School Rugby 2025
-
-
8.18A penalty goal can be scored only from a penalty.
8.19The kicking team must indicate their intention to kick for goal without delay.
8.20If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
-
@Trig said in School Rugby 2025:
8.20If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
I read this law differently to how many have been interpreting it. Firstly, I feel this is worded to stop a situation where a team may say they are kicking for the posts but will instead tap the ball and play because they have seen space. This wording allows the law to sanction teams that will do this and instead once they have indicated they will kick for posts, the have to commit to that decision and the shot clock will begin. This law doesn't actually state that the kick at goal has to be a genuine attempt which allows the play above to be completed. I believe the player was in the right according to these laws but if they had seen the same space and had picked the ball up to kick it to there then this law would come into effect.
-
@Bovidae said in School Rugby 2025:
@Duluth said in School Rugby 2025:
@Bovidae It has to be a genuine attempt at goal right?
I thought so, but apparently not. Read the first comments as the relevant law is listed. I've seen this done before and the ref wouldn't allow it.
The law is clear on this, it's under law 8.
-
-
@gt12 said in School Rugby 2025:
There are two things happening here:
- Grubby rugby that shouldn't be part of the game
- Incompetent referreeing
I'm going to let them off the "grubby rugby" because kids who didn't know the rules.
But ref should have disallowed it.
-
I was watching game, and admit was surprised the kick was allowed. Still maybe ref didn't know for sure , and at that level he only an amateur ref so wouldn't get into him big time. I guess if a player manages to bounce ball of crossbar or upright , it would be allowed, so kind of ambiguity in law?
I thought it was a no no, but admit I couldn't say for certain.
I also while not liking this kind of stuff tried be 1st XV team, once again, I would hope the coach would tell him it's outside of spirit of game at least, and say "not the kind of thing I want my team trying".
Actually developed into not a bad game as the players -
@Dan54 said in School Rugby 2025:
ambiguity in law?
No ambiguity in "they must kick at goal".
There's room for ambiguity around intent, much like a deliberate knock forward but pretty obvious in this case he had no intent.
Ref got it wrong. Don't blame him, there's a lot of laws to know.
-
they changed the interpretation 25 years ago (or maybe even more) to get rid of this exact play. Terrible reffing, especially with the touchie telling him he can't award it.
-
@booboo said in School Rugby 2025:
@gt12 said in School Rugby 2025:
There are two things happening here:
- Grubby rugby that shouldn't be part of the game
- Incompetent referreeing
I'm going to let them off the "grubby rugby" because kids who didn't know the rules.
But ref should have disallowed it.
As it looked like a set play for me, I have a few questions for the coaches.
-
@gt12 said in School Rugby 2025:
@booboo said in School Rugby 2025:
@gt12 said in School Rugby 2025:
There are two things happening here:
- Grubby rugby that shouldn't be part of the game
- Incompetent referreeing
I'm going to let them off the "grubby rugby" because kids who didn't know the rules.
But ref should have disallowed it.
As it looked like a set play for me, I have a few questions for the coaches.
Fair
-
@booboo said in School Rugby 2025:
@Dan54 said in School Rugby 2025:
ambiguity in law?
No ambiguity in "they must kick at goal".
There's room for ambiguity around intent, much like a deliberate knock forward but pretty obvious in this case he had no intent.
Ref got it wrong. Don't blame him, there's a lot of laws to know.
I find any discussion about ambiguity a bit strange, if you think about how clearly this law is written, and how often refs make much stronger judgments about player actions and intent. The whole game is based on ref interpretations and this is one of the absolute easiest. Just incompetent.
-
I'm a big believer that the rules are too complex and need to be simplified, and that referees are on a hiding to nothing.
But this law is not complicated, it's been very clear for a long time, and I question the rugby nous of any referee who doesn't understand it.
-
As this was a Ta$man derby the ref was from the region. He was very strict on high tackles and dished out YCs to both teams for tackles above the sternum (his words). There were also YCs for repeated offside infringements near the goal line, so he was more on the side of officious than not. Ironic.
-
Watch: Hooded man storms field, punches player in schoolboy rugby game
Police say the behaviour is not acceptable and they are making inquiries.
