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

[Dickie E]

For me it's a nailed on YC

so you keep saying

 

[Dickie E]

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

Ah, the mantra of the jobsworth

 

[Pegleg]

For me it's a nailed on YC

Can you give your reasoning?

 

[crossref]

For me it's a nailed on YC

Can you give your reasoning?

It's a deliberate penalty given away to save a try.

I don't buy the argument that u16 deserve special treatment, you may think it's empathetic to the offender, but it's not empathetic to the attacking team who were robbed of a probable try.

 

[Pegleg]

So the opening post says that it was not done deliberately. On that basis you still go for a Yellow card? Interesting. You don't deny the non offenders their try they get it and the kick from in front of the posts. Nothing to do with the age level. At any age intentional offending is one thing. Not all offences are intentional. The OP makes it quite clear that he did not see it as intentional.

 

[RobLev]

So the opening post says that it was not done deliberately. ... The OP makes it quite clear that he did not see it as intentional.

Not quite correct. The OP makes clear that the action was quite deliberate; the issue is that the player seemed aware that what he had done was illegal.

It's also worth bearing in mind that you can't award the PT (under 10.2(c)) unless you take the view the offence (or at least the action) was intentional.

 

[crossref]

the throw into touch was deliberate.

I don't buy the notion that an U16 doesn't know that this is illegal -- I think it far more likely he was feigning ignorance in the hope of persuading the ref out of the YC that he was expecting

 

[OB..]

Ah, the mantra of the jobsworth

No, it is a call for reality. You cannot play a game properly if you allow a player to break the law without conceding the customary penalty just because you think he was ignorant. By favouring one team you disadvantage the other.

 

[Dixie]

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."
.

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

OB, surely cynical play requires that the ofender knows that what he's about to d is wrong, but he assesses that the gain is worth the pain. In my view, if a player is ignorant of the law, then his action cannot be cynical. But I'm with Crossref - if a U.16 player really doesn't know that it's illegal to throw the ball into touch deliberately, then his interests are best served by sanctioning his unwitting action with a PT and a YC. That way, he has 10 minutes to write 1000 times:

I must not throw the ball into touch

 

[Pegleg]

the throw into touch was deliberate.

I don't buy the notion that an U16 doesn't know that this is illegal -- I think it far more likely he was feigning ignorance in the hope of persuading the ref out of the YC that he was expecting

But the opening poster felt it to be that the player did not realise it was illegal. That is the basis upon which we're being asked to comment.

 

[Pegleg]

The OP makes clear that the action was quite deliberate; the issue is that the player seemed aware that what he had done was illegal.

Really?

The action was deliberate but the player thought it legal. That is the clear inference in the opening post.

The relevant part of the opening post reads: "...My view was that, the player was quite junior and seemed genuinely unaware that what he had done was illegal..."

 

[Pegleg]

No, it is a call for reality. You cannot play a game properly if you allow a player to break the law without conceding the customary penalty just because you think he was ignorant. By favouring one team you disadvantage the other.

No one is saying he should get away with the offence. The question is whether he should receive a card as well.

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.

 

[RobLev]

Really?

The action was deliberate but the player thought it legal. That is the clear inference in the opening post.

The relevant part of the opening post reads: "...My view was that, the player was quite junior and seemed genuinely unaware that what he had done was illegal..."

Oops - I edited it from "didn't seem to be aware that what he had done was illegal", but didn't negate the "aware".

 

[Pegleg]

That makes your post clearer!:chair:

 

[OB..]

OB, surely cynical play requires that the ofender knows that what he's about to d is wrong, but he assesses that the gain is worth the pain. In my view,

I did not claim it was cynical. I merely expresed the view that it is an offence with a PK as a sanction, which cannot be excused just because the player apparently did not know the law. If it prevented a probable try, then a PT should be awarded, otherwise you are being unfair to the other team. However the issue of the YC is different. I don't believe in automatic cards, so it is for the referee to judge on the individual circumstances.

 

[Dickie E]

However the issue of the YC is different. I don't believe in automatic cards, so it is for the referee to judge on the individual circumstances.

Agreed

 

[Dickie E]

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

may have been once upon a time but now is as true as tunc utique ingrediamur in rimam, et irritum facias matris retro

Try enforcing a no-smoking, bullying, computer or any other policy without first running a suite of training sessions, fully documented, in multiple languages, followed by a chain of counselling & warnings for breaches.

 

[OB..]

may have been once upon a time but now is as true as tunc utique ingrediamur in rimam, et irritum facias matris retro

A neat demonstration of the pitfalls inherent in machine translation (google translate in this case, I believe), and totally irrelevant.

And totally irrelevant anyway (utique).

In a learning/coaching environment you may relax the applicaiton of the laws, but in a match you should not. Why should the team that knows the laws suffer? Materiality, advantage etc, yes. Allowance for ignorance, no.

 

[Dickie E]

In a learning/coaching environment you may relax the applicaiton of the laws, but in a match you should not. Why should the team that knows the laws suffer? Materiality, advantage etc, yes. Allowance for ignorance, no.

You appear to be moving in and out of discussion on the YC with confusing abandon.

 

[OB..]

You appear to be moving in and out of discussion on the YC with confusing abandon.

I'm sorry you can't keep up.