PDA

View Full Version : Penalty Kick Goes Wrong



Woolfie
10-11-07, 11:11
This occured last week in L6 game
Penalty shot for goal is horribly sliced & actually goes into touch.
Ref gave line-out to non kicking side.
Comments please

Davet
10-11-07, 12:11
the ref was absolutely correct. whilst it may be argued that kick to touch from the ground is illegal, this was clearly not an intentional kick to touch. However, since that is the case then the kicking side do not get the benefit of the throw, which relies on a kick to touch being deliberate.

Woolfie
10-11-07, 12:11
Thanks Davet, that was my first reaction but i have been unable to find the relevant law to cover this situation

OB..
10-11-07, 13:11
This is covered by IRB Ruling 2 of 2006, so the referee was correct in following it.

However it does not make much sense to me. The ruling quotes law 21.4 (d) as its justification for giving the throw-in to the defenders:
"Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch."

At the end of 21.4 is the sanction:
"Penalty: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the


kickerís team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team
throw in the ball."


The aim of 21.4 (d) is to stop people using up time by place kicking for touch, so the natural meaning is to apply this if the kick to touch is intentional. I suggest "for touch" implies the need for intent.


In this case the kicker did not intend the ball to go into touch but the IRB apparently did not consider it an infringement. So if we do not apply the sanction in 21.4, what law do we apply? The obvious one is Law 19.4 Exception:
"When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw in is taken by a player of the team that took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly into touch."


The kick has not ceased to be a penalty kick simply because it was inadvertently kicked into touch.


Is a puzzlement.

Emmet Murphy
10-11-07, 14:11
Didn't this come up on the SA Refs website a while back and Mark Lawrence (I think) said that he did not agree with that IRB ruling and would not therefore award a lineout but a scrum to the defending side? I'm not sure I agree with that approach but it clearly is a divisive issue.

Deeps
10-11-07, 19:11
When you think it through, it makes sense. Firstly, to award the throw in at the subsequent line out to the kicking team almost condones the kicker's ineptitude, he having previously declared for goal, or his skill at disguising his kick as ineptitude thus potentially having a better chance of at least 5 points.

One could take the view that it was an 'improperly taken kick' under 21.4, having been declared as an attempt at goal and award a scrum at the mark for the original kick to the non kicking team but that would be far too harsh and unfair a penalty for a sliced kick.

Awarding the throw in at the subsequent line out to the non kicking team allows for whatever territorial advantage has been gained from the penalty kick but does not reward the kicker's lack of skill by allowing a second advantage of the subsequent throw in as would otherwise have been given if the kick had been properly taken for touch in the first place.

OB..
10-11-07, 20:11
The situation that led to the IRB's Ruling was the ball bouncing off the post into touch. I would hardly classify that as ineptitude.

PeterH
10-11-07, 22:11
see http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4159

Deeps
10-11-07, 23:11
Is it not all about just having one bite at the cherry? You state what you intend when kicking a penalty at goal; it does not work, play on.

It's only a penalty kick and you blew it.

Ian_Cook
11-11-07, 08:11
Possibly a case of EQUITY (a lineout to the non-kicking side) coming in ahead of LAW (a scrum at the mark to the non-kicking side)

The referee might not have made a legal decision, but IMO he certainly made an equitable one!

OB..
11-11-07, 12:11
Equity? Because of an incompetent kicker, the offenders gets away with essentially no disadvantage after committing a penalty offence? I have also pointed out that in the case leading to the IRB Ruling, the kicker was unlucky, but certainly not incompetent.

I find it most INequitable.

Emmet Murphy
11-11-07, 13:11
Just on a sidenote here - if we were to go with the lineout - would there be a gain in ground? If so, it would seem slightly inconsistent with awarding the throw to the defending side.

chopper15
11-11-07, 16:11
Didn't this come up on the SA Refs website a while back and Mark Lawrence (I think) said that he did not agree with that IRB ruling and would not therefore award a lineout but a scrum to the defending side? I'm not sure I agree with that approach but it clearly is a divisive issue.



