France v Scotland

[Rich_NL]

A PT can follow from advantage. For all the ref knows, the SH will pass it out the other way, 12 will score under the posts and there's no grounds to give the PT.

You don't see it much because foul play is often a flashpoint and kills the attacking momentum.

 

[Camquin]

So i f a lazy runner blocked the easy pass to a centre poised to score under the posts, forcing the 9 to go wide but still leading to a score in the corner -are we thinking PT?

 

[didds]

So i f a lazy runner blocked the easy pass to a centre poised to score under the posts, forcing the 9 to go wide but still leading to a score in the corner -are we thinking PT?

I would have no problem with that. But as soon as the s/half looked towards the centre, saw the alzy runner, then broke wide the other way why wouldnt the ref blow for PT immediately? why would he play advantage ? If the play was so quick he never got a chance he presumably just ignores the 9's actions and awards a PT? Dicke's example above had an arm out - Im not following why you'd do that if you thought the penalised action already prevented a probable try?

 

[Rich_NL]

So i f a lazy runner blocked the easy pass to a centre poised to score under the posts, forcing the 9 to go wide but still leading to a score in the corner -are we thinking PT?

I'd say not. For me, you have to have the ball (or be attempting to receive it), and be heading towards the line or in-goal. Otherwise I get into such shades of grey that I can tie myself in knots defending the decision. A clearly/cynically offside player charges down 10's cross kick to a clear winger? Obstruction on a support runner 10m before the lone fullback tackles the ball carrier? Early tackle on the flyhalf with a 4-on-2 overlap?

I can't think of a C&O PT situation where the foul play isn't against the player about to score. I'm sure the minds of this forum can come up with many The lazy runner may well face a YC nevertheless.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'd say not. For me, you have to have the ball (or be attempting to receive it), and be heading towards the line or in-goal. Otherwise I get into such shades of grey that I can tie myself in knots defending the decision. A clearly/cynically offside player charges down 10's cross kick to a clear winger? Obstruction on a support runner 10m before the lone fullback tackles the ball carrier? Early tackle on the flyhalf with a 4-on-2 overlap?

I can't think of a C&O PT situation where the foul play isn't against the player about to score. I'm sure the minds of this forum can come up with many The lazy runner may well face a YC nevertheless.

Ball is in the left side 15. FOr reasons known only to God, the nearest defender on the op0en side 10 m away, and you have a runner who can get in the gap.

You look right, and all of a sudden your channel is taken away by the lazy runner, so you pivot left and send the winger in at the corner.

PT. YC. Easy sell.

 

[Dickie E]

Ball is in the left side 15. FOr reasons known only to God, the nearest defender on the op0en side 10 m away, and you have a runner who can get in the gap.

You look right, and all of a sudden your channel is taken away by the lazy runner, so you pivot left and send the winger in at the corner.

PT. YC. Easy sell.

If there has ever been an elite game where this PT has been given I'd like to see it.

 

[didds]

I diont think the point is "Ive never seen it, it never happens". The point is a very clear cut example - its that latin phrase about adsurdium wotsit. So in THIS example is a try in the corner or a PT is the question, as the alzy runner prevented a probably try much closer to the posts and a simpler conversion? Its a simple binary question.

 

[Dickie E]

I diont think the point is "Ive never seen it, it never happens". The point is a very clear cut example - its that latin phrase about adsurdium wotsit. So in THIS example is a try in the corner or a PT is the question, as the alzy runner prevented a probably try much closer to the posts and a simpler conversion? Its a simple binary question.

Law suggests PT. Experience & observation suggests try in corner.

But I'm happy to be proved wrong if anyone can cite an elite example where a PT has been given.

Note too that there is an opinion (not shared by me) that as soon as the alzy runer does her/his thing, the ref should be running under the posts and not take any interest in the outcome of the pass.

 

[Flish]

Not wrong in law, but Try in the corner, and a firm word with the lazy runner for putting the consideration of a PT in your head. Almost without fail players, coaches and spectators want the game won on the pitch by players.

(Of course there will always be one smart arse in the bar after when then game is lost by 1 point that argues the case!)

