• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

retaken conversion

See @crossref - this is where I disagree, the Law isn't written that specifically. The kicker could be the person designated to take the kick. There is nothing to specify that it must be the same kicker. I understand that the phrase "the kicker" could also mean the original kicker, but it doesn't say one way or the other.

I agree clarification will be good though.
 
Arabcheif said:
See @crossref - this is where I disagree, the Law isn't written that specifically. The kicker could be the person designated to take the kick. There is nothing to specify that it must be the same kicker. I understand that the phrase "the kicker" could also mean the original kicker, but it doesn't say one way or the other.

I agree clarification will be good though.
Click to expand...

Agree. Law refers to "captain". Does that mean team can't change captain during the game?
 
[LAWS] Sanction: If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker retakes the conversion [/LAWS]

It's pretty clear what the Law says

If 'the kicker' meant the same thing as 'any kicker' (as you claim) then Rugby Australia wouldn't have to ask WR for a "clarification"

The Law as written isn't very equitable.

For all the reasons given above I agree it would be fairer to allow a change of kicker, hence the need for a "clarification" to make that possible.

I wouldn't fault Dickie for his on field decision. Faced with the same scenario I would not have known for certain what the Law Book said, so I would have made what seemed like the fairer / sensible call and let them change , as Dickie did.

Afterwards in the dressing room I would have consulted the Law Book and thought "oops" . As no doubt Dickie did !
 
Last edited:
So, as Dickie states above, the Law refers to "the captain" too. I take it you wouldn't allow a change of captain mid game? This isn't hypothetical situation, I have had my club captain nominate someone else as the match captain coz he'd "had enough of the refs sh*t." To be fair the ref was particularly rubbish and he was getting more and more exasperated. The ref missed 2 high tackles in the opening 60 seconds (one of which was on me).

Again while it doesn't say you're allowed to change kicker, it doesn't state you can't. That is what I'm guessing the clarification is being requested for.
 
crossref said:
Which Law are you talking about ?
Click to expand...


7.2.d - [FONT=fs_blakeregular]The offending team commits a second or subsequent infringement from which no advantage can be gained. The referee stops play and allows the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous sanction[/FONT]
 
crossref said:
[LAWS] Sanction: If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker retakes the conversion [/LAWS]
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear what the Law says[/quote]You are entitled to your view, but are not entitled to claim it is the only possible one.

If 'the kicker' meant the same thing as 'any kicker' (as you claim) then Rugby Australia wouldn't have to ask WR for a "clarification"
Click to expand...
The point has been raised that others might take the same view as you. Reason enough for a clarification.

If it turned out to be anything other than "the kicker does not have to be the same one", I would be very surprised (and puzzled).
 
Rich_NL said:
If it were clear, they wouldn't have to ask either.
Click to expand...

I think it's because the obvious meaning, the natural meaning (or surface meaning as OB called it) leads to an unwelcome result . Which is exactly why everyone wants to ignore it
 
crossref said:
I think it's because the obvious meaning, the natural meaning (or surface meaning as OB called it) leads to an unwelcome result . Which is exactly why everyone wants to ignore it
Click to expand...
= Use a more sensible reading.
 
crossref said:
I think it's because the obvious meaning, the natural meaning (or surface meaning as OB called it) leads to an unwelcome result . Which is exactly why everyone wants to ignore it
Click to expand...

No. Because as I, and others have cited and you have ignored: WR has made clear in law other places where they have specified that the same player must take a kick (Mark, for example). They have omitted so to do in this case.

The law is sufficiently ambiguous that a clarification would be welcome. But your dogmatic statements that "the law definitively says THIS" is frankly rude, tedious, and most of all, wrong.
 
SimonSmith said:
No. Because as I, and others have cited and you have ignored: WR has made clear in law other places where they have specified that the same player must take a kick (Mark, for example). They have omitted so to do in this case.

The law is sufficiently ambiguous that a clarification would be welcome. But your dogmatic statements that "the law definitively says THIS" is frankly rude, tedious, and most of all, wrong.
Click to expand...

Well perhaps we can both agree with OB that that is the 'surfacr meaning' of the text as written ?
 
crossref said:
Well perhaps we can both agree with OB that that is the 'surfacr meaning' of the text as written ?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have said "superficial". Context is always important.

Moreover we all know that some similar bits of law are widely ignored eg [LAWS]15.11 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.[/FONT][/LAWS]We all allow the scrum half to pick the ball out of the ruck.
 
OB.. said:
Perhaps I should have said "superficial". Context is always important.

Moreover we all know that some similar bits of law are widely ignored .
Click to expand...

If you are saying that this is a piece of Law that is (or should be) widely ignored , then I am in agreement.
 
crossref said:
If you are saying that this is a piece of Law that is (or should be) widely ignored , then I am in agreement.
Click to expand...

But why? The is quite clear, no-one is permitted to handle the ball in a ruck. It doesn't say except the Srum half, so why do we allow it? It's common sense. Otherwise we'd be blowing for scrums all over the place. As a Prop, I don't want that lol.

Similarly in this instance we'd in theory be enforcing/allowing something that's not specified in the Law. The Kicker means the same kicker to you, it means whoever is going to take the kick to a few of us. To us, the fact that it doesn't say the same kicker implies that a different kicker may take the kick. For you (@cr), you believe the fact it doesn't say a different kicker can take the kick implies that it must be the original kicker.

These are 2 interpretations of this Law. What if WR come back and just say, it's up to the individual ref? Granted that's not going to help and I'm hopeful that a more helpful reply of either "it's the same kicker" or "a different player can take the kick" will be forthcoming.
 
I hope that
1 they will say you can change
2 in the 2020 Law Book they will change the Law to say "the kick is retaken"
 
Marc Wakeham said:
Ok so I award a try and tell the player we have 28 seconds left. He promptly places the ball on the tee and proceedes to sit down. Checking how much of the 28 seconds is left at regular intervals, all whilst staying in a sitting position. You think that would be acceptable?
Click to expand...

The team could have no kicker show up at all, after the 30 seconds is up, you disallow the kick, check your watch, full time, peep peep peep.
 
OB.. said:
The difference in the semantics reflects a difference in attitude.
Click to expand...

I note that Rugby Australia said : we're not sure what answer WR would give to this, so we can't answer your question and will have to refer it to them

Rugby Australia didn't say "Only a pedantic, jobsworth grammar Nazi, one could interpret "the kicker" as meaning that it must be the same kicker"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top