I think you're all a bit too sensitive on this issue, surely?

As law 21.4 (d) "Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch."

If slice considered an intentional ploy - YC, PK to opp.at mark.

If considered genuine - no YC, but PK still to opp. at mark as it is unlawful!

If the slice hadn't gone into touch play would've continued!

Can Mr Lawrence really ignore the IRB ruling? Isn't this a case for edit at next reprint?

David J.
11-11-07, 16:11
Equity? Because of an incompetent kicker, the offenders gets away with essentially no disadvantage after committing a penalty offence? I have also pointed out that in the case leading to the IRB Ruling, the kicker was unlucky, but certainly not incompetent.

I find it most INequitable.

The non-offending team were awarded a penalty. That is all the disadvantage allowed for in law (assuming offense is not YC/RC worthy). After the penalty is awarded, if the offending team does nothing else wrong, the responsibility is on the non-offending team to make use of it.

A SH who takes a tap and go at a penalty and immediately knocks it on, doesn't get any sympathy from me and neither does a kicker who slices into touch when trying for goal. The sanction provided for in law is a scrum at the mark.

beckett50
11-11-07, 16:11
Awarding the throw in at the subsequent line out to the non kicking team allows for whatever territorial advantage has been gained from the penalty kick but does not reward the kicker's lack of skill by allowing a second advantage of the subsequent throw in as would otherwise have been given if the kick had been properly taken for touch in the first place.

Deeps I agree that it makes sense to award the line out to the non kicking team. However, what I am uncomfortable with is this 'gain in ground' arguement.

The basis is that the Laws do not permit a place kick for touch, and in this instance the kicker has indicated a kick at goal, and so must take that option. What in effect has happened is that, by going into touch, an incorrect kick has been taken and so, under the LotG a scrum should be awarded to the non-offending team at the place of the mark. However, since a placed PK is permitted to go into touch I would argue that in this case the correct outcome is to award the lineout in line with the mark, with the non-offending team throwing in.

This way the kicker's incompetence isn't rewarded with the gain in ground.

I have a suspicion that this will rumble on, and many of us will come down on various sides of the fence until the iRB make a clarification.

Emmet Murphy
11-11-07, 17:11
The sanction provided for in law is a scrum at the mark.

That's only if the sliced kick was intentional; if it was unintentional then we should award a line-out to the defending side.


Deeps I agree that it makes sense to award the line out to the non kicking team. However, what I am uncomfortable with is this 'gain in ground' arguement.

I've just re-read that ruling and it states "The lineout ... may not be closer than 5 metres from the goalline" which suggests that the lineout should be in line with where the ball went into touch.

For me this is not consistent: the kick will almost certainly be outside the player's own 22 so to give a gain in ground on the throw can only be because he has taken a penalty but the throw is given to the defending side which implies that because it was a shot at goal the kick is not being treated as a normal penalty kick for touch.

However, I do also think it is important that we observe the laws / rulings etc and do not try to find reasons to impose our own personal opinions of what should / should not be allowed. On issues like this it may seem trivial because this is something that is not very likely to occur so the debate is largely a theoretical one. However, as has been pointed out in other threads, there are other issues - I'm thinking of "boots on bodies" / "rucking" / "stamping" - where many referees have blatantly ignored the very unambigious laws, rulings etc because it is not consistent with their own personal stance. If we begin to deviate from the laws on the smaller issues like this one then it is not possible to prevent the same from happening with the more important issues.

On this issue the ruling makes it very clear: when a player unintentionally kicks the ball into touch when attempting a kick at goal, the decision is a defending lineout in line with where the ball went into touch.

