out of kicking range, but due to some stupidity on the oppo ends up being marched forward 10m... and within kicking range. so the kicking side would otherwise lose an opportunity .

didds

chbg
24-10-16, 13:10
Bearing in mind that the defenders being behind the goal-line possibly led them to equate it to a conversion kick, due to brain fade at the end of 80 minutes, could you have managed it better by stopping the kicker in mid-run, reminding the defenders and re-setting the PK? I suspect that the defenders would not have charged/moved if they had been in front of the goal-line.

But anyway it didn't seem to have made a difference, unless Red would have taken the 'further penalty' 10m forward as a scrum.

Ovey
24-10-16, 14:10
I honestly believe that was their thinking - I don't believe they maliciously intended to charge a PK, and some of their team were even shouting "you can't charge" as they did so. It wasn't particularly do-able to stop the kicker mid-run, as it was a short run up and time didn't let me brain work that quickly!

Good point on the further penalty though. I think the skipper was confident in his kicker getting the kick - despite missing the first "attempt".

Taff
24-10-16, 18:10
No, I didn't move it 10m, I only ordered the re-take. The kick was being taken from around half way between the 22 and the goal line, so I doubt the kicker would have wanted me to move the kick any further forward.
Don't forget that even if you move the Mark forward 10m, the kicking team can still take the kick either at the mark or on a line "directly behind the mark". Ie you can give them an extra 10m if they're entitled to it, but they don't have to take it if they don't want it.

tim White
25-10-16, 09:10
Q 1 - no. They must take a clear shot at goal. A credible one (as defined by you the referee).

Q 2 - yes. It is a new PK. I assume you advanced it 10m as well....

I had always assumed it was a 're-take' of the original kick (like early charge of a conversion)but 21.7 text in red seems to confirm your view.

Decorily
25-10-16, 11:10
Don't forget that even if you move the Mark forward 10m, the kicking team can still take the kick either at the mark or on a line "directly behind the mark". Ie you can give them an extra 10m if they're entitled to it, but they don't have to take it if they don't want it.

Correct of course....but also remember that the opposition must take the new mark ie 10 m back from it even if the kicker chooses not to.

crossref
25-10-16, 19:10
Good point! I think I was thinking of it as a "retake" of the original, as opposed to a second penalty (which it is). So the skipper would have been within his rights to change the type of kick as he's not actually "changing" it, merely stating for the first time what kick he wishes to use for the second penalty.

As I say, neither of these had any impact on the outcome, but interesting points of view, and a learning experience nonetheless.

well, you very well might have changed the outcome, as the second kick should have 10m closer, and then they might have got it

chbg
25-10-16, 22:10
well, you very well might have changed the outcome, as the second kick should have 10m closer, and then they might have got it

From a more acute angle?

Rushforth
25-10-16, 23:10
From a more acute angle?

https://www.geogebra.org/m/sjjS2SuP

ChrisR
25-10-16, 23:10
I thought it was just a re-kick, also, so I thought I'd check. Below is where the instructions for the non-kicking team are to be found.

21.5 Scoring a goal from a penalty kick
(c) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand
still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until
the ball is kicked.


However, there is no listed sanction if they fail to comply.

The sanction referenced in this thread is found two sections later:

21.7 What the opposing team must do at a penalty
(d) Interference. The opposing team must not do anything to delay the penalty kick or
obstruct the kicker. They must not intentionally take, throw or kick the ball out of reach of
the kicker or the kickerís team mates.
Sanction: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second penalty kick, 10
metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the
goal line. Any player may take the kick. The kicker may change the type of kick and may
choose to kick at goal. If the referee awards a second penalty kick, the second penalty kick is
not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the penalty.


Nowhere in 22.7 does it address a PK at goal. The Law writers strike out again.

DocY
26-10-16, 10:10
Nowhere in 22.7 does it address a PK at goal. The Law writers strike out again.

It's just the plain old not back 10 - nothing specific to kicking at goal, but the same law as applies however the penalty is taken.

tim White
26-10-16, 10:10
I think we have to read Charging or arms raised or shouting as an attempt to obstruct the kicker; therefore new PK +10m. But I am not 100% happy with this.
A re-take seems most equitable but I am not 100% happy with this either-just putting off the kicker once might have a detrimental effect on his second kick. :shrug:

chbg
26-10-16, 10:10
Nowhere in 22.7 does it address a PK at goal. The Law writers strike out again.

In fact nowhere in Law 22 does it address a PK at goal. Pot, kettle? :biggrin:

chbg
26-10-16, 10:10
21.5(e) If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands. A further penalty is not awarded for the infringement.

As well as 21.5c, we refer to 21.7 for "What the Opposing Team must do at a PK" to identify an infringement. The sanction is a second PK 10m in front of the mark. It is reasonable to assume that this is the further (=another) penalty addressed in 21.5. The alternative wording would be to "re-take the PK". Of course 'a further penalty' means an addition to the penalty count for the match (!) and allows further sanction should it be necessary.

OB..
26-10-16, 11:10
https://www.geogebra.org/m/sjjS2SuP
40 years ago, doing Maths 101 with the Open University, I had to tackle the conversion problem. No computer assistance in those days, so all equations were manipulated by hand.

FlipFlop
26-10-16, 11:10
got me thinking: Is the 2nd PK 10m forward, or is it at the place of the new infringement?

If charger comes from direction of posts, would you move it to where the charger was? Rather than just 10m forward? (personally I would just go 10m forward, but asking question)

crossref
26-10-16, 16:10
From a more acute angle?

which is a general problem with the laws, when PK are moved 10m, they should be moved 10m closer to the posts, rather than 10m forward.

DocY
26-10-16, 18:10
which is a general problem with the laws, when PK are moved 10m, they should be moved 10m closer to the posts, rather than 10m forward.

I don't know... You're four points down and you have a penalty 10m from touch and 15m from the goal line - I'd want that moving straight forward.

Maybe a choice of direction, but it'd be a bit cumbersome to manage. Not that I do it often but it's normally a quick whistle then run forward - all over in a few seconds.
Giving the captain a choice would slow the whole thing down, though that's probably not a problem in this case.