Deliberate Foul Play Preventing a Try

[Gracie]

Three games, three instance, all with a common thread - deliberate foul play to prevent a try. I would be grateful for opinions on the correct course of action and any censures. I appreciate that 'materiality' will be a key factor so will try to describe each situation as accurately as possible.

Game 1 ( I was the ref!)

Black attacking green with black winger trudging toward the try line (a gentleman of mature years!) running 1M in from touch. Covering Green player sprints across the pitch and shoulder barges Black player into touch 2M short of the try line, injuring himslef in the process, no arms used.


I awarded a penalty to Black and a YC to Green player. I stopped short of a penalty try but with hindsight would this have been the correct decision because the deliberate foul play did prevent the try? (daft really because had the Green tackler have used his arms he may have legally prevented a try in any case - and it was this doubt that stopped me award a Pen Try)


Game 2 (i was a spectator)


Perfect playing conditons

Blue attacking Green; ball coming down the Blue backs into Green 22, Blue had a 3 man overlap to one defending Green player. With the play some 5m in touch, Blue player passes down the line towards next Blue player, when the sole Green defender dives forward to 'slap' the ball away; what appeared a certain try is prevented, with play now approx 10M from try line. Ref calls penalty v Green for deliberate knock on, no other action. Should this have been a YC and a Penalty Try?


Game 3 (Spectator)

Perfect playing conditions


Red attacking White. Red winger in a one on one versus White player 15M from try line in the middle of the field. Red player chips ball over White defender and runs on, only to be hauled to the ground by the White defender who hits Red player high and late to block Red players progress. The kick was well executed and the Red player had a very good chance of either catching his own chip or gaining control of it . Ref awards penalty to Red for the late tackle with no further action. Should this have been a YC/RC and should a penalty try have been awarded?


In all three instances the foul action was premediated and in my view could be classified as a 'professional foul' to use footie patter. In all three instances the deliberate foul play allowed the defending team to re-group and stop a try being scored.

Giving a penalty try has always been a tough decision and my personal observation is that it is most commonly given for collapsing scrums to stop a push-over try; but perhaps we should use this sanction more to stop deliberate acts of foul play in open play that stop a try. All thoughts appreciated

Regards

G

 

[Phil E]

For me, 3 Penalty Tries going on the descriptions, although of the three No2 is the only one that might not be?

1. Foul play preventing a probable try. (YC?)
2. Intentionally offending (as ref gave knock down he can't have been trying to catch the ball) preventing a probable try. (no card?)
3. Foul play preventing a porbable try. (RC?)

As we know from the IRB directive you dont automatically have to give a card with a PT.

 

[Greg Collins]

For me on the events as described.

No. 1 PT? Yes The moment he commits the foul play I rerun the tape in my head and imagine what would have happened if the fouler had been beamed up to the enterprise a split second before the foul play. Card? dunno depends on the temper of the match.

No. 2 PT? Prob no, as described, tricky game rugby, can't be sure the pass would have gone to hand. how were the backs at handling up until this point? Card? dunno depends on the temper of the match.

No. 3 PT? Yep. Card Yep colour depending on temper of the match. You just know when it is a RC.

For me the crime in 3 is more heinous than the crime in 1 btw.

 

[Davet]

PT in each case.
Case 1 would have YC for dangerous play.
Case 2 leave it at PT
Case 3 YC as well, dangerous play.

 

[stuart3826]

For me
1 - PT and YC - as Greg says, Beam him up scotty!
2 - 10m out puts me in doubt as to the certainty of a try - could any other defenders have got across in time? PK for sure, deliberate offence
3 - PT/YC - possibly RC depending on earlier offences, temper of the match etc

 

[OB..]

I see all three as penalty tries and yellow cards.

The IRB Ruling distinguishes intentional foul play from "reactionary" foul play - it is the latter class that is excused a card, and IMHO none of the cases fall into that class.

Case 3 might well have been a red card.

 

[Simon Thomas]

PT in all three cases - based on descriptions given.

1. YC
2. poss YC
3. YC. poss RC

 

[Dixie]

3 PT's for me, with YC for #1 and possible RC (though likely only YC) for #3.

Interested by those who see #2 as doubtful. We ask ourselves: would a try "probably" have been scored? That's a 50.1% threshold. There's an easy way to evaluate where you stand on that. Stop the action in your mind just before the pass is made, on the understanding that the defender will not interfere in any way with the procedings - as Greg says, he's been beamed up to the Enterprise just before the attacker can let go of the ball.

We now have a three man overlap coming into play 10m out from the goal line. You are required to bet everything that you own on one of two possible outcomes; either these three players and the guy who's just passed the ball will engineer a try between them; or they will fail. If you decide the likelihood is a try, you award the PT. If you are prepared to bet the ranch on their failure, you give the PK only. Simple as that - where's your money?

 

[OB..]

Interested by those who see #2 as doubtful. We ask ourselves: would a try "probably" have been scored? That's a 50.1% threshold.

Not in my book it isn't.

The term "probable" is not defined, but IMHO it means significantly more than 50-50. That is certainly the way it has been discussed at society meetings.

In this case I would simply argue that many more passes are caught than are dropped, so unless there is something bad about the pass (eg forward!) I would award the penalty try. No mention was made of other defenders, so I assume they are irrelevant.