Ian_Cook
11-11-07, 18:11
OB

Do not lose sight of the fact that the original poster was talking about a LEVEL 6 match. Now I'm not 100% certain what that means in terms of NZ grades, but I'm guessing thats about the level of 4th or 5th grade (i.e. the 4th or 5th XV). At that level its not uncommon to see kickers completely miss the ball, like a golf "gin-shot", or top the ball and have it end up grubbering along the ground. It would be a very harsh world if we penalised players for their lack of skills at this level. The next thing you'll be telling us is you want to give a PK when a player knocks-on a sitter of a pass or has the ball slip out of his hands when throwing into the line-out. The Law does NOT allow for the competence or otherwise of the players. That falls fairly and squarely in the purview of the referee IMO.

Personally, had I been in the same position as that Level 6 ref, i.e. likely not familiar with this quite obscure part of the Laws, I probably would have awarded a free-kick to the non-kicking side 15m in from touch at the line of touch where the ball crossed the touchline, my reason being that an offence was not committed until the ball went into touch (as Chopper pointed out, if it hadn't gone into touch, play on). IMO a quite equitable solution. I seriously doubt at that level that any player on the park would complain about it either.

OB..
11-11-07, 19:11
Ian - Level 1 is Guinness Premiership, Level 2 is National 1, and so on down. Level 6 is therefore a good standard of play. The referee will be on some sort of regional panel.

Despite the IRB Ruling (or perhaps because of it) we have a wide variety of opinions being expressed. It is obviously a rare situation, so most players, referees, coaches will not be aware of the Ruling. They will simply go with what the referee decides on the day.

Sadly there is little option but to go with the current Ruling. The sooner the IRB re-visits this issue the better.

Ian_Cook
12-11-07, 02:11
OB

OK. So maybe it should be treated the same way as a knock-on or a forward pass, i.e.,

- if the referee deems it accidental, a scrum at the mark if there is no advantage to the non-offending side.

- if the referee deems it to be deliberate, a PK at the mark if there is no advantage to the non-offending side.

Also, whether the ball went into touch or not would be irrelevant, since it is the kick which has been taken incorrectly, not the "going into touch". Chopper's "play-on" scenario with the ball not going into touch should only apply if the non-kicking side gained advantage.

Dickie E
12-11-07, 05:11
OB

OK. So maybe it should be treated the same way as a knock-on or a forward pass, i.e.,

- if the referee deems it accidental, a scrum at the mark if there is no advantage to the non-offending side.

Also, whether the ball went into touch or not would be irrelevant, since it is the kick which has been taken incorrectly, not the "going into touch". Chopper's "play-on" scenario with the ball not going into touch should only apply if the non-kicking side gained advantage.

Ian,

are you saying that if the kicker 'accidentally' misses the shot at goal it should be a scrum or only if he misses it so badly that you think he deserves some sort of penance? :confused:

Ian_Cook
12-11-07, 08:11
I hear the sound of a can of worms being opened!

Judgment needs to be used here. Referees use their judgment constantly during a match;

- is that player offside?
- did the scrum collapse because of some infringement by a player?
- was the pass forward or lateral?
- did the player knock the ball on, or sideways?
- did the flanker unbind before or after the ball was out?
- was the tackle really late or was the tackler committed?
- was that an attempted intercept or a deliberate knock-on?

These are calls that referees make in all matches at all levels of the game. The more experienced they are, the better they should be at getting them right (one would hope!!!).

In this case where a kick at goal is so obviously off target, the only judgment required on the part of the referee is - was it deliberate or just poor skills? The obvious counter to that is how far does the kicker have to miss by before it becomes just a miss. I guess each referee will have to use their judgment, but I'll bet any of us will know when we see it!!!


PS:


Ian,

are you saying that if the kicker 'accidentally' misses the shot at goal it should be a scrum

I think this is close to what OB would like to see happen, a missed shot at goal result in a scrum at the mark.

