France v Scotland

[KoolFork]

Similarly, I think that he can only award a penalty restart if the foul play was after the try.

Can someone point out where the penalty restart is mentioned in the laws?

 

[Camquin]

22.1
Infringement Place of Penalty
...
While the ball is dead. At the point where play would have restarted

 

[didds]

It would appear that based on what has been happening throughout the 6 Nations, release of bind and changing position by the No8 at scrums is now allowed.

yup. I saw that too. :-(

 

[didds]

That and the fend/hand off above chest/shoulder is now illegal.

Hannd offs are OK (generally speaking).
Forearms and elbows are not.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That and the fend/hand off above chest/shoulder is now illegal.

No. A forearm to the throat is illegal and a red card every day of the week.

When will players learn?

 

[didds]

I'm surprised WB didn't award a penalty KO to France and a YC.

Cant be a PK KO/restart - the foul play occurred BEFORE the try was scored, not after.

Id be OK with a YC in this scenario... after all, if the defnder had punched the attacker and knocked him out cold, but the attacker fell in goal and scored i'd imagine wed still see a RC for the punch etc etc etc

 

[KoolFork]

Thanks. So, how does one penalise the most outrageous piece of 'cheating' if a try is scored in the same place it would have been but for the offence?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

He probably would, but takes the risk that the threshold for a penalty try is often way beyond probable. Same with Rees-Zammit last week.

I'm surprised WB didn't award a penalty KO to France and a YC.

YC I agree. But what legal basis are you claiming
for a PK restart?

 

[didds]

cards presumably. If the ref chooses not to wave one... them's the rubs I guess.

 

[timmad]

It would appear that based on what has been happening throughout the 6 Nations, release of bind and changing position by the No8 at scrums is now allowed.

Yes, if we are to enforce full bind until the ball is out for the side not winning the scrum, then surely we should require the other team to remain bound, too.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Thanks. So, how does one penalise the most outrageous piece of 'cheating' if a try is scored in the same place it would have been but for the offence?

THe option was a yellow card. An option WB should have taken, in my opinion.

Please read the PT law and then try to justify the awarding of a PT on the basis of law.

You've made two claim in this thread:

1: it should have been a PT

2: It should havre been a PK restart.

I assume that you have a law basis for one or both of those.

 

[KoolFork]

YC I agree. But what legal basis are you claiming
for a PK restart?

Equity I guess. I accept that the law doesn't permit this, although I think a better outcome all round would have been a penalty try. WB was clearly going to award one if the grounding hadn't been OK and you'd expect a YC too?

The inability to award a penalty in these circs and a PT both seem anomalous to me.

 

[KoolFork]

Toulouse v Pau February https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d62och2cuMg

Here we have a try scored in the corner - the grounding was OK. Referee awards a penalty try and a YC (Pau didn't KO :hap: )

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Equity I guess. I accept that the law doesn't permit this, although I think a better outcome all round would have been a penalty try. WB was clearly going to award one if the grounding hadn't been OK and you'd expect a YC too?

The inability to award a penalty in these circs and a PT both seem anomalous to me.

Equity does not mean total disregard for the law. The law is written for a reason. Whether it might have been a "better outcome" is not relevant. The law does not allow it.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Toulouse v Pau February https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d62och2cuMg

Here we have a try scored in the corner - the grounding was OK. Referee awards a penalty try and a YC (Pau didn't KO :hap: )

What was the reason given for the PT? Was there a TMO review? Did you see the actual game footage rather than these short highlights? Only the TV captions show it wa given a PT. If it was given despite a legal try then the referee was in error.

 

[BikingBud]

We cannot say for sure where the try could have been scored but the defender tackled him without the ball. It was maybe fortunate that the attacker had momentum to still touch it down.

Could the attacker, but for the foul play, have gathered and dotted down under the posts possibly but not probably, and for this I use "more likely than not" as the earlier discussion about probability sets the entire range between 0 and 1 but doesn't differentiate.

So although the law allows the PT:

A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.

WB may have considered that a try was a certainty, it seems he thought scoring in a better position was not sufficiently probable to go under the posts. We do expect kickers to pop those conversions over nowadays, you cannot change the decision based upon poor execution by the kicker.

We used to see very few penalty tries and then deliberate knock on, and TMO overlap reviews brought them in greater numbers. Perhaps now offside at try line rucks (long overdue) and tackles from defenders chasing from behind may come into plays that are deemed acceptable to penalise.

Always a judgment and we could have no end of discussion; not only if a try was prevented but could the try have been scored in a better place.

See Bristol v Quins for a differing perspective!

 

[KoolFork]

Equity does not mean total disregard for the law. The law is written for a reason. Whether it might have been a "better outcome" is not relevant. The law does not allow it.

I'm happy to agree I was wrong in law and have already done so.

However, you agree on the YC point. How can you have a YC without a penalty or penalty try? I think a PT would have been a more equitable outcome. Scotland were at fault. We have no idea what would have happened. Don't France deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I know the wording has changed, but when I first qualified as a referee, the mantra was Safety, Equity & Law - in that order.

Equity doesn't simply mean being even-handed. It is also about justice and a fair outcome.

 

[KoolFork]

This wasn't the clip I saw originally, but I only remembered it because it was so recent. My recollection is that the 15 got a YC for a no-arms tackle. It was most definitely given as a PT. The grounding looks OK from the video, but I didn't see the TMO footage

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'm happy to agree I was wrong in law and have already done so.

However, you agree on the YC point. How can you have a YC without a penalty or penalty try? I think a PT would have been a more equitable outcome. Scotland were at fault. We have no idea what would have happened. Don't France deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I know the wording has changed, but when I first qualified as a referee, the mantra was Safety, Equity & Law - in that order.

Equity doesn't simply mean being even-handed. It is also about justice and a fair outcome.

Notice the wording on a PT A PT is obviously in a "better position" than most tries but the law does not allow for that it is SPECIFIC. IF WR wanted it different it would say something like " Where foul play occurs and a try is scord a PT will be awarded" But it does not.

Of course you can have a card without a penalty. It is pretty obvious you can. For example if you are playing advantage, you can come back to the card once the advantage has been gained.

NO argument on Safety, equity and law but that is not a license to pick and choose. In the case in point the referee is effectively playing advantage the score means advantage over( Of course there was not time etc for advantage to be called. But WB will have seen it and thought wait a second and see how this pans out.)

- - - Updated - - -

This wasn't the clip I saw originally, but I only remembered it because it was so recent. My recollection is that the 15 got a YC for a no-arms tackle. It was most definitely given as a PT. The grounding looks OK from the video, but I didn't see the TMO footage

Well it is the clip you shared supporting a view.

 

[Rich_NL]

However, you agree on the YC point. How can you have a YC without a penalty or penalty try? I think a PT would have been a more equitable outcome.

You can absolutely give a card for foul play even if the opposition get the advantage and no penalty is called.

However, cards are management tools, not sticks to beat naughty players with. And PTs are to ensure foul play doesn't stop a score, which it didn't.