France v Scotland

[Decorily]

And PTs are to ensure foul play doesn't stop a score, which it didn't.[/QUOTE]

Or a 'score' in a more advantageous position!

 

[BikingBud]

And PTs are to ensure foul play doesn't stop a score, which it didn't.

So why does the law say what it does: "or scored in a more advantageous position"?

Where across the pitch is the dividing line between more or less advantageous?

 

[Decorily]

So why does the law say what it does: "or scored in a more advantageous position"?

Where across the pitch is the dividing line between more or less advantageous?

If you need a line on the pitch for this then you shouldn't be refereeing! !

 

[Dickie E]

its a good & interesting point. There is certainly an unwritten rule that a try resets things and a referee will be disinclined to award a deserved YC or a PT. Jeez, I've even done it myself on a number of occasions.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

And PTs are to ensure foul play doesn't stop a score, which it didn't.

Or a 'score' in a more advantageous position![/QUOTE]

Which it didn't either a point already made.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yep. That's on the money.

 

[Rich_NL]

Where across the pitch is the dividing line between more or less advantageous?

Yes, or score in a better position, but I don't take that as meaning a metre or two further infield, personally. There was already a defender sweeping in at full pace and another chasing behind; it's not like he'd have regathered and sauntered under the posts.

My point is more that the reasons for giving a PT seem to be more based on punishing the tackler for doing something naughty, than for the actual effect on the game. PTs are not designed to be used for that; cards can be.

Otherwise you as a ref are giving points to a team as a present based on "making the game fair" rather than what that team actually achieves, which personally I'd keep to under-7s age grade matches.

 

[BikingBud]

If you need a line on the pitch for this then you shouldn't be refereeing! !

No really! :wtf:

We seem to be having a discussion on a referee's forum, where people come for advice from similar minded and more experienced people and to further their understanding, about penalty tries and the principle of where it may be deemed less advantageous and that is your contribution. Thanks very much for that insightful and helpful response.

So by your reckoning, recounting all other queries about knocks on, tap penalties and marks, timing, scrummage and line out issues not to mention more complex problems about jumping tackles and dangerous tackles or the very hypothetical which will seldom if ever occur should not be raised because if we cannot decide we should not be refereeing. MUPPET!

Do you tell the teams you're coaching to catch better and to run faster. With such insights you must be revolutionary!

 

[didds]

And PTs are to ensure foul play doesn't stop a score, which it didn't.

Or a 'score' in a more advantageous position![/QUOTE]

IF the try would PROBABLY (by extension etc) been scored in a more advantageous position. Each to their own but i think its pretty unlikely that try would have been scored significantly closer to the posts. YMMV natch.

The law was blown as it is written.

 

[KoolFork]

I was reflecting on this and wondering if the introduction of YCs (which I still regard as novel, even though it's 20+ years) has reduced the incidence of PTs and/or increased the threshold where a PT is awarded?

It does seem to me that a PT is now only awarded where there is a near certainty of a try.

 

[didds]

It does seem to me that a PT is now only awarded where there is a near certainty of a try.

That does seem to be a consensus of opinion. But refect this against the PT situation 20 years ago and PTs were hardly ever awarded then. Go back another 20 years and they were NEVER awarded (except by Clive Norling!)

didds

 

[Phil E]

So why does the law say what it does: "or scored in a more advantageous position"?

Where across the pitch is the dividing line between more or less advantageous?

Player runs in to score in the corner.
He sees no defenders so he goes to run infield to score under the posts.
A defender suddenly pops out of nowhere and punches him.
He falls down with the ball and in doing so inadvertently scores the try.

Had he not been punched he would probably have scored the try under the posts, which would have been in a more advantageous position (because their kicker is rubbish and can only score from in front of the posts).

So Penalty Try even though the try was scored (accidentally in the corner), because a try probably would have been scored in a more advantageous position if not for an act of foul play by an opponent.....and a :norc:

Does that help?

 

[OB..]

Not see any hand off’s penalised, just forearm’s to the throat

A Stuart Barnes article in the Times today is headlined: "Barnes didn't give Russell a fair trial after referral."

The article continues in legalistic vein - is "neck area" the same as "on the neck" etc. He is arguing that the decision was wrong and the process flawed. He writes "What looked to my neutral eyes to be a fend below the neck ..." and later "Russell stands aside, unable to make any case."

Does he seriously believe that players ought to be allowed to argue a case in their favour? What about Law 6.5?
[LAWS]Within the playing enclosure:

• • The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match.

[/LAWS]

Should the opponents be allowed to state a case as well?!

 

[didds]

This is just Barnes. Hes never let a controversial suggestion get in the way of reality lets face it (cue story of his bosses saying he is employed to provoke controversy, not be factually correct, or somesuch.)

 

[thepercy]

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.

19.7.D

The #8 only needs to be bound with one arm.

 

[thepercy]

No really! :wtf:

We seem to be having a discussion on a referee's forum, where people come for advice from similar minded and more experienced people and to further their understanding, about penalty tries and the principle of where it may be deemed less advantageous and that is your contribution. Thanks very much for that insightful and helpful response.

So by your reckoning, recounting all other queries about knocks on, tap penalties and marks, timing, scrummage and line out issues not to mention more complex problems about jumping tackles and dangerous tackles or the very hypothetical which will seldom if ever occur should not be raised because if we cannot decide we should not be refereeing. MUPPET!

Do you tell the teams you're coaching to catch better and to run faster. With such insights you must be revolutionary!

With regards to PTs 'scored in a more advantageous position', means closer to the center, and an easier place for the conversion kick. I don't think there needs to be a line drawn. As a referee you should be able to determine this. No need to be a dick about this from either party.

 

[Balones]

19.7.D

The #8 only needs to be bound with one arm.

We all know that. It’s the players and the international refs that don’t seem to know it. What we have been observing is non-compliance with 19.7d.

 

[timmad]

We all know that. It’s the players and the international refs that don’t seem to know it. What we have been observing is non-compliance with 19.7d.

We all know this, too, about scrum put-ins: Straight. The scrum-half may align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, thereby standing a shoulder-width closer to their side of the scrum. Ha ha

 

[didds]

We all know this, too, about scrum put-ins: Straight. The scrum-half may align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, thereby standing a shoulder-width closer to their side of the scrum. Ha ha

Like throwers stand with their upferld shoulder on the LoT then...

 

[Dickie E]

Player runs in to score in the corner.
He sees no defenders so he goes to run infield to score under the posts.
A defender suddenly pops out of nowhere and punches him.
He falls down with the ball and in doing so inadvertently scores the try.

Had he not been punched he would probably have scored the try under the posts, which would have been in a more advantageous position (because their kicker is rubbish and can only score from in front of the posts).

So Penalty Try even though the try was scored (accidentally in the corner), because a try probably would have been scored in a more advantageous position if not for an act of foul play by an opponent.....and a :norc:

Does that help?

In that scenario, the referee almost certainly would award the try where it was accidentally grounded.

A more likely scenario: a Red try from rolling maul is imminent when Blue defenders deliberately collapse. Ref sticks out arm. Ball pops out to Red SH who goes blind side to score the try clearly several metres wider than the original try would have been scored. Decision?

 

[didds]

But if the ref has only stuck an arm out for PK advantage, he isnt thinking PT? Cos if he weas he would already have run under the posts?

didds