• 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

South Africa v Italy - Innovative or More Deliberate Cheating

B

BikingBud


Referees in England
Match kicks off.

Green 12 has already crossed the half way line and is therefore deliberately in front of the kicker.

Green 10 kicks it directly to Green 12 with no intention of making the required 10 metres.

SA commentators make no bones about it being to manufacture a scrum opportunity!

No mistake there, that is by choice! The Springboks wanting a scrum.
Click to expand...

Er no! First up how do commentators not know the Laws

Deliberate infringement is contrary to:

Unfair play​

9.7A player must not:

a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
Click to expand...

So penalty to Italy and either 3 points down or defending line out likely within 22

And then focusinng on a smug Erasmus who sees he's got away with another flaunting of the Laws, quite distasteful really. Is it bringing the game into disrepute, again?

Brace eventually pings SA for an engagement offence but could/should have gone to the penalty from the outset.
 
Have just posted in parallel so will kill that thread and reply here.

This is obviously a deliberate play by SA to get a scrum so they can dominate off the bat - for me this should have been a PK against SA for a deliberate infringement (9.7a).

Most comments have been that the ball didn’t go 10, but I think it’s key that the receiver was well ahead of the kicker when the ball was kicked to ensure it was a scrum (under 12.5 - teammates must be behind kicker) which is only a scrum and not just under 12.6 (not 10) at which point Italy could just go, “nope, they can retake the kick”. Clever reading of the laws, but cynical play and a deliberate play, so PK.

 
Even allowing for the animosity many have towards the Boks (not a dig at anyone on this board, just based on the comments out online), there seems to be a general consensus that this was a BS move that should be penalized which makes me wonder why it was deployed in a “friendly” match against a team that was so far away from threatening them based on rankings. (I doubt we’ll see this again at this level.)

If this was a serious strategic play, they’d keep it under wraps until it mattered so why now?

Just another poke at WR by Erasmus?
Or does he want WR & refs to look into this and clarify it should be a PK? I just can’t see what he’s trying to highlight or what loophole to close.
 
To say this has stirred up debate in my society’s group chat is an understatement.

IMO, at local level this is a scrum and a chat to the captain. At test level, this is trying to engineer a scrum to win the ball back via dominance.
 
BikingBud said:
Deliberate infringement is contrary to:
Click to expand...
9.7a does not have a sanction. Awarding a PK would be an overreach according to law. OB had a quote that would apply here. "The law is an arse"
If it were the case a sanction was listed in 9.7a, imagine how many deliberate offside calls could be made.
 
Not Kurt Weaver said:
9.7a does not have a sanction. Awarding a PK would be an overreach according to law. OB had a quote that would apply here. "The law is an arse"
If it were the case a sanction was listed in 9.7a, imagine how many deliberate offside calls could be made.
Click to expand...

Misconduct​

9.27A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship. Sanction: Penalty.
Click to expand...

Deliberately infringing the Law that is clearly listed under Unfair Play yes it doesn't have a marked sanction but I would suggest that anyone that considers this other than good sportsmanship needs to have a chat with themselves behind the stands.
 
Not Kurt Weaver said:
9.7a does not have a sanction. Awarding a PK would be an overreach according to law. OB had a quote that would apply here. "The law is an arse"
If it were the case a sanction was listed in 9.7a, imagine how many deliberate offside calls could be made.
Click to expand...
9.7 a is a "cover all" statement That is a player must not INTENTIONALLY Infringe ANY law of the game.

The law book then gives examples. I think is it logical to infer from 9.7 (in full ) that intentional infringing is a PK. Otherwise why is 9.7 there?
 
Though just checked and in the US we at least have the GMG to fall back on which has this called out explicitly:
IMG_0245.jpeg
Ok, so SA not under pressure (and a YC would be overkill for this at the open) but certainly makes it simple to sell a PK against them.
 
9.7 is badly written, but I always thought the penalty applies to 9.7a
As a spectator I would expect the ref to deal with such a synical move in an appropriate manner.
It surely deserves a penalty and yellow card warning for any repitition at any level of the game.

How about:

10.4An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

a. Does not make an effort to retreat and interferes with play; orSanction:The non-offending team can choose either:

  1. Penalty at the place of infringement; or
  2. Scrum where the offending team last played the ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top