OB..
12-11-07, 10:11
I hear the sound of a can of worms being opened!
More like angels tap-dancing on the head of a pin :D


I think this is close to what OB would like to see happen, a missed shot at goal result in a scrum at the mark.
Only if it is deliberate.

If the ball hits a post, it is obviously not deliberate, so I do not see why it should cease to count as a penalty kick. In which case a gain in ground is allowed and the kicking team throws in the ball.

For some impenetrable reason, the IRB sees it differently.

Fortunately, I have never seen it at all.

Emmet Murphy
12-11-07, 11:11
There was a separate IRB ruling about when a team do this intentionally - I think it was a player opts to kick at goal and then taps the ball several metres and an onside teammate picks it up and runs towards the line. They ruled that should result in a scrum and not a PK for intentionally offending although I don't see why myself as the vast majority of teams will know they can't do that so it is an intentional offence. A less clearcut scenario would be like what happened with Ulster and London Irish in last year's Heineken Cup - Humphries brings on the tee but says nothing to the ref and then they tap and go. I think in that scenario a scrum would be the correct outcome as most teams are unlikely to know that the arrival of a tee acts as a signal to kick at goal.

Davet
12-11-07, 12:11
Off the post in to touch-in-goal, or a complete miss into t-i-g, = 22m drop out, i.e. normal sanction. This seems to gel with the idea that off the post, or a complete miss, into touch should result in the normal sanction. ie a line out.

Question then is whose throw, and where.

The fact that a place kick to touch is not permitted would mean the scrum sanction is deliberate - in this case we assume it is inadvertent, but still we cannot allow it to have the same effect as a PK to touch. I would suggest that we treat it as any other kick to touch - and award the lineout to the side who did not last play the ball, and if out on the full - no gain in ground.

That seems to me to be the fairest solution.

Emmet Murphy
12-11-07, 13:11
I would suggest that we treat it as any other kick to touch - and award the lineout to the side who did not last play the ball, and if out on the full - no gain in ground.

That seems to me to be the fairest solution.

I fully agree that would be the fairest outcome and would also be the least complicated but it does appear that the IRB expect there to be a gain in ground on the throw-in: "The lineout ... may not be closer than 5 metres from the goalline". Am I interpreting that correctly? It is far from clear!

beckett50
12-11-07, 16:11
I "The lineout ... may not be closer than 5 metres from the goalline".

as is the case with ANY lineout:D

Davet
12-11-07, 23:11
"The lineout ... may not be closer than 5 metres from the goalline". Am I interpreting that correctly? It is far from clear!

What's not clear? No formed lineout may be closer than 5m from the goal-line.

If the line-out is brought back to in-line with where the kick was taken then it is going to comply perfectly with that ruling - it will NOT be closer than 5m to the goal-line.

Emmet Murphy
12-11-07, 23:11
What's not clear? No formed lineout may be closer than 5m from the goal-line.
Correct. So why mention it? Why tell us something that would apply to any lineout anyway? Why not say "and by the way it must be thrown in straight" or state any other aspect of the lineout law ... surely it would not get mentioned unless it was significant to this particular scenario? My point is that including it in their answer implies that the IRB intended the lineout should be in line with where the ball went out.

My reasoning is thus: the IRB have stipulated where the lineout should not take place (no closer than 5m from the goalline) but they have not explicitly said if there should be a gain in ground or if it should be in line with where the ball was kicked. I believe their intention was for there to be a gain in ground because in 99% of cases the ball will have been kicked from a greater distance than 5m. If the IRB intended for there to be no gain in ground mentioning the 5m would be utterly pointless for that reason. It would only make some sense to mention it if you were going to allow a gain in ground.

Does that rationale make sense? That is what I was asking earlier ... that is why it is not clear (for me at least!)

Davet
12-11-07, 23:11
Emmett - why make it complex? - don't over-interpret, take what is written at simple face value.

If that means that there is a repitition of a well known fact so what? - the Laws are full of such repetitions. Why look for some hidden meaning? This isn't an English Lit degree course.

