Fullback throws ball into touch to save a try. Can you award penalty try?

[CrouchTPEngage]

In a recent junior game U16, the fullback caught a long high kick by the attackers. Chasing pack were approaching and, as fullbacks do, he tried to step them but succeeded in only slipping and falling down to the ground. this was 5 m in front of his own try line. Being isolated, and quickly after he had fallen to ground, he knew the approaching chasers were near (i would say 0.5 seconds away ) so he appeared to throw the ball directly into touch.

i awarded a penalty but the attacking team coach was shouting for a penalty try as, in his view, his chasing pair would probably have picked up the ball (the fullback would have released) and simply fallen over the line. My view was that, the player was quite junior and seemed genuinely unaware that what he had done was illegal. irrespective of that, the law is the law, but i adjudged there were enough defenders chasing back too, who would have prevented a try i.e. it was by no means certain (Sure, it was, perhaps probable ) that a try would have been scored.

my question is -what probability (of the attacking team scoring ) should i use to help base my penalty try decision ? 50% ? or 90% ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

IMO

PT: would depend on the presence of other defenders. Your call.

YC: Definitely, if it happened as described. It was cynical!

 

[Pegleg]

My view was that, the player was quite junior and seemed genuinely unaware that what he had done was illegal.

Not relevant.

I adjudged it was by no means certain (Sure, it was, perhaps probable ) that a try would have been scored.

Does not need to be "certain", "probable" is enough.

My question is -what probability (of the attacking team scoring ) should I use to help base my penalty try decision ? 50% ? or 90%

For me a 50% likelyhood is not "probable". After all it is just as likely it will not be a try. You can have Probably would have scored and Probably would not have scored together.

After that sorry I can't help. There is no magic number. If you think here comes a try. I guess it is "probable".

Perhaps it is a bit like a red card offence? You know one when you see one.

 

[crossref]

At U16 I don't think you need to shy away from a PT on account of their age. (U16 is quite old enough to know that Law, players generally find out about that at u13, the first time someone innocently does it, and are reminded at u14 when someone does it again)

From your description I would have given a YC as well.

PT? You say yourself the try was probable -- so just from that I reckon you should have given it.

 

[Rushforth]

IMO

PT: would depend on the presence of other defenders. Your call.

YC: Definitely, if it happened as described. It was cynical!

"My view was that, the player was quite junior and seemed genuinely unaware that what he had done was illegal."

I would have no problem awarding the PT, regardless of any other defenders. The offence was "cynical".

However, within the context of the game as described (which doesn't include scoreline) I would not give a YC, but explain that it would be at senior level, to both teams.

I should add that in my first ladies match ever - the teams playing went on to promote to the premier division here in that season and the season after, the former stayed up and the other back down - I made the same call for a high tackle. Not at all dangerous, but caused the wing to knock on two yards short of the line, just before half time with the score still 0-0. (It was eventually 0-53, with 3 players on the offending home side having given their all in the 1st half leaving on their own accord, and no reserves).

In short: don't be afraid to award a penalty try. Above all don't avoid awarding a penalty try because it would mean an "automatic" YC. Just say "penalty try, BUT in view of the circumstances, no card now."

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

thansk for all that advise. Great !. So it sounds like I can award a PT iif i think that a try woukd probably have been scored. In my book that ,eans 51% probability or more. So if its only 50% then i coukd award the pen and YC the offender, Yes you are right in that the player seemed unaware that he d been cynical. His team were 25 points down already so perhaps a YC woukd not have been the right thing for an U16 newbie...
I have awarded onky 1 penalty try ever. Perhaps i need to work on that.

 

[OB..]

So it sounds like I can award a PT iif i think that a try woukd probably have been scored.

You should award a PT if but for foul play a try would probaby have been scored.

In my book that ,eans 51% probability or more.

Mathematically a probability is a value betweeen 0 (= impossile) and 1 (= certain). All values in that range are probabilities.