It was a deliberate offence, aimed at preventing the try. Why no yellow card?

 

[Gracie]

Learning point for me - is that giving a penalty try is a very useable sanction that i shouldn't be afraid to employ. In terms of cards, this is already the case, but for some reason, perhaps because penalty tries are not often seen in top level games they were not at the fore front of my thinking. it may also be that lower level games are witness to more desperate last ditch professional fouls becuase of a lack of skill, pace, or understanding of the rules - or because refs like me to date are too reluctant to use such a sanction...for future weekends; professional foulers be afraid, be very afraid!!!! :nono: :nono:

 

[GeorgeR]

I agree with Gracie that without the benefit of clear discussion, it can be difficult to decide yourself how to apply this sanction. By the way it is often laid out here with examples and then discussion, it gives those of us with much less experience the benefit of easy access to help on how to better manage our games.

 

[ddjamo]

would like to see the directive mentioned....anyone have it? had never heard of that one...

 

[OB..]

would like to see the directive mentioned....anyone have it? had never heard of that one...

Ruling 9 of 2004

 

[ddjamo]

thank you OB

 

[Dickie E]

I would likely have not awarded a PT in scenario 3. Regathering your own kick is not that easy and would not meet my "probable" test.

 

[Deeps]

Learning point for me - is that giving a penalty try is a very useable sanction that i shouldn't be afraid to employ. In terms of cards, this is already the case, but for some reason, perhaps because penalty tries are not often seen in top level games they were not at the fore front of my thinking. it may also be that lower level games are witness to more desperate last ditch professional fouls becuase of a lack of skill, pace, or understanding of the rules - or because refs like me to date are too reluctant to use such a sanction...for future weekends; professional foulers be afraid, be very afraid!!!! :nono: :nono:

When considering whether to award a PT, first of all you define the foul play to yourself but then you totally remove the player(s) who committed the foul play from the playback. If the ball carrier probably would have scored without the presence of the opposition player who committed the foul play then a PT is appropriate. The plain act of taking the player who commits the foul play out of the equation makes the decision a lot simpler.

As to Ruling 9 of 2004, there was concern with this at the time that every PT award automatically meant that you had to award a YC/RC at the same time as a consequence of the PT; the wording is fuzzy to say the least. The resultant referee hoo haa complained that this Ruling removed the referee's discretion in these matters to which the explanation of the intention behind the iRB ruling, as I understood it, was that referees should not shrink from awarding a card just because they had also awarded a PT; it being perceived that referees were holding back for fear of the 'double whammy' effect.

Fortunately, common sense prevailed when elite referee Steve Lander speaking unofficially but publicly gave guidance to the effect that after you have awarded the PT then, if you would have awarded a card for that offence anywhere else on the field then it was entirely appropriate to do so now. The fact that you had just awarded a PT should not affect the card decision. Hope these ramblings from my memory are of use.

 

[ckuxmann]

Just a question why do you take the player out?
For instance if theplayer had wrapped he should have been able to drive him out before the try?

Cody

 

[Dickie E]

Just a question why do you take the player out?
For instance if theplayer had wrapped he should have been able to drive him out before the try?

Cody

Hi Cody, if the ref doesn't take the player out then he will have to guess about what may or may not have happened. Fraught with danger. The infringing player has basically given up his right to be included in the ref's deliberation by committing the foul play.

 

[Gracie]

Originally Posted by ckuxmann
Just a question why do you take the player out?
For instance if theplayer had wrapped he should have been able to drive him out before the try?

Cody


Cody, if you mean in my scenario 1 why didn't the tackler wrap himself around the attacking player and drive him into touch before the try then the answer is daft but simple - he was dim!! Post game i discovered this player had played very little rugby, but did have a real interest in American Football -effectively he was acting as a blocker, rather than a tackler! Getting pinged for not knowing the rules will be part of his education.

 

[Dixie]

Just a question why do you take the player out?
For instance if theplayer had wrapped he should have been able to drive him out before the try?

Cody

A common question, and one that bothers many a referee trying to come to grips with this aspect of the referee's art. When trying to imagine what would have happened if Yellow 15 had not decapitated Red 14 one metre from the line, it's easy to imagine that Yellow 15 might have tackled correctly, thus bringing Red 14 down legally. However, this is not the correct test.

When looking at "but for the offence", we assume that the offender will always commit the offence he did in fact commit. So we can't consider him at all in a "but for the offence" test. He had his chance to do it right, and failed. So without his internvention (which is always going to be illegal), what would have happened next? The easiest way to fix that question in you mind is the "beam him up Scotty" approach. Then you can ask: without his intervention, what might happen now.

As to "probability", I disagree with OB that it has to be significantly higher than 50%. There is a serious risk of paralysis by analysis. You have a split second to make your decision; this is not an time to try to recall your 30-year old lessons on statistics. There are two possible outcomes; try or no try. The one that is more likely than the other is probable. If you factor in the 20% chance he might drop it; the 15% chance of a forward pass; the 5% chance he might try to run behind the posts and get held up by the blind winger; the 2% chance he might overstep the dead ball line; the 0.1% chance that the TJ's dog might trip him in his excitement - even with 10 minutes to decide, what is now the probability of a try? And where is the threshold? 60% 75? 80?