Gloucester v Worcester
- Thread starter Waspsfan
- Start date
Given that a top level TMO used the concept, and a top level referee accepted it without demur, I would assume it is common usage. It has certainly been used on here from time to time. I don't know any official guidelines, so it is not clear quite how far it goes.
stuart3826
Referees in England
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 962
- Post Likes
- 0
Respectfully, OB, how do you know what principles were being applied in making the decision?
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
But surely, OB, this goes to the heart of the dissenters' view? The full back's legal presence caused the attacker to sidestep Up to this point, all is as it should be. The sidestep caused the fullback to flail with the leg, resulting in the trip. So at the instant the flail started, beam him up. The sidestep is still a fact, so the attacker has taken himself (deliberately and voluntarily) closer to the legitimate defence. Why should we ignore that in judging whether, from this new position closer to the defence, he'd still probably have scored?
MrQeu
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 440
- Post Likes
- 37
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
"A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored."
As I said, maybe there's something lost on translation, but I understand this as "wasn't for the foul play action" rather than "wasn't for the player committing foul play being there"
As I said, maybe there's something lost on translation, but I understand this as "wasn't for the foul play action" rather than "wasn't for the player committing foul play being there"
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
But MrQeu, they are often the same thing. The high tackle just before the goal line that takes the attacker into touch is a case in point. If you ignore the fact that he went high, you might argue that the defender would have shoved him into touch anyway. But the defender had his shot, and went high. We don't consider what he might have done had he not gone high; we take him out of the equation altogether and see what would have happened then
MrQeu
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 440
- Post Likes
- 37
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
If, for the sake of the example, the high tackle or the trip comes from behind, I totally agree with you.
But in this case or in the SuperRugby's one from last week, why?
Here we have an attacker who had to side step and had some defenders near. On the other there are two players diving for a bouncing ball.
Of course, if we delete those two players and all their actions and let the attackers think and act different and according to their new circumstances, both tries were to be scored. Surely. But I don't understand the law that way (just beam up the fullback's leg or the defenders hand and the foul play doesn't happen, but there is still contest and not easy to score a try).
So maybe it needs to be rewritten so it says what is actually called in real games.
But in this case or in the SuperRugby's one from last week, why?
Here we have an attacker who had to side step and had some defenders near. On the other there are two players diving for a bouncing ball.
Of course, if we delete those two players and all their actions and let the attackers think and act different and according to their new circumstances, both tries were to be scored. Surely. But I don't understand the law that way (just beam up the fullback's leg or the defenders hand and the foul play doesn't happen, but there is still contest and not easy to score a try).
So maybe it needs to be rewritten so it says what is actually called in real games.
MrQeu - As PhilE says, the presence of the player who commits the act of foul play cannot be an influence on determining whether, if not for the foul play, a try would probably have been scored.
If his presence is taken into account then you are effectively saying - well he did commit foul play, but if he had not done so he could have still prevented the try.
The point is he chose to commit the foul play - he chose not to act lawfully and by doing so the try was prevented.
To say that if he had acted lawfully he could still have influenced the try is not viable, he didn't, his act prevented the try, so he must be taken out of the equation - in the sense that we must assume, that, since he did not actually do anything legal - then nothing he could legally have done would have affected the try... in other words he is removed from the thought process.
If his presence is taken into account then you are effectively saying - well he did commit foul play, but if he had not done so he could have still prevented the try.
The point is he chose to commit the foul play - he chose not to act lawfully and by doing so the try was prevented.
To say that if he had acted lawfully he could still have influenced the try is not viable, he didn't, his act prevented the try, so he must be taken out of the equation - in the sense that we must assume, that, since he did not actually do anything legal - then nothing he could legally have done would have affected the try... in other words he is removed from the thought process.
BY relying on what the TMO actually said about taking him out of the equation.
At this point in the discussion I suggest we all take out a pin and count the number of angels dancing on its head. There is no official definition as to how far we should go in discounting the foul play, so there is no official answer.
MrQeu
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 440
- Post Likes
- 37
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
No, I don't mean that.
A player, just for the action of being there makes an opponent to have to take a decision on how to score a try. On this example, he had to perform a sidestep which led him into slowing and making the defenders have a chance on tackling or ankle tapping him. All was done in a lawful way. It's not until after this moment that the foul play happens.
Of course, as I said, if you take out the player committing foul play, rewind the play 2 seconds and let the attacker rethink his actions, a try was going to be scored.
That's why I made that distinction earlier (i.e. a trip from behind where the player commiting the foul play hasn't done any legal move).
Of course a player committing foul play shouldn't be excused. But his legal moves shouldn't also be forgotten just because he committed and act of foul play and that his real lawful actions should be taken into account to determine the outcome. Not the ones he could've made, but the ones he really made.
A player, just for the action of being there makes an opponent to have to take a decision on how to score a try. On this example, he had to perform a sidestep which led him into slowing and making the defenders have a chance on tackling or ankle tapping him. All was done in a lawful way. It's not until after this moment that the foul play happens.
Of course, as I said, if you take out the player committing foul play, rewind the play 2 seconds and let the attacker rethink his actions, a try was going to be scored.
That's why I made that distinction earlier (i.e. a trip from behind where the player commiting the foul play hasn't done any legal move).
Of course a player committing foul play shouldn't be excused. But his legal moves shouldn't also be forgotten just because he committed and act of foul play and that his real lawful actions should be taken into account to determine the outcome. Not the ones he could've made, but the ones he really made.
To the extent that the attacker did in fact slow and step then you can allow for that - if that then placed some other defender in with a decent chance of preventing the try then then you can accept that - that reflects what actually happened. But the defender who committed foul play can have no effect on whether or not the try was probable. We don't rewind 2 secs, we look at the situation as it actually was, but without the offender.