However you have no way of measuring the probability so trying to be too precise is not helpful. As with a Red Card, you just have to develop a feel for it. I suggest the phrase "strong probability" is appropriate to eth way it is used in practice..

 

[crossref]

thansk for all that advise. Great !. So it sounds like I can award a PT iif i think that a try woukd probably have been scored. In my book that ,eans 51% probability or more. So if its only 50% then i coukd award the pen and YC the offender, Yes you are right in that the player seemed unaware that he d been cynical. His team were 25 points down already so perhaps a YC woukd not have been the right thing for an U16 newbie...
I have awarded onky 1 penalty try ever. Perhaps i need to work on that.

No.
You definitely should have given a yellow card.
If you thought a try was probable you should have given a PT

 

[Rushforth]

You definitely should have given a yellow card.

I disagree, as per my post above. 25 points down, U16 and all that.

 

[Dickie E]

No.
You definitely should have given a yellow card.
If you thought a try was probable you should have given a PT

and if he starts to cry, make it a red. That'll learn him that he should've stuck to basketball like mum wanted in the first place.

 

[Rushforth]

and if he starts to cry, make it a red. That'll learn him that he should've stuck to basketball like mum wanted in the first place.

You are a big meany-head. And upside-down, meany!

 

[The Fat]

Is it cynical play if a player obviously doesn't know that he has done something wrong?

Quote:
"My view was that, the player was quite junior and seemed genuinely unaware that what he had done was illegal."



If a PT is warranted, then a PT it is. If there were other defenders near who could have stopped a try then no PT.

 

[Rich]

What if he had gone to ground with the ball and held on to the ball until his team arrived? Would that not just have constituted a penalty for holding on? Surely the try was not "probably" on the cards and thus would not warrant a penalty try? Obviously there was foul play involved by throwing the ball into touch, but for me this is only a penalty.

 

[The Fat]

What if he had gone to ground with the ball and held on to the ball until his team arrived? Would that not just have constituted a penalty for holding on? Surely the try was not "probably" on the cards and thus would not warrant a penalty try? Obviously there was foul play involved by throwing the ball into touch, but for me this is only a penalty.

You make a good point.

If a defender and an attacker were chasing a kicked ball towards a goal line and just as the attacker was about to take possession and fall over the goal line to score, the defender slaps the ball into touch, then a PT would be awarded.

If a defender fields a kicked ball and has possession and throws the ball into touch as an attacker approaches, then it would be a PK and, depending on the age level, possibly a YC as well but definitely not a PT.

 

[Taff]

What if he had gone to ground with the ball and held on to the ball until his team arrived? Would that not just have constituted a penalty for holding on? Surely the try was not "probably" on the cards and thus would not warrant a penalty try? Obviously there was foul play involved by throwing the ball into touch, but for me this is only a penalty.

Not for me I'm afraid. Using the "Beam me up Scotty" approach (and assuming there were no other defenders) a try would probably have been scored - that's good enough for me. In fact I have given a rare PT for exactly that.

IMO if it's a PK in the "red zone" especially, we should consider a PT and / or cards. It's easy to get caught up in the frenetic atmosphere when the chances of a try are there, but that's just when you need to keep a clear head. I can think of a couple of instances when I have awarded just a PK, when with hindsight a PT would have been justified. I suppose it's this ability that separates the Level 2s from the Level 3s. :biggrin:

 

[OB..]

Is it cynical play if a player obviously doesn't know that he has done something wrong?

"Ignorantia juris neminem excusat" (Ignorance of the law is no excuse.)

 

[Pegleg]

No it's not cynical. Cynical requires (for me) intent. However, as OB points out, ignorance is no defence to the fact that the law has been transgressed. So the penalty has to come.

 

[ChrisR]

PT? Perhaps. As the fullback had possession of the ball he had other options that could have bought him time until the cavalry arrived.

YC? No way. A panic reaction like this is hardly cynical.

 

[Pegleg]

I agree with Marauder here. The description of the offence is hardly cynical.

 

[crossref]

For me it's a nailed on YC