Spirit of the Game- Time wasting
- Thread starter vimpe22
- Start date
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
9.7.d.
It's a FK not a PK but you still "ping".
"First" offence?again i'm nor disagreeing overall ... except to say the defenders were equally culpable in THIS instance. They were cl;early content to waste time also as preoven by the actions of the coach with his intrructions to at least one player who moved towards the "scorer"
Im happy to agree to disagree
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
What wording do you have in mind?
We could discuss the precise wording for ages but what I think would be fair for all concerned (including spectators) would be along the lines of -
Once an attacking team has entered the goal area they have 5 seconds (keeping it consistent with other aspects of play where players are required to ‘use it’) to ground the ball. Failure to do so would result in a 22M drop out.
I realise that in the case that we are discussing there would not be anything to stop a player standing just outside the goal area for two minutes before stepping inside to score but couldn’t we still use the 5 second ‘use it’ law with a sanction of a scrum in that scenario?
didds
Resident Club Coach
well, not chasing the breakaway to pressure the ball carrier as he approached the line then.
didds
Resident Club Coach
theyd just come up with some totally meaningless phrase like "must be scored in a time efficient manner".
the equivalent of the tackled player must play/release etc the ball "immediately".
Its meaningless.
I'm not convinced that anything needs doing on the basis of one isolated incident but, if it was felt change was needed to avoid any incidents of time wasting, as Balones points out, the simplest method would be to write into law that on any occasion a referee calls use it the ball must be played within 5 seconds.
Shelflife
Referees in Ireland
But he's not wasting time, its open play. If that's wasting time do you then ping a player who slows down after an intercept and do you ping a team at a lineout when they are waiting for the other team to engage them to form a maul and you end up in a stalemate.
Which team do you ping, Eng for not putting the ball down or Arg for not running back to force them to put the ball down ?
Then two team mates could have stood in the in goal, passing the ball back and forth every 5 seconds
Or that one player could put the ball on the ground and give it a little kick every five seconds
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
In that situation England. The onus in Ruck / maul etc is on the side in possesion. At a lineout if a side throwing the ball in you FK them. In the situation where the side wishes to defend without forming the maul tll the ball carrying side to move it.
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
Whenever there is doubt, always ping England
At least there would be some action with some possibility of the team making an error rather than tedious no action.
Teams/coaches are always trying to interpret/circumvent the laws as they were intended so if this did happen sufficiently to annoy spectators and the administrators of the game then we’d need to tweak the laws again.
I think over the years we have seen enough examples of time wasting in the scenario that started this discussion for there to be serious consideration of tightening up the laws in this respect. The law makers have gradually tightened up the laws in the 15 game in an attempt to alleviate time wasting so why not with regard to this aspect of play which I think we would all agree only relates to 7s.
We could, of course, spend lots of time trying to cram as many angels onto this pinhead
The
This problem generally happens in 7s played on one pitch. Where two pitches are available the two last group games can be played simultaneously and this situation is generally avoided
Yes, the problem in this instance is not in the Laws, nor the players, it's entirely due to the tournament format
This problem generally happens in 7s played on one pitch. Where two pitches are available the two last group games can be played simultaneously and this situation is generally avoided
Rich_NL
Well-known member
Agreed, this isn't something to sort out with laws, as you'll only shift the problem to the edge of the next law you create.
Under a similar circumstance you could have "the tournament problem" arise after a try is scored, and the players just toss the ball about in the middle of the pitch.
The issue is that there should always be more of an incentive to score more than to accept a loss because of points difference. If your tournament format doesn't offer that, you'll have issues.
Under a similar circumstance you could have "the tournament problem" arise after a try is scored, and the players just toss the ball about in the middle of the pitch.
The issue is that there should always be more of an incentive to score more than to accept a loss because of points difference. If your tournament format doesn't offer that, you'll have issues.
But a play it law doesnt really help, as carrying the ball out on your own in open play IS playing it.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
The problem is that you cannot have a law that will prevent these situations arising, because (as a wise man once said) all tournaments have different structures to suit different formats, number of teams, etc.
Or if you must, you already have 9.27, and you can issue a clarification that that includes time-wasting liable to upset spectators, and see that refs never use it because it's vague and they'll get all the criticism for a problem caused by rhe tournament organisers.
thepercy
Referees in America
maybe knock it out of his hands?