Bridgend v Llanelli - Penalty Tries

[tewdric]

A couple of interesting ones from this very entertaining game last weekend. Ben Brakespeare was in the middle and made a couple of decisions which might provoke some discussion.

Link to Scrum V coverage here:

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0004bpg

At just shy of 26 minutes Bridgend have a driving maul making progress to the goal line and red 3 clearly comes in from the side, resulting in a pen advantage. The maul continues and everyone ends up in a heap in goal. BB goes upstairs and asks try yes or no. The answer is no clear grounding so he then decides the infringement cost the try and awards a pen try and yc to red 3. I can see the logic but the process seemed clumsy. Any thoughts from the experienced panel? Personally I thought it should have been scrum 5 and yc.

A bit later at 36 mins there is another driving maul which is making great progress towards the goal line close to the posts. Its clearly and cynically pulled down and another pen advantage is given. The ball gets spread wide and the winger scores in the corner. Try awarded. Surely here a pen try in the more advantageous position would have been better? Again, thoughts appreciated!

 

[crossref]

a PT is always 'in a more advantageous position' as it comes with the conversion for free.

but referees haven't yet adapted to that change -- which is understandable as the Law book hasn't either!

 

[Decorily]

but referees haven't yet adapted to that change -- which is understandable as the Law book hasn't either!

The law book clearly defines that a penalty try may be awarded if a try was likely to be scored in a more advantageous position!
What more do you want?

 

[tewdric]

That was I was getting at in the second example but have no practical experience of doing it!

 

[thepercy]

A couple of interesting ones from this very entertaining game last weekend. Ben Brakespeare was in the middle and made a couple of decisions which might provoke some discussion.

Link to Scrum V coverage here:

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0004bpg

At just shy of 26 minutes Bridgend have a driving maul making progress to the goal line and red 3 clearly comes in from the side, resulting in a pen advantage. The maul continues and everyone ends up in a heap in goal. BB goes upstairs and asks try yes or no. The answer is no clear grounding so he then decides the infringement cost the try and awards a pen try and yc to red 3. I can see the logic but the process seemed clumsy. Any thoughts from the experienced panel? Personally I thought it should have been scrum 5 and yc.

A bit later at 36 mins there is another driving maul which is making great progress towards the goal line close to the posts. Its clearly and cynically pulled down and another pen advantage is given. The ball gets spread wide and the winger scores in the corner. Try awarded. Surely here a pen try in the more advantageous position would have been better? Again, thoughts appreciated!

In scenario 1, If a try is scored, there is not a PT, unless FP (cynical offence) prevents it from being scored in a more advantageous position, which is unlikely in a driving maul. Of course under the sticks and automatic 2 is a better outcome for the attackers, but that's not how it works. Not sure how it could ever be a scrum, if it wasn't a Try or a PT then you'd go back for a PK for side entry at the maul.

Scenario 2, if the maul probably would have scored a Try not for the FP, then I think a PT should have been awarded, as the place the Try was score was at a less advantageous location.

 

[Decorily]

I. Not sure how it could ever be a scrum, if it wasn't a Try or a PT then you'd go back for a PK for side entry at the maul..

Unless the referee was of the opinion that the advantage was over having crossed the goal line!

 

[beckett50]

Unless the referee was of the opinion that the advantage was over having crossed the goal line!

but why would he do that? There has been no advantage gained. Yes you could (unsuccessfully) argue that there has been a gain in territory, but the maul was driving to the line. Would you call "Penalty Advantage over" after a player ran a few metres forward in open play? If you did you'd lose all credibility, I would suggest.

 

[beckett50]

FWIW I have no issue with the logic or the manner in which Ben arrives at his decision; bearing in mind he has the benefit of a TMO. For me at L6, as soon as the maul collapsed due to the actions of B3 I would have run under the posts to signal PT and then :noyc:

 

[Decorily]

but why would he do that? There has been no advantage gained. Yes you could (unsuccessfully) argue that there has been a gain in territory, but the maul was driving to the line. Would you call "Penalty Advantage over" after a player ran a few metres forward in open play? If you did you'd lose all credibility, I would suggest.

I personally have seen numerous incidences of referees calling advantage over in such circumstances....ie attacking team crossing goal line but failing to score for whatever reason.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

tewdric, do you have access to the WRU video file? It will include the ref mic so you can get all of what is said between the ref / ARs and the TMO. It might shed more light on things.