PDA

View Full Version : Where to restart after PK for shoulder tackle



Dixie
25-02-08, 11:02
S.14 - Chiefs (black) vs Warratahs (blue). Craig Joubert in the middle (I think!).

Black defender in own 22, under pressure, kicks for touch. Blue 5 committed to the tackle, hits kicker immediately after the ball is kicked - while the kicker is still in his kicking action. Blue 5 did not use his arms, and was penalised as such - both ref's mike and secondary signal confirm this was the reason for the PK (or perhaps it was a FK - ELVs).

The ref awarded the kick 15m in from where the ball went into touch, rather than where the challenge took place. Was this correct? It seems clear that if the tackler had wrapped the kicker, there would ahve been no PK for a late tackle.

OB..
25-02-08, 11:02
It's still a penalty kick for foul play.

Penalty at the spot of the foul IMHO, though I don't remember how far that was from the 15m line.

(Personally I think all PKs should be at least 15m in from touch.)

beckett50
25-02-08, 12:02
Its one of those double PK options

Late charge on the kicker so the non-offending team get the choice of kick at place of infringement or where the ball lands (unless it is within 15m of touch in which case its on the 15m line)

There was a thread on this a couple of weeks back but can't find it

dave_clark
25-02-08, 12:02
not if the penalty was for not wrapping rather than a late hit, which is what it sounds like...

Jacko
25-02-08, 12:02
But it wasn't late...

beckett50
25-02-08, 12:02
But it was foul play and is covered by the double PK option:D

OB..
25-02-08, 13:02
The penalty was awarded for a dangerous tackle under Law 10.4 (e). That is not a double penalty offence.

Even a double penalty does not get moved in to the 15m line.

Dixie
25-02-08, 17:02
The penalty was awarded for a dangerous tackle under Law 10.4 (e). That is not a double penalty offence.

Even a double penalty does not get moved in to the 15m line.
I think it does if the ball went out of play, as here. But in the current instance, I could see no justification for the double penalty. I agree with OB that the kick should have been where the challenge took place.

OB..
25-02-08, 17:02
Dixie - the penalty where the ball lands gets moved in if the ball goes directly into touch but not the penalty where the offence took place, which I think is the one we were discussing.

chopper15
25-02-08, 20:02
Eng v Fr. The ref didn't even signal advantage being played for the in-the-air tackle which we all probably witnessed but not the ref./TJs, apparently?

Does the law allow a degree of discretion for in-the-air and high tackles if the intent was there but the outcome was not considered in any way to be dangerous?

Or would a tackler's 'misjudgement' be a consideration to temper his decision?

KML1
25-02-08, 21:02
This cropped up a while back.

Late - 2 options
Dangerous only - 1 option.

Chopper - intent, as well you know, doesn't feature in the Good Book! Haven't seen that incident so can't picture it.

OB..
25-02-08, 21:02
Choper15 - give us a clue. What tackle are you referring to? Who? When?

We have talked at length about "in the air".

The IRB has recently made it clear that a high tackle is one that ends up above the shoulders, even if it started lower down.

The IRB has also distinguished between an intentional and what it curiosly calls a "reactionary" high tackle when dealing with the matter of carding a player when awards a penalty tyr.

However despite Law 10.4 (e), referees will still expect to be allowed to use their judgement. If the high tackle occurs because at the last second the ball-carrier ducks, it would be unfair to penalise the tackler (unless he reacted dangerously).

Deeps
25-02-08, 22:02
Eng v Fr. The ref didn't even signal advantage being played for the in-the-air tackle which we all probably witnessed but not the ref./TJs, apparently?

Does the law allow a degree of discretion for in-the-air and high tackles if the intent was there but the outcome was not considered in any way to be dangerous?

Or would a tackler's 'misjudgement' be a consideration to temper his decision?

Were the consequences of the tackle material to the subsequent play? In other words, was it really necessary to blow the whistle?

chopper15
26-02-08, 00:02
Didn't want to major on the 'high' tackle was more curious about 'in the air', sorry my fault.

'Fraid I've wiped the game and memory's not up to naming names, but it did happen and I thought everyone would've seen it, which prompted my query.

From memory, the French player was nearly down when his legs were taken away. At that point it didn't look dangerous but whose to say if it materially affected the game. But surely advantage, if, of course , the officals had seen it, should still have been signalled in the circumstances I've described?

Jacko
26-02-08, 02:02
Chopper - I know exactly the play you are talking about, and yes, the man was tackled in the air. I expected a penalty. None came, and advantage was not being played. (A try was scored from the next phase of play, but that isn't really relevant).
There is no law that states a player cannot be tackled in the air. There is just the law that states that noone can be tackled dangerously. For me, this tackle was not dangerous. The player was nearly down, and when tackled he fell on his side (not flipped on his head/neck). The ref had the game in his pocket, with no foul play up til then and I believe he was confident he could manage the situation. Indeed, several Ireland players raised their hands in appeal for a whistle, but none reacted angrily when it was not given. A quiet word was definitely in order at the next stoppage, and bravely reffed, but not a shocker...

Davet
26-02-08, 09:02
If itds the incident I recall then it was the slowmo that revealed that the player was in the air. In real time it looked marginal to me (and worth a closer look on slowmo... which we got) and the ref may well have felt that it was just Ok rather than being just not Ok.

OB..
26-02-08, 12:02
There is no law that states a player cannot be tackled in the air.
Part of Law 10.4 (e) "A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

There was a thread recently pointing out that this could not be taken too literally.