[Tackle] YC/RD

[crossref]

Cheers Marc.

card it is. As long as its foul play and not e.g. offside presumably.

didds

didds .. it's 8.3 it's always a card

 

[thepercy]

I never have thought that it is compulsory to YC for a PT. Recently at one of our training sessions one ot our professional referees said that they try to avoid a ‘double whammy’ as much as possible. The real question is does it meet YC criteria.
At a recent match one scrum was being totally decimated. A PT resulted. Who do you YC? T/H, L/H, Hooker, No8 for releasing bind, second row for going to ground? Nobody was really at fault; the opposition were too big and strong. There was nothing that the opposition scrum could do to resist the pressure. If they (and one player in particular) were deliberately dropping the scrum (or similar) to prevent the drive it would be a different matter.

In the above scrum scenario the referee adopted the ‘I must YC’ approach. This resulted in uncontested scrums and the dominant scrum (and coach in particular) was livid!

At a scrum, if no one intentionally offended, and did not violate the provisions in 9.19.a-d, is there foul play? No foul play, then no PT?

 

[Balones]

At a scrum, if no one intentionally offended, and did not violate the provisions in 9.19.a-d, is there foul play? No foul play, then no PT?

The dominant scrum repeatedly cause the inferior scrum to release their binding. Continually reset or penalise the dominant scrum?

 

[thepercy]

The dominant scrum repeatedly cause the inferior scrum to release their binding. Continually reset or penalise the dominant scrum?

I think you would PK the team that couldn't cope with the pressure and unbinds. I don't think this is FP (unless done intentionally) and a PT which requires FP. Once it becomes repeated, then it is FP and possibly PT territoty, though since it is repeated then you can and should YC the repeat offender, or the last offender in a team repeated infringement scenario.

 

[Arabcheif]

I suppose it then becomes a safety issue. It's been said before that if there's a dominant scrum, the refs might tell them to reign it in a bit, be controlled. If the weaker pack is being forced apart, this might be to do with the speed of the dominant pack, speed = not under control.

So it's been said in the past that refs will tell them to slow down the drive, or they would order uncontested at that point. I suppose for the purposes of the PT from a collapsed scrum - unless intentional, not an offence and a scrum reset.

It's not really something I've came across so far. I've had 6/7 scrums go down in 6 games. I just reset them, needed to speak to FR in 2 games (one was U-16).

 

[Balones]

I suppose it then becomes a safety issue. It's been said before that if there's a dominant scrum, the refs might tell them to reign it in a bit, be controlled. If the weaker pack is being forced apart, this might be to do with the speed of the dominant pack, speed = not under control.

So it's been said in the past that refs will tell them to slow down the drive, or they would order uncontested at that point. I suppose for the purposes of the PT from a collapsed scrum - unless intentional, not an offence and a scrum reset.

It's not really something I've came across so far. I've had 6/7 scrums go down in 6 games. I just reset them, needed to speak to FR in 2 games (one was U-16).

I can understand that approach at the lower levels but at the levels I generally observe and above you can’t really do that.

 

[crossref]

The dominant scrum repeatedly cause the inferior scrum to release their binding. Continually reset or penalise the dominant scrum?

Repeated offence is foul play (as you pointed out above) and then if it's a repeated offence then you very likely have ID your offender

 

[Balones]

Repeated offence is foul play (as you pointed out above) and then if it's a repeated offence then you very likely have ID your offender

The ‘offender’ was the dominant scrum which drove forward at such a rate that it was not possible to hold on to a bind or keep shape.
Or possibly a very weak back five that couldn’t offer the front row any support.
In such circumstances I cannot see how YCing somebody will cure the problem especially if they are replaced by someone that might not be so good and is then YC’d at the next scrum and causes uncontested scrums.

As an aside, shouldn’t a player be allowed to release his bind to keep himself safe?

 

[crossref]

The ‘offender’ was the dominant scrum which drove forward at such a rate that it was not possible to hold on to a bind or keep shape.
Or possibly a very weak back five that couldn’t offer the front row any support.
In such circumstances I cannot see how YCing somebody will cure the problem especially if they are replaced by someone that might not be so good and is then YC’d at the next scrum and causes uncontested scrums.

As an aside, shouldn’t a player be allowed to release his bind to keep himself safe?

I am confused , I thought you had identified the team releasing the bind as the offender (indeed a repeat offender )

 

[Balones]

I am confused , I thought you had identified the team releasing the bind as the offender (indeed a repeat offender )

Sorry for confusion.
The point I’m trying to make is that the release of bind was the result of the force of the drive and not something done intentionally to get out of trouble. For this reason I don’t see why we should ‘double whammy’ a team. Also several players had their bind broken so why pick on one.

 

[crossref]

Sorry for confusion.
The point I’m trying to make is that the release of bind was the result of the force of the drive and not something done intentionally to get out of trouble. For this reason I don’t see why we should ‘double whammy’ a team. Also several players had their bind broken so why pick on one.

