South Africa v Italy - Innovative or More Deliberate Cheating

[Volun-selected]

Of course it does. The sanction for 9.7 a, b and c is in red after 9.7 c

Checked the PDF version and I see what you mean. There is a mismatch between the app (my previous post) and the PDF (below) - the PDF has the sanction after c, the app does not. Hopefully that will be fixed soon.

 

[Harry]

So how many different versions of the laws are there? My on line version looks like this........

 

[crossref]

1. 12.5(a) (the first infringement) only has scrum as sanction

 

[BikingBud]

But what about the sanction for coaching and deliberately introducing unfair play?

We all know the real issue here.

 

[smeagol]

At local level you don't penalize deliberate offending?

There is a wide swath of ability/level in my area, from beer league to men/women either on pro contracts or in the running for one.

I’ll blame the referee coach who says “this is always a scrum.”

 

[smeagol]

IMO any team that devises and then takes the time and effort to practice and actually perform a move like that deserves a PK

I agree, but referees and ref coaches above my level are saying to manage it.

 

[Harry]

Does manage it mean "Do it again properly"

 

[smeagol]

Does manage it mean "Do it again properly"

They’re saying to have a word with the kicking team and re-do it, and ping if it happens again.

IMO, this gives the kicking side a get out of jail free card.

 

[Volun-selected]

They’re saying to have a word with the kicking team and re-do it, and ping if it happens again.

IMO, this gives the kicking side a get out of jail free card.

I think it’s always a judgement call for management so. For me, how I handle is going to be very different for a low stakes U16 vs. more senior/serious match.

 

[crossref]

I think it’s always a judgement call for management so. For me, how I handle is going to be very different for a low stakes U16 vs. more senior/serious match.

It may feel like low stakes to you.
Likely feels different if you are one of the u16s

 

[tim White]

Simple 10.1 -Ahead of team-mate who last played the ball.

Both the kicker and catcher were acting deliberately -and at this level nothing happens by accident. They were clearly hoping for the scrum and got away with it.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Simple 10.1 -Ahead of team-mate who last played the ball.

Both the kicker and catcher were acting deliberately -and at this level nothing happens by accident. They were clearly hoping for the scrum and got away with it.

Law 10 is open play. Open play occurs after the kickoff. Kickoff cannot take place when team-mate is ahead of ball. the law sanction is a scrum, nothing with which to get away. the other team gets the put. Hardly meets the criteria of misconduct in Reg 18

 

[Dickie E]

If you don't consider this as an infringement of 9.7(a), I don't know what you would consider as an infringement of 9.7(a)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

If you don't consider this as an infringement of 9.7(a), I don't know what you would consider as an infringement of 9.7(a)

Remember, as of now we have insufficient facts. there are 2 different appearances of 9.7a sanction by the "apparently" same source.

I suggest that law 12.5 determines that this offense is a minor infraction and is sanctioned accordingly. This infraction is covered by law and based on one appearance of 9.7a is not immediately sanctioned as a penalty. This is almost exactly how a not straight feed is sanctioned as a slightly upgraded infraction FK. Yet, it is very hard to feed the hooker other than deliberately, but the sanction is covered by law. Would the not straight feed be an infringement of 9.7a?

This "team-mate ahead of the kicked ball" deliberate infraction is so minor that the miscreants surrender the ball and territory. There is no victim and there is no gain for the deliberate breach.

Do you want an example of what I would consider an infringement of 9.7a? Your inability to read my mind "I don't know what you would consider" does not disprove this seperate issue of a team-mate ahead of kicker at a kick off. A is A, A is not B, B is not A. Other deliberate infringements have nothing to do with the issue. i.e. my "not straight feed' example.

 

[SimonSmith]

Remember, as of now we have insufficient facts. there are 2 different appearances of 9.7a sanction by the "apparently" same source.

I suggest that law 12.5 determines that this offense is a minor infraction and is sanctioned accordingly. This infraction is covered by law and based on one appearance of 9.7a is not immediately sanctioned as a penalty. This is almost exactly how a not straight feed is sanctioned as a slightly upgraded infraction FK. Yet, it is very hard to feed the hooker other than deliberately, but the sanction is covered by law. Would the not straight feed be an infringement of 9.7a?

This "team-mate ahead of the kicked ball" deliberate infraction is so minor that the miscreants surrender the ball and territory. There is no victim and there is no gain for the deliberate breach.

Do you want an example of what I would consider an infringement of 9.7a? Your inability to read my mind "I don't know what you would consider" does not disprove this seperate issue of a team-mate ahead of kicker at a kick off. A is A, A is not B, B is not A. Other deliberate infringements have nothing to do with the issue. i.e. my "not straight feed' example.

The receiver was ahead of the kicker, and the ball was kicked into his.

it's a deliberate infringement. SA got what they wanted, a scrum against an inferior scrumming team.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not in my version - 9.7a is conspicuous in its absence.
View attachment 4868

Why is it listed as unfair play along with 9. 7 b&c if there is no sanction and by logical progression unenforcebable. All that makes it effectively legal to "intentionally infring any laws of the game". Sorry that is absurd.

 

[Dickie E]

Why is it listed as unfair play along with 9. 7 b&c if there is no sanction and by logical progression unenfocebable. All that makes it effectively legal to "intentionally infring any laws of the game". Sorry that is absurd.

Yeah, its a typo in the laws

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The receiver was ahead of the kicker, and the ball was kicked into his.

it's a deliberate infringement. SA got what they wanted, a scrum against an inferior scrumming team.

Pleasze answer these questions.

Who is culprit of the deliberate infringement? The player ahead of the ball when it is kicked, the kicker, someone else?

This is important so we can track repeated offenses.

Where is the mark for penalty?

This is determined by who committed the deliberate infringement.

At the time of infringement, I believe the following to be true, the ball is not dead, open play has not started, time has started, criteria for a kickoff has not occurred.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Yeah, its a typo in the laws

We have an error in presentation of law. Which one is correct? I do not know. The website (Volun-selected, harry) version would be an ommission, not a typo, of the sanction statement.

The pdf form from website ( the handbook, dickie e ) version, if it is anerror, would be the typo. The mistake or mistype would be the adding of 9.7a as sanction after line 9.7c.

Both are possibilities, at this point.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Why is it listed as unfair play along with 9. 7 b&c if there is no sanction and by logical progression unenforcebable. All that makes it effectively legal to "intentionally infring any laws of the game". Sorry that is absurd.

Unfair play is not immediately a PK. time wasting is such an example.

There is a logical progression without the sanction being attached to 9.7a ( once again there is a mistake in the official presentations of 9.7a). The logical progression for the team-mate ahead of kicker following the website(Volun-selected, harry) version is 1. apply applicable 12.5 law first, 2. apply 9.7a as repeat offense as necess. 3. apply repeat offense law

The applicable law, 12.5 sanctions a scrum. 12.5 is a minor infringement, open play has not started. This is not a crisis. By not having a sanction of a penalty attached to 9.7a , it allows referees to follow law.