 

[didds]

Note too that there is an opinion (not shared by me) that as soon as the alzy runer does her/his thing, the ref should be running under the posts and not take any interest in the outcome of the pass.

why would the ref not do so?

- - - Updated - - -

Not wrong in law, but Try in the corner, and a firm word with the lazy runner for putting the consideration of a PT in your head. Almost without fail players, coaches and spectators want the game won on the pitch by players.

it would have been LOST by A player though?

didds

 

[didds]

(Of course there will always be one smart arse in the bar after when then game is lost by 1 point that argues the case!)

and if that was the case what is the response?

"I thought you'd all prefer the actual try and missed conversion than a PT and 7 points because the oppo cheated. Hard luck your kicker missed that touchline conversion. Hey ho".

That'd work I'm sure...

 

[Rich_NL]

why would the ref not do so?

Because you don't know if a try has been prevented until the ball is lost/dead - so how can you give a penalty try?

 

[didds]

??????

thats not the criteria though is it?

if due to foul play etc etc tec a PROBABLE try has been prevented etc. It doesnt require play to continue for maybe several minutes (think 40 phases of pick of go) to find out if a PT can be awarded?

Surely that isnt the criteria you apply when reffing?

 

[Flish]

and if that was the case what is the response?

"I thought you'd all prefer the actual try and missed conversion than a PT and 7 points because the oppo cheated. Hard luck your kicker missed that touchline conversion. Hey ho".

That'd work I'm sure...

Same response with anyone challenging a decision, and you can engage in a discussion as much as you like before hand if you what, but ultimately “That’s not how I saw it” can’t really argue with that

 

[SimonSmith]

Same response with anyone challenging a decision, and you can engage in a discussion as much as you like before hand if you what, but ultimately “That’s not how I saw it” can’t really argue with that

That would disngenuous bordering on lying though.

I agree with Didds. If we see what teh decision is, I'm not sure using spurious reasoning like "the game should be decided by the players" cuts it.
And as Didds references: if we give the PT, the game was decided by a player. The lazy runner.

 

[Dickie E]

just a reality check. Has anyone ever seen a PT awarded that has overruled a grounded try? Wonder if we're in angels on pinheads territory.

Not saying it can't happen and not saying it shouldn't happen ... just asking, has it ever happened and/or will it ever happen?

 

[Flish]

I think some have missed my point, we’re talking about scenarios where we know, in law, that PT’s aren’t given, when they could technically be, but an actual try has been and that’s what we award. My point is that they’ve got a try, they’ve scored, very few are going to be unhappy with that.

There may be an unwritten rule that if they score a try you don’t get a PT, or that the additional mandatory YC is punishment too far (especially on a technical penalty) so it gets managed (avoided?) by not awarding a PT. I don’t know if these are true, but it seems like it and we go a lot with expected behaviour.

If someone argues the “could you have gone PT because ....” I wouldn’t expect you to give the thought processes above, they are invalid in law (unless you want to dig yourself a hole!), but they are in and around what we’re thinking, but it’s easy to counter if you want

 

[didds]

After 45 years or so involvement in RU as a player, coach, very occassional (and crap!) ref, blazer and supporter across grass roots to elite, Ive never ever been aware of any unwritten rules/laws/understandfings/interpretations that a grounded try takes precendence over a PT award.

My entire understandign is that if/when the ref sees a PT scenario (s)he just blows immediately.

Clealrly others mileage differs.

 

[Dickie E]

After 45 years or so involvement in RU as a player, coach, very occassional (and crap!) ref, blazer and supporter across grass roots to elite, Ive never ever been aware of any unwritten rules/laws/understandfings/interpretations that a grounded try takes precendence over a PT award.

My entire understandign is that if/when the ref sees a PT scenario (s)he just blows immediately.

Clealrly others mileage differs.

so you've seen it happen with a quality ref? If so, can you describe what happened?

 

[Flish]

But as this thread shows, there are scenarios where a PT could (should?) be given, certainly in the ‘more advantageous position‘ scenario where it’s not, I think there would be a lot more PT’s if every ref applied the PT definition strictly.