harsh YC & PT?

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
I am not normally in the habit of bumping old threads, but a video turned up in my youtube inbox account that I had to share in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF399-vYmeg

It isn't exactly the same because in this case there was a tackle, but the essence is the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Re: Chiefs v Crusaders - Diving on a player close to the line.

I am not normally in the habit of bumping old threads, but a video turned up in my youtube inbox account that I had to share in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF399-vYmeg

It isn't exactly the same because in this case there was a tackle, but the essence is the same.


Well, the commentators call it very harsh, but IMO, its the right call. Blue 12 comes in from the side (illegally) and prevents a try from being scored.

The only question I have is this; a PT is supposed to only be awarded when foul play prevents a probable try, and side entry is not, of itself, an act of foul play. Of course there is always the argument that any infringement committed to intentionally prevent a try being scored is automatically foul play under Law 10.2 (a)
 

Robert Burns

, Referees in Canada, RugbyRefs.com Webmaster
Staff member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
9,650
Post Likes
7
What do you think?

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830261/
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Robert

damo already posted about this in another thread, so I moved his post and my reply here.

Happy to see sareferees agrees with me.
 

Robert Burns

, Referees in Canada, RugbyRefs.com Webmaster
Staff member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
9,650
Post Likes
7
Thanks Ian,

My questions from observations:

1, does it matter that blue player is in goal? (See feet).

2, to me blue player is quite clearly in replay going for the ball, not the player, to save the try.

3, what is the difference between this, and the common try saving tackle (which I never see penalised) where an arriving player comes in hard from the side to bundle them all into touch?

4, Should the fact that his actions are not foul play, but try prevention be taken in to account?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think this is one of those situations that OB.. has posted about, where the Law gets very sketchy due to the proximity of the goal-line.

My questions from observations:

1, does it matter that blue player is in goal? (See feet)

IMO, no, because the Law only refers to the tackle. A tackle (noun not verb) cannot take place in-goal, therefore there can be no gate in-goal. However, in this case, the tackle is in the field of player as is the tackled player, so there is a gate and IMO, arriving players must comply with it (Law 15.6).

2, to me blue player is quite clearly in replay going for the ball, not the player, to save the try.

Makes no difference to me. The player has been tackled and there is a gate. The arriving player (Blue 12) must play the ball from his own side of it. The Laws say he has to approach from the side of the ball or the tackled player closest to his own goal-line, it doesn't say that he has to be between the ball and his goal-line.

3. what is the difference between this, and the common try saving tackle (which I never see penalised) where an arriving player comes in hard from the side to bundle them all into touch?

That situation occurs when the ball carrier has not yet been brought to ground. A ball carrier can be tackled from any direction. The gate only applies once the tackle (noun not verb) begins.

4, Should the fact that his actions are not foul play, but try prevention be taken in to account?

Did Blue 12 commit an offence? YES

Did Blue 12 commit this offence in order to prevent a try being scored? YES

Did Blue 12 commit this offence intentionally? IMO, YES

Therefore it is Foul Play under Law 10.2 (a), the player intentionally infringed and had he not done so, would the White player have scored a try? Probably, so PT must follow.

This all might seem harsh, but IMO its fair enough. I have no sympathy for Blue. This situation, does not arise if Blue defends properly. Blue 12 was out of position and could not get to the tackle in time. Why should the referee remedy his mistake/poor defending by applying the law differently than he would anywhere else on the field?

There may have been a possible remedy for Blue 12

[LAWS]22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that
this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is
scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by
pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms
, but must not kick the ball.[/LAWS]

If he had arrived and stayed on his feet to rip the ball, he might have avoided the PT, although I would still argue that he is still not playing the ball from his own side of the tackle. I would like to hear from a higher-up referee like KML1 or Bryan on this one.
 
Last edited:

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
Thanks Ian,

My questions from observations:

1, does it matter that blue player is in goal? (See feet).

2, to me blue player is quite clearly in replay going for the ball, not the player, to save the try.

3, what is the difference between this, and the common try saving tackle (which I never see penalised) where an arriving player comes in hard from the side to bundle them all into touch?

4, Should the fact that his actions are not foul play, but try prevention be taken in to account?
My 2 cents worth of answers:
1. It doesn't to me. Where is the ball will say where is the infringement. Importance? If foul play in-goal --> automatic YC. if outside, the YC is not automatic (law 22.17.(b))

2. I agree Blue 12 is going for the ball. But he "dives on a tackled player on the ground" plus he "enters the tackle area from the side". Two infringements in one single move.