Dixie
13-11-07, 09:11
Emmett - your thinking does indeed make sense, but I agree with Davet - the Lawmaker's doziness in repeating the obvious should not be confused with wisdom.

Emmet Murphy
13-11-07, 10:11
Emmett - your thinking does indeed make sense, but I agree with Davet - the Lawmaker's doziness in repeating the obvious should not be confused with wisdom.

Don't get me wrong - I am with Davet too ... it makes no sense whatsoever to allow a gain in ground! I wasn't sure if I was interpreting it correctly because of that and it looks like I wasn't - thanks for clearing it up guys.

chopper15
13-11-07, 12:11
SO!

Ref signals for penalty place kick at goal. Ball teed and kicked from 22 near touch. Ball travels diagonally across field bounces into touch,opposite corner.

If ball had,

a) fallen into FoP - Play On.
b) success or gone dead - Re-start.
c) into touch - ?

As this is not permitted by law, no form of advantage can be given irrespective of refs sympathies', or lack of, influencing their decisions.

Without having the necessary clarification from the IRB, a consensus, surely, should now be sought.

How about treating the ball as ' gone dead' and blow for a restart?

OB..
13-11-07, 12:11
SO!

Ref signals for penalty place kick at goal. Ball teed and kicked from 22 near touch. Ball travels diagonally across field bounces into touch,opposite corner.

If ball had,

a) fallen into FoP - Play On.
b) success or gone dead - Re-start.
c) into touch - ?

As this is not permitted by law, no form of advantage can be given irrespective of refs sympathies', or lack of, influencing their decisions.

IMHO the expression "place kick for touch" implies intent. So if the kick accidentally goes into touch, as it did when it bounced off the post in the case the IRB was considering, it is not illegal.

Deeps
13-11-07, 12:11
SO!

Ref signals for penalty place kick at goal. Ball teed and kicked from 22 near touch. Ball travels diagonally across field bounces into touch,opposite corner.

If ball had,

a) fallen into FoP - Play On.
b) success or gone dead - Re-start.
c) into touch - ?

As this is not permitted by law, no form of advantage can be given irrespective of refs sympathies', or lack of, influencing their decisions.

Without having the necessary clarification from the IRB, a consensus, surely, should now be sought.

How about treating the ball as ' gone dead' and blow for a restart?

As OB has pointed out already, the iRB ruling in this instance awards the resultant throw in at the line out, taken where the ball went into touch, to the non kicking side.

If, however, you judge that it was a deliberate placement for an attacking player to run on and score a try having indicated at goal, then you award a scrum to the non kicking side at the place where the kick was taken. Personally, I would wish to award a penalty kick against the kicking side for unsportsmanlike play but there we are.

Davet
13-11-07, 13:11
Chopper - the ball is treated as "gone dead", indeed that is exactly what it has done, and we do blow for a restart - in this case the restart method dictated by law is a line-out.

David J.
13-11-07, 15:11
And if the ball goes directly into touch, do we award the lineout where it crossed th eline or in line with the kick.

A kick in front of the 22 that goes directly into touch...awarded to the non-kicking side at the place where it crossed the line is a unique condition in current law. Just seems weird.

Despite the appearance of beating a dead horse, what was the law before this bit was added?

chopper15
13-11-07, 17:11
OB. The ball in my hypothetical goes diagonally across the FoP NOT off the post. That scenario causes no probs.

DavidJ. It's a penalty kick.

Davet. 22 drop-out restart as for over dead-ball line. I say this in the absence of any positive guidance sought from IRB . . . . It seems to be a lot fairer than other options . . . . IMHO, of course!!

OB..
13-11-07, 17:11
what was the law before this bit was added?
Which bit?

David J.
13-11-07, 17:11
Which bit?

Well I was thinking 21.4 (d) (and its sanction), but I guess the history of 19.1 (a) & (e) and 19.4 may also be enlightening.

