• 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

Dickie E said:
1. 12.5(a) (the first infringement) only has scrum as sanction
2. Even if kick retaken, what's to stop SA doing it again, and again, and again...?
Click to expand...
becasue that then would be a persistenmt delibverate breaking of the law. PK. Maybe even a card.
 
ianh5979 said:
agree and if SA do it again upgrade scrum option to penalty for deliberate or play full 80 minutes letting them do it and say kick again 0-0 draw
Click to expand...
other than come the 2nsd half Italy would kick off so one team MAY then score. If that etam is SA then Itraly kick off etc.

It only stops the score if Italy score leading to a SA restart
 
Since been updated:

Screenshot 2025-07-16 at 18.16.32.png
So seems like there might have been a realisation and that 9.7a should have been applied as a penalty!

But all done by stealth and no comment about actions to the coach who deliberately coaches unfair play.
 
BikingBud said:
Since been updated:

View attachment 4874
So seems like there might have been a realisation and that 9.7a should have been applied as a penalty!

But all done by stealth and no comment about actions to the coach who deliberately coaches unfair play.
Click to expand...
thanks, my argument is over

Now, the unintended consequence. Scrumhalf dummies a throw without the ball from the base of a scrum. That has to be deliberate. What is correct call FK or PK ?
 
smeagol said:
19.38f says it's a FK
Click to expand...
I know, but the correction of 9.7a now says it's a PK. How can that action be anything but intentional?

The correction of 9.7a now calls for refs to determine if FK infringements at lineout, scrum, et.al. are intentional. I suggest a dummy throw by a scrumhalf at base of scrum can't be anything but intentional.
 
Not Kurt Weaver said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh dear!

The person who deliberatly ran in front of the kicker is the culprit.
 
Marc Wakeham said:
Take a little time to read Law 20.
Click to expand...
Given the location of the sanction for accidental offending, a scrum, would be the halfway line, then why would you seek to adjust that due to the team deliberately offending?

Or if you really do consider the ball was never live:
Law 20 - While the ball is dead - At the point where play would have restarted or, if that place is on the touchline or within 15 metres of it, the mark is on the 15-metre line, in line with that place.
Click to expand...
Either of which sort of brings me back to SA being 3 points down due to Italy kicking the penalty from the half way line.
 
BikingBud said:
Given the location of the sanction for accidental offending, a scrum, would be the halfway line, then why would you seek to adjust that due to the team deliberately offending?

Or if you really do consider the ball was n

Either of which sort of brings me back to SA being 3 points down due to Italy kicking the penalty fHrom the half way line.
Click to expand...
The fairness of the location is not an issue we control. That is down to the law makers. ere they have a choice. PK were the player offends or a scrum where it was kicked.

If the ball was dead (ie before the kick) SA had the choice of calling the player back and going aagain legally. They chose to cheat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top