PDA

View Full Version : Advancing mark and quick one from infringement at penalty



Greg Collins
15-11-07, 22:11
Blue vs Red.

a) Penalty awarded to Blue, Red mouth off, you march them back 10 and make the second mark. Can Blue take a quick one from the first mark?

b) Penalty awarded to Blue, Red player not 10m tackles Blue ball carrier who knocks on - no advantage, you move to spot 10m in front of first mark to make second mark. Can Blue take a quick one from the first mark?

Pablo
15-11-07, 22:11
Yes to both questions. A player can take a tap penalty as soon as you've made the mark (Law 21.7), and a penalty can be taken "at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark" (Law 21.2.a) - which, by definition, the first mark in scenario B should have been.

PaulDG
15-11-07, 23:11
Yes, but depending what's going on it may be better game management not to allow a quick penalty to be taken.

If things are getting heated, it's a likely flash point.

!! Just realised I didn't read the questions properly !!

NO, the non offending team can't take a quick penalty from the original mark as you have stopped play. They can't play on until you have made a new mark. (Which you can make as quickly as you like.)

OB..
16-11-07, 01:11
Presumably the idea of using the first mark is to try to get round the prohibition on not taking the second 10m penalty before you have made the mark.

I don't believe that is acceptable. The second penalty supersedes the first.

I say this because we all know that the prohibition was brought in to remove the confusion that surrounded the second penalty when taken quickly. If we allow this technique there will be further confusion since nobody will know quite where the second 10 metre line is.

Deeps
16-11-07, 01:11
A quick second or third penalty is not actually forbidden by Law and the myth should be dispelled (in the same way as 'Let him up'). It may be taken as soon as the referee makes the mark although it is custom and practice to walk the 10 metres and not to rush, that being the iRB's wish.

I don't think we are tough enough on this point of Law where one can virtually guarantee players will not only not retire but will actively obstruct/tackle for several iterations of quick tap penalties until you threaten the death penalty. I regard it in the professional foul category as this action gives the offenders time to re organise, albeit losing 10 metres ground in the process. I think that advancing a penalty/free kick 10 metres for actively obstructing a quick penalty attempt is probably insufficient. It is unsportsmanlike play as it immediately neutralises any surprise play from the offended team. In the case of a free kick perhaps it justifies being changed to a full penalty and for a penalty kick then perhaps a YC in addition to the extra 10 metres in both cases.

OB..
16-11-07, 02:11
I agree that teams should not in principle be allowed to benefit from a 10 metre offence.

What we are looking for is a balance between the confusion caused by taking it too quickly, and the opportunity to re-organise given to the defence.

A Free Kick cannot be converted into a full penalty. You have to treat it as a new offence, in which case you give it at the mark for the offence, not 10 metres on from the mark for the Free Kick.

Dickie E
16-11-07, 03:11
A Free Kick cannot be converted into a full penalty. You have to treat it as a new offence, in which case you give it at the mark for the offence, not 10 metres on from the mark for the Free Kick.

OB,

by this do you mean:

1. if Red weren't back 10 metres then a subsequent free kick is taken from the point where Red should have been which is a 10 metre advance, and
2. if Red mouthed off this would be a full penalty at the point where the mouthing off happened.