Davet
14-11-07, 09:11
Chopper - we have rewasonable guidance from the iRB.

It's a line-out.

I would also suggest that since it is treated as a non-PK then all the relevant law is apllied - and if direct to touch then no gain in ground.

Ian_Cook
14-11-07, 11:11
......Humphries brings on the tee but says nothing to the ref and then they tap and go.


I saw something similar to that a few years back. Playing for Canterbury, Andrew Mehrtens deliberately gestured towards the posts when the referee had his back turned. The opposing players saw his gesture, and the nearest ones made the mistake of turning their back on him. You can guess the rest, and Mehrts kicked the conversion as well. The opposition were still protesting to the referee while they were walking back to half-way.

OB..
14-11-07, 11:11
We have a direction from the IRB, and we have to follow it, but I fail to see how it is reasonable.

IRB Ruling 2 of 2006 "If the penalty kick is for goal, then it is a lineout defending team to throw in. Law 21.4(d).
If the penalty kick is for touch, therefore no place kick, then it is a lineout attacking team to throw in."

Law 21.4 (d) Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop-kick for touch but must not place kick for touch.
[Ö]
Penalty: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kickerís
team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw-in the ball.

This to me makes it very clear that if the penalty kick is taken as a place kick for touch, the outcome should be a scrum to the other team.

Moreover in the case the IRB was considering, the ball bounced off a post, so clearly was not intended to go into touch.

Law 19.1 (e) When a player kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing area, the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.
Law 19.4 [Ö]When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw-in is taken by a player of the team that took the penalty kick.

That means the lineout is (normally) to the kicking team. If the lineout is to the opposition, then it can only be because the kick is no longer regarded as a penalty.

Law 21.4 (d) does not say that a penalty kick for goal stops being a penalty kick when it bounces off a post. Indeed I can find nothing in the laws to imply that unexpected view. It certainly needs spelling out rather than just being left as an inference.

chopper15
14-11-07, 14:11
Law 21.4 (d) does not say that a penalty kick for goal stops being a penalty kick when it bounces off a post. Indeed I can find nothing in the laws to imply that unexpected view. It certainly needs spelling out rather than just being left as an inference.




By whom?

OB..
14-11-07, 15:11
Well I was thinking 21.4 (d) (and its sanction), but I guess the history of 19.1 (a) & (e) and 19.4 may also be enlightening.
Law 19.1(a) & (e) ("the Australian Dispensation") became an ELV in 1968, and was made law in 1970. Originally it applied to Free Kicks as well, but that was dropped in 1992.

Law 21.4 (d) (no place kick to touch) appeared in its current form in 1988.

Law 19.4 (throw-in after penalty) arrived in 1992.

OB..
14-11-07, 15:11
By whom?
The IRB.

Dickie E
28-06-08, 22:06
This occured last week in L6 game
Penalty shot for goal is horribly sliced & actually goes into touch.
Ref gave line-out to non kicking side.
Comments please

happened to me yesterday. TJ was totally confused.

I trawled through the dusty recesses of my memory back to this thread and made the correct decision. :bday: :bday:

Discussing the event with my assessor in the bar afterwards I was even able to refer back to the IRB ruling (though not by number or date). Didn't matter, he was suitably impressed that I was even aware of IRB rulings.

Emmet Murphy
29-06-08, 23:06
Reading through this whole thread again one thing occured to me: what would we do if a kicker slips as he kicks for goal and the ball bobbles several metres forward ... technically he has kicked it, and so taken the PK, and those IRB rulings make it reasonably clear that the kicker should not be penalised if the referee feels his 'mistake' was unintentional. Would anyone play on and let the kicker's team take advantage of this? It would seem a tad harsh. I know that in football when a player takes a penalty, once he has taken it, he cannot touch the ball again until it has touched another player - are there any laws / rulings similar to this in rugby that I am unaware of?