3. As you say, the common try saving tackle is a tackle. This isn't...

4. As said by Ian above by itself, 10.2.(a) makes the "intentionally offending" a foul play by itself. Judgement call.

To me, the real question on this decision is: would have the try really been probably scored without the action of Blue 12?
It doesn't seem that obvious to me.

PK against Blue 12: yes
YC against Blue 12: maybe (depending on the game, etc...)
PT: No that sure... Seems to me White 15 lost control of the ball (forward) just before impact from Blue 12

Cheers,
Pierre.

Edit: Ian just beat me on this...
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
To me, the real question on this decision is: would have the try really been probably scored without the action of Blue 12?
It doesn't seem that obvious to me.

PK against Blue 12: yes
YC against Blue 12: maybe (depending on the game, etc...)
PT: No that sure... Seems to me White 15 lost control of the ball (forward) just before impact from Blue 12

Cheers,
Pierre.

Pierre. There was no separation (that I could see) between the ball and White 15's right arm. As long as the ball remains in contact with the ball carrier/tackled player somewhere between the shoulder and the fingertips, then he hasn't lost the ball, and IMO he was still in contact with it when Blue 12 plucked the ball away.

If you apply the "beam me up Scotty rule" to Blue 12, then its probable (IMO) that the ball advances and touches the goal-line still in contact with the White 15's arm. Try scored!
 
Last edited:

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
Pierre. There was no separation (that I could see) between the ball and White 15's right arm. As long as the ball remains in contact with the ball carrier/tackled player somewhere between the shoulder and the fingertips, then he hasn't lost the ball, and IMO he was still in contact with it when Blue 12 plucked the ball away.

If you apply the "beam me up Scotty rule" to Blue 12, then its probable (IMO) that the ball advances and touches the goal-line still in contact with the White 15's arm. Try scored!

Good point! Fair enough...
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
The PT is a no brainer IMO.
The YC I'm not so sure about. I don't think the opposition would have complained if he had not been given a YC. Think of a scrum collapse and a PT awarded but the YC is not always let out of the pocket.
At my level, I would have awarded the PT but not the YC.
Happy to hear arguments to the contrary regarding the YC.
 

Robert Burns

, Referees in Canada, RugbyRefs.com Webmaster
Staff member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
9,650
Post Likes
7
So should this have been a PT & YC? I'll find some more examples.

http://youtu.be/pfaPJQLi28M
 

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
So should this have been a PT & YC? I'll find some more examples.

http://youtu.be/pfaPJQLi28M

PK against Green 13 for entering the tackle area from the wrong side: Yes
PT: I don't think so as it seems to me green 9 had stolen the ball already and as such, O'Driscoll wasn't the final factor of the try not being scored.

To word it out: I'm ok with green 9 "second" tackler in the movement (both at real speed and in slo-mo)

Does anyone know what is the given penalty for?
 

Toby Warren


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,431
Post Likes
57
I'm pleased (but shocked) to see this given.

If Blue 12 had acted as he did (leaving his feet and ripping the ball out whilst on the ground) on the 1/2 way line it would ahve been a PK.
 

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
PK against Green 13 for entering the tackle area from the wrong side: Yes
PT: I don't think so as it seems to me green 9 had stolen the ball already and as such, O'Driscoll wasn't the final factor of the try not being scored.

To word it out: I'm ok with green 9 "second" tackler in the movement (both at real speed and in slo-mo)

Does anyone know what is the given penalty for?

Holding back on Ben Smith. That could almost have been a PT all of itself because if Smith had been on his shoulder he probably would have been the extra man and in the corner - bit marginal perhaps.

As for the TMO, if the SA one was a PT, then this one was also. BOD enters from the wrong side and straight off his feet to prevent a probable try.
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
I with you robbie...lets have it one way or the other...
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
► The O'Driscoll one - I think there is a case for a PT there=. Both Green 9 and 13 joined the tackle after Black 8 was already tacked and on the ground.

► The Read one - This could also be a PT under Law 14

[LAWS]14.2 PLAYERS ON THEIR FEET
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on
or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

This is exactly what Bundi Aki did.

On both cases, if the defending team can't tackle the ball carrier before he gets within scoring distance than that is their look out. If either of these had happened on the half way, or at the 10m line, or 15m short of the goal-line, you would be awarding a PK against the defending team. Why should the referee be expected to give them a free pass on the Law just because its near the goal-line?
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
I'm surprised that so many now seem to be agreeing that this is a PK offence.

When I questioned why it wasn't a PK months ago, I was basically told "What the hell do you expect the defender to do?"
 

KML1

Ref in Hampshire. Work for World Rugby
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
1,201
Post Likes
67
Location
England
Current Referee grade:
Elite Panel
Cant believe no-one is discussing the ball hitting the line (dead ball camera angle). Rest is irrelevant...
 
Top