advantage taken AND YC ?

[Browner]

Whilst I understand the offside might be considered deliberate, it didn't prevent a try because of play continuing under the advantage Law.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q1hSqC0tuS8

Given the outcome success, is a YC really the correct way to go here?

 

[Toby Warren]

Whilst I understand the offside might be considered deliberate, it didn't prevent a try because of play continuing under the advantage Law.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q1hSqC0tuS8

Given the outcome success, is a YC really the correct way to go here?

For me yes. If they don't score it's a PT and a YC why should they avoid the YC as they are slightly worse at cheating?

 

[RobLev]

Whilst I understand the offside might be considered deliberate, it didn't prevent a try because of play continuing under the advantage Law.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q1hSqC0tuS8

Given the outcome success, is a YC really the correct way to go here?

Not sure it's the offside as much as the deliberate knock-on that was YC'd here; the commentators certainly were rooting for a YC even before it became clear that one had been given.

Did anyone else notice the blatant obstruction by SW at 0:03 in the clip, which opened up a gap for the Blue #6?

 

[Mr.Christopher]

Not sure it's the offside as much as the deliberate knock-on that was YC'd here; the commentators certainly were rooting for a YC even before it became clear that one had been given.

Did anyone else notice the blatant obstruction by SW at 0:03 in the clip, which opened up a gap for the Blue #6?

I don't really see a deliberate knock-on here... the penalty is that a retreating player, while still in an offside position, deliberately interfered with a pass that would have given the 'Tahs a strong overlap, and a very good chance at a try.

There is no question in my mind that, had the try not been scored, Walsh (the ref) would have run under the posts and awarded a penalty try, and the YC to go with it. While the try was scored, there is no reason not to show the YC. A very deliberate and cynical foul, and the YC to go with it. Good call!

 

[RobLev]

I don't really see a deliberate knock-on here... the penalty is that a retreating player, while still in an offside position, deliberately interfered with a pass that would have given the 'Tahs a strong overlap, and a very good chance at a try.

You're right; on looking at it again, it was Green #15 (not #9 as I first thought) who came round the side of the ruck (too quickly?) and tried to knock down the pass that (offside) Green #9 then interfered with.

There is no question in my mind that, had the try not been scored, Walsh (the ref) would have run under the posts and awarded a penalty try, and the YC to go with it. While the try was scored, there is no reason not to show the YC. A very deliberate and cynical foul, and the YC to go with it. Good call!

I'd have thought that rather depends on the hypothetical situation you're presenting in which the try wasn't scored. If you are positing that he'd made more contact with the ball such that Blue #15 couldn't hang onto it, there's the problem that there were plenty of defenders to tackle him had he taken it cleanly - as indeed happened. On the other hand, there was a 2-3 man overlap that would have scored if the ball was recycled quickly out of the tackle; so I'd probably agree on balance that that would probably have prevented the score - hence PT.

If however your hypothetical doesn't include any change to #9's actions or their effect, I'd disagree; in that hypothetical, the reason that Green didn't score would be (for example) that they dropped the ball; the touch on the ball that #9 got then wouldn't have been what prevented the try.

In any event, YC for (i) Green #9, as you say, and (ii) SW for his blatant earlier obstruction...

 

[RobLev]

...

In any event, YC for...(ii) SW for his blatant earlier obstruction...

On further review, it looks like it was Green #9 that SW took out, and quite comprehensively (he's left on the floor). A case could be made that if it hadn't been for that obstruction, Green #9 would have onside before the ruck... :biggrin:

 

[4eyesbetter]

Two questions.

Are we sure about a penalty try if they don't score anyway? Removing the cheat, #14 (from the right) and Yellow Boots (from the left) seem to be in position to make a tackle on the player who the pass was aimed at...

Setting that aside for a moment; if you have a penalty try if they don't score, might you still have one for preventing the try being scored in a more advantageous position?

 

[damo]

Steve Walsh did the same thing in the Brumbies v Force game last night. On that occasion he said he was playing advantage 5 or so times in the movement that resulted in a try, so even though a try was scored he would still give the YC. Seems sensible to me.

I think it is correct for obviously cynical or overwhelmingly repeated offences. In my opinion you need something pretty overwhelming to award a YC and a try. This example and the one last night are OK for me, but I wouldn't want to see it for run of the mill offences.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In last night's Brumbies v Force match, referee Steve Walsh had warned the Brumbies a few times in quick succession about offside when they were defending close to their line. When they did it again, he called advantage, and after a couple more phases, the Force scored a try. SW, then called over the Brumbies captain and the player he had called advantage against, and YC that the player.

Do I agree with his call? Absolutely I do. Its excellent game management, and its a demonstration that you don't actually have to award a PK to give a card. YC and RC are management tools for referees, NOT penalties in and of themselves.

ETA: ninja'd by Damo

 

[Browner]

For me yes. If they don't score it's a PT and a YC why should they avoid the YC as they are slightly worse at cheating?

I understand Toby, and there do need to be risks attached to such action for sure.

I guess my old head says.... obvious offside interference when try likely = PT. & the fact that it is now kickable increases the jeopardy.

If you apply the same principle as this decision in other area's then: Every push over scrum PT awarded ,should have a YC to the player identified as dropping the scrum ,yet we rarely see YC in those situations.

I guess its the 'double whammy' aspect that seems so severe in these circumstances.

Scenario: a defender recognises the oppo could get quick ball from a ruck and would likely score and he deliberately dives into the ruck to kill the ball, ....we'd all expect a YC. These decisions don't generally result in PT as well, yet there is an argument that this defenders actions are more cynical than Aaron Smiths 'unsuccessful' try prevention.

Its not something I'm bent out of shape over, really not, im just juggling with the comparable penalties in each of these cases.

 

[Toby Warren]

A wise assesor told me. The yellow card is for the defender's cheating, not the attackers ability to deal with it. Separate the two.