Couple of questions

[Mike Selig]

Evening gents (and chopper...),

Just wanted to get your opinions/advice on a couple of incidents which happened during a mid-week match I had. Only my second game of the season after a lengthy lay-off due to injury (my hamstring decided it didn't like a movement I did and so would tear into a couple of pieces in protest, ouch!).

Reds v pinks, average standard but competitive, played in a decent spirit and no real issues throughout the game although I felt I was a bit inconsistent with players going off their feet at the breakdown. Pinks won by 4 in the end.

Incident 1
Scrum (uncontested) on the 22, red put-in, fly-half puts a nice little grubber through for his 12 to chase. Pink FB out of position (for some strange reason had come up to defend in the line) so race between red 12 and pink 7, the latter grabs the shirt of the former, without which it would have been a near certain try. As it happens red 13 sprints past both and dives on the ball between the posts. I award try then bin pink 7. My reasoning was that had red 13 not scored it was a pen try and YC so no reason not to YC just cos they scored anyway. Any issues?

Incident 2
Pink FB isolated with two red players chasing down on him following another excellent grubber by their 10 towards the corner. FB intelligently thinks he'll kick it away, but messes up his kick which hits red 12, and the ball then rebounds onto red 14 who is standing in front of red 12 but had no time to get out of the way. Instead of probably (direction of ball) heading into touch, the ball now goes into the in-goal where it bounces awkwardly and red 12 misses it so pink FB touches down. I give 5 meter scrum for accidental off-side but should advantage have applied? I know it doesn't when knocked-on into in-goal, but what about for other scrum offences? Neither team complained BTW, but in my experience this means little.

 

[Jacko]

Incident 1 - no problem in theory, especially if you wanted to make a point. Equally, if you had wanted to you could have managed it with a word in his ear. Up to you and very much dependant on the team's behaviour to date.

Incident 2 - I'd have played advantage and given the 22m. Good question though - you could argue either option if the MO raised it.

 

[Taff]

.... should advantage have applied? I know it doesn't when knocked-on into in-goal, but what about for other scrum offences?

Forgive me if this is stupid, but why doesn't advantage apply for a knock on into in-goal? I thought there were only 5 instances where advantage didn't apply:

1. Ball or player touching the referee
2. Ball coming out of the tunnel without being played
3. Collapsed scrum
4. Lifted scrum
5. Scrum turning 90 degs.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree with Jacko

1. Good call.

I would like to see more referees awarding a YC (and even a RC) for defending player transgressions leading up to the scoring of a try, eg, taking out passers, supporting players, acts of foul play etc

Take a look at this clip (link will go directly to the try in question)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0945lQKP7I#t=2m08s

If I'm ref, No 14 Green's attempted foot-trip on 15 Black as he scores the try earns a straight RC, and a PT and RC if the 15 Black subsequently lost the ball forward in his attempt to score.

2. For me, that's advantage for the accidental offside, then a drop-out to Pink.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Forgive me if this is stupid, but why doesn't advantage apply for a knock on into in-goal?

Because there is a Law that specifically covers a knock-on in-goal

12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD

(c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.

(d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.

 

[SimonSmith]

Tend to agree with Ian.

1 - YC absolutely. Why wouldn't it be?!
2 - The ruling of March 20 suggests to me that a knock on INTO goal cannot generate a 22 and that a scrum should be awarded. I stress that it isn't explicit, and I can be argued off that position!

 

[Bryan]

Interesting...my first sentence was to write was that I thought it was wrong, but now I'm not convinced and I tend to agree with your decision (though I still think it's pretty ballsy).

You've essentially played advantage in Scenario #1, and the Red team scores, so advantage is over. However you made the decision that Pink #7 goes to the bin for a cynical offence, which in the end was not material. I'm not sure why, for an act of foul play that was not "Dangerous Play" e.g. punching, you'd still issue the yellow-card even though the try was scored? Then again, think about these:

i. You play advantage for a breakdown-related offence that, if returned for advantage over, would result in a YC due to repeated infringements.
ii. You play advantage for dangerous play (dangerous tackle) that, if returned for advantage over, would result in a YC due to dangerous play.

