PDA

View Full Version : Never seen this...did not know what to call!



jboulet4648
09-10-05, 20:10
PC is awarded a penalty kick. They opt to go for posts. A few URI players are in try zone. PC kicker kicks and kicks wide left. URI player catches it, bobbles it, and it goes off his hands, over his head (yes Backwards) and out the back of the touch in goal line.......

I awarded a 5M scrum to kicking side, thinking that if URI player caught it and touched it down it would be 22 Drop. If he bobbled it forward it would be a knock, 5M scrum to opposition, so I took this as I would the latter...

Simon Griffiths
09-10-05, 20:10
The Laws reference only to which team causes the ball to go into in-goal - not who actually touches it last.

As such, the ball was kicked by PC and crosses the try-line (wide) and is then fumbled so as it goes dead. Decision, PC played the ball to go into in-goal - 22m drop-out.

Did anyone question the decision though? See my signature - courtesy of Ed Morrison.

jboulet4648
09-10-05, 20:10
No one questioned it.......they all figured, I assume, that since it went off their player out the back, it would be scrum to kicking team.

This is just one of those where you never see it, and needing to make a quick call, and not stand there and ponder, I awarded a scrum.

ExHookah
09-10-05, 20:10
Sounds like a fair decision. Technically the laws might indicate a 22, but a scrum seems to feel more approapriate in a situation like that.

madref
09-10-05, 20:10
Hi

22 drop out it is all to do who took the ball in goal.

David

Attacking side 22 , defending side 5m scrum

ExHookah
09-10-05, 21:10
Hi

22 drop out it is all to do who took the ball in goal.

David

Attacking side 22 , defending side 5m scrum

I think Judah knows this (should do, the man is on the B panel now! ;) ), but was making the point that a scrum seemed more in the spirit of what had occurred.

madref
09-10-05, 21:10
Hi

I agree always give the benefit of the doubt to attacking team and encourage attacking rugby.

BUT if there was an assesor there and you do that your marks go down lol

Not knowing the law, on the RFU Elite touch judge exam which I took last year there are about 10 questions all about this and you need to get it right (so they told me!).

David

didds
09-10-05, 21:10
whyy?

the laws are quite categorical about it all.



didds

didds
09-10-05, 21:10
but why? He didn't knock it on, he knocked it backwards.

You wouldn;t award a scrum on halfway if the player dropped it backwards - would you?

didds

jboulet4648
09-10-05, 21:10
It was actually the dead ball line....doing three things at once earlier, realized I wrote it wrong....I know by law it should have been a 22, but it was one of those things where it happened , and I second guessed myself on it for some reason, because it bounced off the players hands backwards....

Robert Burns
10-10-05, 00:10
I would have gone with the scrum too, defending team had a chance to play it but ballsed it, their actions caused it to go touch in goal, not the kickers, 5m scrum attacking team put in.

Deeps
10-10-05, 01:10
You can have some really strange shennanigans going on backwards and forwards over the goal line. I recall an excellent U19 game last season where in one period of play the ball crossed the goal line 5 times until it was eventally made dead. In each case all one had to do was to remember which team was last responsible for the ball crossing from the field of play into the in goal area to determine the outcome. So even if chaos reigns, when the ball eventually goes dead without a try being scored you only need to remember which team was last responsible for the ball crossing the line to determine who benefits.

Deeps
10-10-05, 01:10
Borrowing the title of the thread, I had one of those moments last Saturday to question my own judgement, if only momentarily.

From a penalty kick an opposition defender made a fair catch within his 22 and called 'Mark' which I gave. Cry's of 'but it was a penalty kick ref!' followed immediately. Not only did at least half the kickers team complain but even the defender who caught it told me afterwards that he thought he was chancing his arm.

The strong body of very polite yet insistent query made me think for a moment before I dismissed the objections stating that it was a fair catch from an opposition kick and if the kicker couldn't make touch, well that was his problem. I even sought out a colleague watching another game close by on my way back to the changing rooms and he was not sure either.

I cannot find any reason why I should not have awarded the mark but am happy to be corrected?

OB..
10-10-05, 01:10
Law 18 specifically says that a Mark cannot be made from a kick-off. If the same were true from a penalty kick, it would need to say so. It doesn't.

Therefore you were perfectly correct.

("Not a lot of people know that" :) )

OB..
10-10-05, 01:10
Are you arguing that is the law? If so I disagree, and thus agree with what others have said.

It would, of course, be different if he had deliberately knocked it over the dead-ball line.

Number8
10-10-05, 03:10
PC is awarded a penalty kick. They opt to go for posts. A few URI players are in try zone. PC kicker kicks and kicks wide left. URI player catches it, bobbles it, and it goes off his hands, over his head (yes Backwards) and out the back of the touch in goal line.......

I awarded a 5M scrum to kicking side, thinking that if URI player caught it and touched it down it would be 22 Drop. If he bobbled it forward it would be a knock, 5M scrum to opposition, so I took this as I would the latter...

At first I thought this was simple: attacker put it in-goal, defender made it dead, 22m. But, something about throwing the ball off the pitch... Ah, 10.2c: "(c) Throwing into touch, etc. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead-ball line."

So, the defending player didn't _intentionally_ infringe Law 10; was there any infringement, then? If not, 22m drop. There is no justification for the 5m scrum.

I'll disagree heartily with Mr. Burns' idea that because the catcher executed the catch poorly, the kicker's team somehow deserves the advantage. That idea -- penalizing play that is inept but does not infringe -- seems like a very slippery slope, indeed. Further, the defender is entitled to make the ball dead by putting it in to touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line, just as they are allowed to make the ball dead by grounding it. What they are not allowed to do is throw the ball in to touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.

Robert Burns
10-10-05, 05:10
Don't worry, I had a lapse of concentration, happens on night shift, I was reading as he was outside the goal and knocked it over the dead ball line, not in goal and knocked it over the dead ball line.

I'll go back to work now!

madref
10-10-05, 15:10
Opps

Just re read this, it all depends where the catcher was when he caught it or tried to catch it.

If he was in the field of play 5m scrum attacking, if he was in goal 22

David

Ian_Cook
11-10-05, 02:10
it was one of those things where it happened , and I second guessed myself on it for some reason,

I know exactly the kind of thing you are talking about. There are a few things which go against the adage that "if it looks wrong it probably is". In my first season I was refereeing a match between two 2nd XV schoolboy teams (I think Xavier College & Linwood High School). One team was on attack, and their winger did a kick and chase, and there ensused a shoulder to shoulder race down the sideline for the ball, which went bouncing end over end in goal. The attacking player was on the outside, and he was coming up on the corner flag. He ran around the outside of the flag (into touch in goal) and dived on the ball with his feet still in touch. My ruling was touch in goal, 22 drop out. Nobody questioned my decision, but unknown to me, I was being assessed. And the assessor told me that I had made the wrong decision there and that I should have awarded a try. He said that it did not matter that the players feet were in touch because at no stage was he "holding" the ball and therefore was never in possession of the ball. It surprised me I can tell you, but it was right, because I checked it afterwards. Its Law 22(g) now although the actual law number was different then.