harsh YC & PT?

[Ian_Cook]

Cant believe no-one is discussing the ball hitting the line (dead ball camera angle). Rest is irrelevant...

OK, fair enough, but lets go with what the TMO said. What if the ball was actually short? What about the rest then?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

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.

Fat, the ARU Game Management Guidelines state that where a PT has been awarded and the offender can be identified, then a YC must be issued.

I'd be interested in seeing whether the tackler would be able to roll the attacker over before the line - I doubt it, but I still like to see that sort of desperation from a legal tackler. The second arriving player in my mind is illegal and deserving of a PT

 

[Drift]

Fat, the ARU Game Management Guidelines state that where a PT has been awarded and the offender can be identified, then a YC must be issued.

I'd be interested in seeing whether the tackler would be able to roll the attacker over before the line - I doubt it, but I still like to see that sort of desperation from a legal tackler. The second arriving player in my mind is illegal and deserving of a PT

I somewhat agree with you in terms of the YC. It does state that, however I would be happy to keep the player on the pitch in line with "the spirit of the game" and explain to my coach why I kept him on. For that PK to go 7 points down is punishment enough in my view, putting them down to 14 men as well feels too harsh to me.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I somewhat agree with you in terms of the YC. It does state that, however I would be happy to keep the player on the pitch in line with "the spirit of the game" and explain to my coach why I kept him on. For that PK to go 7 points down is punishment enough in my view, putting them down to 14 men as well feels too harsh to me.

Drift, my sense of "fairness" grumbles about this too, the 5-7 points is penalty enough without the YC, but would have almost certainly been there had the player not infringed. I certainly wouldn't want to encourage players to flout the laws based on the proximity of the try-line so the other face of the faireness fairy on my shoulder says - why not? If the tactic was deliberate and prevented a probable try, they deserve to be further penalised.

An accidental penalty leading to a PT is always hard to pull out a YC for, I recently gave a PT for an U16 isolated player not releasing the ball 5 m out from his try line. He was injured in the process of gathering the ball and in some pain, which is why he didn't release/roll away, but I called the penalty try before I realised this - I was not in the best position, but who is after a 70 odd metre chase where you tripped over a player on the way. When I brought him over and realised he was injured, I felt bad and didn't card him, which I then got gently bollocked for after the game by my mentor.

 

[Robert Burns]

The new coaching philosophy is very much about the big 3! One of them being empathy.

I believe empathy should have been applied here.

 

[Account Deleted]

The Law book requires a card if the offence is intentional but not if it is unintentional:

"10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."

I see no reason why "empathy" should not be shown to the non offending team.

 

[Dickie E]

The Law book requires a card if the offence is intentional but not if it is unintentional:

"10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."

I see no reason why "empathy" should not be shown to the non offending team.

The ARU GMG make no such allowance for empathy... unfortunately

 

[OB..]

I am not sure how you show empathy when a player has intentionally infringed the laws. Empathy is not the same as Sympathy, and deliberately offending is against the spirit of the game.

 

[Account Deleted]

Re: harsh YC & PT?

The ARU GMG make no such allowance for empathy... unfortunately

My reference re empathy was to Robert's post. My empathy is to the non offending side not to the offender - That is putting myself in their (NON - offenders) shoes.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure how you show empathy when a player has intentionally infringed the laws. Empathy is not the same as Sympathy, and deliberately offending is against the spirit of the game.

I totally agree.

 

[Rassie]

What about situations when teams are scrambling and the attacking team have a 4 man overlap and the defence goes offside while one guy grabs the 9 or put his hands in the ruck?

Referees blow them up giving PK. So teams can do it game after game and just give away 3 instead of 7. Think they should be more strict on that aand give more PT and YC for such professional fouls.

 

[Rassie]

Re: harsh YC & PT?

My reference re empathy was to Robert's post. My empathy is to the non offending side not to the offender - That is putting myself in their (NON - offenders) shoes.

- - - Updated - - -



I totally agree.

If he intended to infringe is irrelevant. Depends on how many times he committed a similar offense in the match

 

[Ian_Cook]

What about situations when teams are scrambling and the attacking team have a 4 man overlap and the defence goes offside while one guy grabs the 9 or put his hands in the ruck?

For offences that are NOT of themselves foul play (that would be the "hands in the ruck" or the "offside") the referee cannot award the PT unless he is convinced that the infringement was deliberate, and therefore foul play under Law 10.2 (a) - Intentional Infringing.

