PDA

View Full Version : quick tap taken incorrectly ... twice



Dickie E
02-02-19, 00:02
I reffed a fairly high standard junior game yesterday.

I awarded a PK and player attempted a QT but ball didn't leave his hands. I brought him back to take it again and told him what he needed to. He took it again and again ball didn't leave his hands. I awarded scrum to opposition.

Was this the right thing to do?

Not Kurt Weaver
02-02-19, 02:02
Oh Gosh that is a good question nowadays 2019

It sure used to be a scrum on the first attempt that didn't leave hands, but I can find it now in law.

I dunno the answer

Rich_NL
02-02-19, 08:02
Used to be, and "nothing's changed"... right?

crossref
02-02-19, 09:02
If he taps the ball on his boot the PK hasn't been taken and the game hasn't restarted, so take it again
There is no scrum sanction

OB..
02-02-19, 11:02
Definitions: Kick: (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Kick)An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

20.11 The ball must be kicked a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark. Once the kick has been successfully taken the kicker may play the ball again.

Dickie E
02-02-19, 12:02
If he taps the ball on his boot the PK hasn't been taken and the game hasn't restarted, so take it again
There is no scrum sanction

so he can keep failing to take the kick properly until we pull out the all-purpose time wasting sanction?

OB..
02-02-19, 12:02
20.5 A penalty or free-kick must be taken without delay.

Taff
02-02-19, 12:02
I reffed a fairly high standard junior game yesterday.

I awarded a PK and player attempted a QT but ball didn't leave his hands. I brought him back to take it again and told him what he needed to. He took it again and again ball didn't leave his hands. I awarded scrum to opposition.

Was this the right thing to do?
For what it's worth, I would have done the same as you.

It would come across as a bit arsey to give a scrum at the first mistake (tone of the game, level of the game etc) but hell he's been given a second chance and he still managed to balls it up. :rolleyes: In a training game, perhaps I would have been tempted to show him what I meant, but yours was a "fairly high standard" game so he should know what to do.

L'irlandais
02-02-19, 12:02
I know the context is a junior game, but in (French) mini/midi/maxi rugby I would suggest to the player to place the ball on the ground, nudge it 10 cms off the spot (with his toe) and pick it back up. Though I suspect such coaching may be frowned upon at loftier levels of the game.

Agree with Taff, if most of the players have a good skills set, then once is a mistake, twice is a lack of practice on the training ground. You have probably done him a favour Dickie, in that he will now go away and learn to quickly tap correctly.

menace
02-02-19, 14:02
Definitions: Kick: (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Kick)An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

20.11 The ball must be kicked a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark. Once the kick has been successfully taken the kicker may play the ball again.

But what is the sanction?
As the current law book is silent on it...yet prior to rewrite it was clearly scrum over.

Now nobody seems to know so we have no consistency.

As already said..nothings changed...so I'm applying a scrum over. (And I apply it even first time from about u14/15s up (and accounting skill)..by then they should well know it's not league!)

crossref
02-02-19, 15:02
Guys , for 20.2 20.7 20.10. 20.11
There is no scrum sanction. The PK hasn't been taken yet, the game hasn't restarted yet. Take the PK

You can't carry on with this idea of choosing Laws from old Law Books !
Do you think when they train new referees on RFU courses they are issuing them with new and old Law Books ?

Rich_NL
02-02-19, 16:02
Do you honestly believe that and referee it, or are you playing up to make a rhetorical point about the mess that's been made of the law book? It's hard to convey tone in text.

If the latter, please bear in mind this forum may be read by inexperienced or unsure/confused referees looking for advice.

crossref
02-02-19, 16:02
Do you honestly believe that and referee it, or are you playing up to make a rhetorical point about the mess that's been made of the law book? It's hard to convey tone in text.

If the latter, please bear in mind this forum may be read by inexperienced or unsure/confused referees looking for advice.

I am not quite sure of your question - but yes I honestly believe that we should all ref to the 2019 Law book.