Well I do agree that if you can't ID a specific player you shouldn't issue a YC .. .so that is your out

 

[didds]

didds .. it's 8.3 it's always a card

???????????

8.3 A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team

Law 9 outlines foul play.

And a simple offside is not necessarily deliberate - it can just be crap timing
9.7.A player must not:
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.

nor may it be repeated - it could be the first 10 seocnds of the game and no previous infringemebnts occurred

9.8
A team must not repeatedly commit the same offence.
A player must not repeatedly infringe the laws.

A simple offside is not fdangrous play (9.11 onwards)

In short I can see a not unlikely scenario of an early OFFSIDE resulting in a PT (beam me up scotty etc ) that is nothing like FOUL PLAY . The card scenario in law 8 specvifically satys its for foul play.

So Id suggest oit is NOT just a cdard for every PT no matter what.

I dont suppose I have any support. I also get OB's point about forensic exa ination of the workding of the alws. But I think the above is a very simple approach to the what the alws SAY.

hey ho.
I remain unconvinced the laws mean every PT is a card. ASs not every PT is foul play

didds

 

[crossref]

Well by 8.3
.. if it's not foul play , it's not a PT
.. if it is a PT it's also a YC

 

[didds]

Well by 8.3
.. if it's not foul play , it's not a PT

Red attacking hard into blue 22, about 10m out. First minute, no stoppages, no advantage. open play.

Ruck develops.

BIG blindside - one red attacker (A) , one blue defender(D) in that Blind side well away from the ruck area.

A is running forward hard, B creeps offside but not deliberately ruck - pass to A and D closes from offside position and just ankle taps red who knocks on into touch. No other defenders anywhere near.

Off side prevented a probably try especially under "beam me up"
That's a nailed on PT - a PK offense prevented a try.

But it ain't foul play.

didds

 

[Balones]

???????????

8.3 A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team

Law 9 outlines foul play.

And a simple offside is not necessarily deliberate - it can just be crap timing
9.7.A player must not:
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.

nor may it be repeated - it could be the first 10 seocnds of the game and no previous infringemebnts occurred

9.8
A team must not repeatedly commit the same offence.
A player must not repeatedly infringe the laws.

A simple offside is not fdangrous play (9.11 onwards)

In short I can see a not unlikely scenario of an early OFFSIDE resulting in a PT (beam me up scotty etc ) that is nothing like FOUL PLAY . The card scenario in law 8 specvifically satys its for foul play.

So Id suggest oit is NOT just a cdard for every PT no matter what.

I dont suppose I have any support. I also get OB's point about forensic exa ination of the workding of the alws. But I think the above is a very simple approach to the what the alws SAY.

hey ho.
I remain unconvinced the laws mean every PT is a card. ASs not every PT is foul play

didds

Yes you do. Read my posts.

 

[crossref]

Red attacking hard into blue 22, about 10m out. First minute, no stoppages, no advantage. open play.

Ruck develops.

BIG blindside - one red attacker (A) , one blue defender(D) in that Blind side well away from the ruck area.

A is running forward hard, B creeps offside but not deliberately ruck - pass to A and D closes from offside position and just ankle taps red who knocks on into touch. No other defenders anywhere near.

Off side prevented a probably try especially under "beam me up"
That's a nailed on PT - a PK offense prevented a try.

But it ain't foul play.

didds

It's an edge case whichever way you look at it , did you signal the offside advantage ?
Sounds like a PT. So also YC

Look it's possible to construct an edge case that tests the Law , but the principle indeed the Law is .. PT = YC

 

[OB..]

It's an edge case whichever way you look at it , did you signal the offside advantage ?
Sounds like a PT. So also YC

Look it's possible to construct an edge case that tests the Law , but the principle indeed the Law is .. PT = YC

The Ruling quoted in #22 acually lists some edge cases

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.

("reactionary"? = "opposing political or social progress or reform." :biggrin:)

 

[Zebra1922]

I read that particular post as implying you can have a PT where you do not have to award a YC.

 

[thepercy]

Red attacking hard into blue 22, about 10m out. First minute, no stoppages, no advantage. open play.

Ruck develops.

BIG blindside - one red attacker (A) , one blue defender(D) in that Blind side well away from the ruck area.

A is running forward hard, B creeps offside but not deliberately ruck - pass to A and D closes from offside position and just ankle taps red who knocks on into touch. No other defenders anywhere near.

Off side prevented a probably try especially under "beam me up"
That's a nailed on PT - a PK offense prevented a try.

But it ain't foul play.

didds

If there is no FP there can be no PT, let alone a nailed on one.

There needs to be a FP that prevented a probable try to be a PT, not any old garden variety PK.

PK only

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Cheers Marc.

card it is. As long as its foul play and not e.g. offside presumably.

didds

It would have to include FP (which could include intentional offside butt not offside per see).