If he is happy that the offences were intentional, and if a try would probably have been scored then a PT may be awarded if not, then PK only.

Referees blow them up giving PK. So teams can do it game after game and just give away 3 instead of 7. Think they should be more strict on that and give more PT and YC for such professional fouls.

What happens, and what players do in prior matches cannot have any influence on the referee's decision for the match at hand. For each match, every player starts with clean slate. While opposing fans might become frustrated, match after match, with seeing McCaw repeat offending at breakdowns, or Butch James as a recidivist head-hunter, or players like Dallaglio and Johnson getting away with illegally killing the ball ruck after ruck, there is nothing that the referee can do about anything that happened in previous matches. He must deal only with what he sees in front of him.

This may not be very satisfactory for fans whose knowledge of the Laws is limited, and even less satisfactory for those fans who think they have a good grasp of the Laws, but have no practical experience in applying them in real match situations.

Unlike fans like you Rassie, referees can't make stuff up to suit themselves. They have set guidelines within which they have to work - they're called the Laws of the Game.

 

[Taff]

.... the referee cannot award the PT unless he is convinced that the infringement was deliberate ..

I'm not sure that is 100% accurate Ian. I thought the only 2 conditions needed for a PT are

1. That a PK offence (intent is irrelevant)
2. Prevents a probably try or a try in a better position.

 

[Account Deleted]

I'm not sure that is 100% accurate Ian. I thought the only 2 conditions needed for a PT are

1. That a PK offence (intent is irrelevant)
2. Prevents a probably try or a try in a better position.

The Law confirms Ian's View:

9.A SCORING POINTS
9.A.1 POINTS VALUES
...
Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a
try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY (if FOUL PLAY)
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY

(h) Penalty try. A penalty try is
awarded if a try would probably
have been scored but for foul
play by the defending team. A
penalty try is awarded if a try
would probably have been
scored in a better position but
for foul play by the defending
team.

 

[Taff]

The Law confirms Ian's View:

"Foul Play" yes but it doesn't say "Deliberate Foul Play". Don't forget that intentional offending is only 1 part (out of 4) Foul Play categories.

Eg a clumsy but accidental high tackle close to the goal line, could easily result in a PT. Ie it doesn't have to be deliberate. So all the Ref needs to ask himself is "Did that act of Foul Play prevent a probable try or a try in a better position?" IMO intent (ie whether it was deliberate or accidental) is irrelevant as far as PTs go.

 

[Account Deleted]

Taff you're missing the point.

A PT can only be awarded after foul play. This is what Ian said and contrary to your post that I quoted.

I'm not sure that is 100% accurate Ian. I thought the only 2 conditions needed for a PT are

That a PK offence (intent is irrelevant)
Prevents a probably try or a try in a better position.

Note you include all pk offences and not as Ian said FOUL play.

Other offences eg Offside that are not foul play offences, in themselves, can become foul play if they are deliberate. That is the point of the 10.2(a) as I posted.

You can't award a PT for offside UNLESS you consider it deliberate. Only if you deem intent can you consider a PT

A high tackle is foul play deliberate or not. It attracts a possible PT

Other offences (not Law 10 offences) need intent to become foul play. Do you see the difference? I think the distinction is important.

 

[Taff]

Taff you're missing the point. ... Other offences (not Law 10 offences) need intent to become foul play. Do you see the difference? I think the distinction is important.

Yes, I can see your point. Sorry I mis-read Ians original post and I apologise. I must try harder. :biggrin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm not sure that is 100% accurate Ian. I thought the only 2 conditions needed for a PT are

1. That a PK offence (intent is irrelevant)
2. Prevents a probably try or a try in a better position.

Yes, it is 100% accurate

EVERY instance in the Laws, without exception, state the following or something similar

Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent...

There is no instance in the Law that provides for a penalty try to be awarded for an offence that is not in Law 10, or does not specify that an infringement is either foul play or deliberate.

These are the only Laws other than Law 10, that specify the circumstances for a PT
9.A.1
12.1 (e)
21.4 (f)
22.4 (h)
22.17 (b)

In every case, they specify foul play or intentional offending.


EDIT: Sorry Taff. Posted without checking for updates

 

[Jacko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eu_j0-9t04

Similar one courtesy of SARefs.
What are people's thoughts on this?
I'll nail my colours to the mast right from the outset. Watching that in real time without a TMO, I would give a scrum to the defence.

 

[crossref]

who knows what one would give real time, but I think the TMO made the right decision.