(I don't even see that as in any way controversial)

I think it the very last advice we should give to a new referee is to imply that he must get hold of, and learn, an old law book, and sometimes choose the Laws he finds there in preference to the Laws in the current one ...

menace
03-02-19, 06:02
I am not quite sure of your question - but yes I honestly believe that we should all ref to the 2019 Law book.

(I don't even see that as in any way controversial)

I think it the very last advice we should give to a new referee is to imply that he must get hold of, and learn, an old law book, and sometimes choose the Laws he finds there in preference to the Laws in the current one ...

Yes...but the officials had come out and officially said "no change in laws" from the rewrite. Yet the same officials f@cked it up and changed the meaning.
So if there was no change then existing referees (like me) had no incentive or reason to read the new law book cover to cover. Yet the new refs will. We now have major differences in understanding of the laws.

So with all due respect and nothing against you but Im listening to what official say and not what you think.

Until this thread I had no idea the incorrect PK tap wording had changed and so Im still awarding scrum over for it.....and will still do so this season (or until I have a proper official tell.me.otherwise ).

crossref
03-02-19, 09:02
you are never going to get that memo. "Dear Menace please apply the Laws in the Law Boook"

I guess you could ask an official "should I apply the Laws in the 2019 book, or should I use the 2017 one" but just writing that question down, it's clear what the answer will be.


Otherwise, how long do you plan to cleave to the 2017 Laws? Will you still be reffing to them in 2027 ?

Dickie E
03-02-19, 09:02
Yes...but the officials had come out and officially said "no change in laws"

which officials were these, then?

There is too much evidence that shows that there HAVE been changes (eg restart after unplayable maul following a penalty). Maybe your society should seek clarification/direction.

menace
03-02-19, 09:02
which officials were these, then?

There is too much evidence that shows that there HAVE been changes (eg restart after unplayable maul following a penalty). Maybe your society should seek clarification/direction.

These would be the WR officials from the official press release on 2/1/2018.
Simplified law book launched today

World Rugby’s ‘simplified law book’ launches today with the aim of enhancing accessibility and understanding without altering the laws themselves.
My highlight. So if there is no change why would anyone already understanding of the laws read the book cover to cover to look for any changes in the law??

Personally I tend to only read the law book when im unsure of a decision weird event...not generally for basic laws I know so well. Or if a clarification comes out or trials implemented.

Im not aware of any clarrifications regarding the issue we are discussing but if there is one please let me know.
Why would I seek clarification for laws that havent supposedly changed? What other laws have not changed, but changed that need clarification from my assoc?

"Dear assoc, please inform me of all the law changes from the rewite"
"WR and AU says theres no changes other that the trials - so which particular concerns".
"I dont know...but someone said the laws did change so I need to know what I have to do different?"
"We havent done a direct comparison and AU havent told us thwre was specific changes."
"#shrug"
.

crossref
03-02-19, 09:02
If it helps you could think of it this way ..
The rewrite eliminated some inconsistencies
In the old Law, oddly, taking a PK from wrong place was take it again, tapping it in your boot was a scrum

They eliminated that inconsistency

menace
03-02-19, 09:02
you are never going to get that memo. "Dear Menace please apply the Laws in the Law Boook"

I guess you could ask an official "should I apply the Laws in the 2019 book, or should I use the 2017 one" but just writing that question down, it's clear what the answer will be.


Otherwise, how long do you plan to cleave to the 2017 Laws? Will you still be reffing to them in 2027 ?

I never said I wanted a personal memo so the condescending response really not needed. I dont think I need to tell you...but clearly I do...that it's directions/information from my union or WR Id be taking notice.

Pity neither have got their sh!t together with regard to.tje contradictions the rewrite has created.

menace
03-02-19, 10:02
If it helps you could think of it this way ..
The rewrite eliminated some inconsistencies
In the old Law, oddly, taking a PK from wrong place was take it again, tapping it in your boot was a scrum

They eliminated that inconsistency

Pity they didnt say that and highlight the inconsistencies addressed/removed.

crossref
03-02-19, 10:02
Pity they didnt say that and highlight the inconsistencies addressed/removed.

Yes, that is exactly what I have been saying for a year now.
And that's why I constructed my table of differeces