In both the scenarios above, you might see referees issue the YC for scenario (i), but I think you'd see referees more likely to issue the YC for scenario (ii).

I don't think this is necessarily equitable, but it seems to be the common practice. Ian takes the view that regardless of the offence under law 10, the YC should still be awarded even if a try is scored.

I have no problem with the ability to issue the card, but consider that in the future, if you're trying to change player behaviour, you can do this without issuing the card. I'm not sure this applies as much to dangerous play or cynical offences as it does for repeated infringements.

My view is that it all depends on "feel", so good on ya if you felt it was the correct decision. Most of these decisions are gut-feel decisions that we make based on experience, so there's no hard and fast rule for me.

 

[Dickie E]

For incident 2 I wouldn't consider a 22 drop out. For a 22 drop out to be option I need the attackers to intentionally play the ball into in-goal.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

In the first scenario I think it depends on the context. At Level 10 I am not sure that a 'quiet word' after you had awarded the try telling the defending player that would have been a YC and a PT had he not scored would not have achieved the same outcome. However, if the defending team had a bit of 'form' - niggle, moaning, warnings about their conduct prior to this (any of those not all of those), then a YC could well be seen as good management, as it stops things getting heated and escalating. If it was a run of the mill Level 10 game with nothing of note preceding it then it could look slightly OTT. (I emphasise the word 'could' ... depends a lot on the context and your feel for the game at that time)

Second scenario you could go either way - the ball does need to be put intentionally into in-goal by the attacking side but at the same time the laws only stipulate that you can't play advantage for knock-ons. You could argue that the original charge-down was intentional and that the attackers therefore did put it in ... so 22 drop out looks like a good call.

 

[Greg Collins]

Incident 2 is one of our committee members trick questions. The sort he asks at half time when you go over to say hello. He tells me in his opinion there is no right or wrong answer but he's interested in people's thought processes.

 

[Mike Selig]

Thanks to the feedback all.

The game was a little niggly, and TBH I didn't really hesitate with the YC which usually to me is a good indication (unless of course what I thought I saw wasn't what happened at all). My view was that I didn't see how the fact that the try had been scored anyway made the offence less serious. And 7 wasn't in my best books by that stage anyway (they very rarely are).

Ian I saw that clip and was horrified. Had he caught him properly with the trip it could have been serious. Agree with you, RC any day of the week (well maybe not Sunday if doing U-13s, but I think that discussion has been done to death).

Also I seem to remember our old friend Steve Walsh during WC2007 Wales-Aus penalising I think it was an Ausie lock for not rolling away about 10 yards out after Wales made a break. the lock's actions were very cynical, stopping a possible try-scoring situation. Walsh let wales tap and go, and score the try, awarded said try and binned the Ausie anyway. Slightly different to my case (as he had to award the pen) but maybe the same in spirit?

Think maybe I got the second one wrong then. Ah well shite happens...

 

[Davet]

#1 - correct call, if you were going to bin the 7 then the score doesn't change that.

#2 - accidental offside only applies if the accidentally offside team gain an advantage (which is NOT the same as playing advantage to the opposition). If they DON'T gain an advanatge from the accidental offside the Law says play on. In this case it seems that they did not gain an advantage - so play on resulting in 22 drop out.

 

[ex-lucy]

In the first scenario I think it depends on the context. At Level 10 I am not sure that a 'quiet word' after you had awarded the try telling the defending player that would have been a YC and a PT had he not scored would not have achieved the same outcome. However, if the defending team had a bit of 'form' - niggle, moaning, warnings about their conduct prior to this (any of those not all of those), then a YC could well be seen as good management, as it stops things getting heated and escalating. If it was a run of the mill Level 10 game with nothing of note preceding it then it could look slightly OTT. (I emphasise the word 'could' ... depends a lot on the context and your feel for the game at that time)

Second scenario you could go either way - the ball does need to be put intentionally into in-goal by the attacking side but at the same time the laws only stipulate that you can't play advantage for knock-ons. You could argue that the original charge-down was intentional and that the attackers therefore did put it in ... so 22 drop out looks like a good call.

what Emmet says ... nice