OB..
30-06-08, 00:06
It used to be the case that the kicker could not immediately touch the ball again, but that obviously ruled out tap-kicks, so the law was changed.

Emmet Murphy
30-06-08, 15:06
Thanks OB - what would your advice be to do in that situation?

OB..
30-06-08, 15:06
Thanks OB - what would your advice be to do in that situation?
Let's assume it is indeed unintentional.

The opposition have probably been disadvantaged by standing further back because it is supposed to be a kick at goal. In the event it isn't, and I do not really see why a team should benefit from their own error.

Play scrum advantage to the opposition.

Toby Warren
30-06-08, 16:06
OB I agree that seems right to me, but how would you justify it under law?

OB..
30-06-08, 16:06
Lizban - the player has failed to kick at goal.

PaulDG
30-06-08, 16:06
Lizban - the player has failed to kick at goal.

Actually isn't this whole thing weird?

The Law says a place kick to touch should result in a scrum at the mark - but a deliberate place kick to touch is plainly deliberately offending which is a Penalty at the kick (and maybe a card) under Law 10.

Wert Twacky
30-06-08, 16:06
I've seen a deliberate place kick from a penalty kick at goal kicked for touch once and, fortunately, I was TJ at the time :wow:

The referee awarded a penalty to the opposition at the place of the penalty kick - the right decision I thought.

As for a YC - I would never think so - that's harsh.

As for a kicker slipping on his arse - it's a tough life! No second chance there!

Toby Warren
30-06-08, 17:06
Lizban - the player has failed to kick at goal.

Agree but why is the kicker who slips and it goes 10-15ft different to the kicker that goes for goal shanks it 10-15 ft wide of the post his own team chases and scores?

Playing Devil's advocate as I agree with your call just exploring the argument.

OB..
30-06-08, 17:06
Agree but why is the kicker who slips and it goes 10-15ft different to the kicker that goes for goal shanks it 10-15 ft wide of the post his own team chases and scores?
The bad kick is at least a kick at goal, and the opposition ought to be better placed than the attackers.

However I do remember Ian Hunter scoring a try against France when a penalty rebounded off the post. He simply caught it and charged over - France responded too slowly.

Toby Warren
30-06-08, 17:06
The bad kick is at least a kick at goal, and the opposition ought to be better placed than the attackers.

However I do remember Ian Hunter scoring a try against France when a penalty rebounded off the post. He simply caught it and charged over - France responded too slowly.


Sorry to keep on but why isn't the slip and rubbish kick not an attempt (albeit very poor attempt) at goal? Is it the degree of rubbishness that determines this!?

OB..
30-06-08, 20:06
Lizban - for me it is not a realistic attempt, and it puts the opposition at a disadvantage.

Emmet Murphy
30-06-08, 22:06
Thanks OB - I was thinking scrum to the non-kicking side myself. Glad we're in agreement :)

Jono
01-07-08, 23:07
Thanks OB - I was thinking scrum to the non-kicking side myself. Glad we're in agreement :)

Again equitable but not justified in law, technically should be play on. In realistic terms it is no different to an attempted kick dropping 20 yards short of the posts - play on providing the player to play the ball was onside.

OB..
02-07-08, 10:07
Again equitable but not justified in law, technically should be play on. In realistic terms it is no different to an attempted kick dropping 20 yards short of the posts - play on providing the player to play the ball was onside.
You are saying that both constitute a "kick at goal". The term is not defined, so we have to make up our own minds. I use equity to make the decision.

Jono
04-07-08, 22:07
It wasn't an intentional miss as so the kicker was technically attempting a kick at goal, we can't be expected to rule on incompetence otherwise at the lower levels you can forget half the law book - not advisable! We can use judgement within the law but still have to ref within the laws.

Dickie E
04-07-08, 22:07
I've see lots of teams gain a foutuitous advantage when one of their players does something incompetent. Such is life - play on.