harsh YC & PT?

[Dixie]

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.

Without TMO - knock on. As TMO - I'd give a knock on. I thought the second defender was very harshly treated there. He had launched to try to assist the tackle well before the tackle was completed. He therefore had no way of preventing himself landing on the tackled player when it turned out the tackler needed no assistance. So in my opinion, he was legal throughout. It never occurred to me to penalise him in the many re-runs before the decision came through. I thought the decision would revolve around whether the ball was stripped from the tackled player after the tackle by the grounded would-be tackle assist - and I thought there was a reasonable chance that would be penalised. If it had been penalised, I think the PT is itself a bit harsh - it was not clear to me that the tackled player could reach out and score from where he was.

 

[FlipFlop]

Knowing what thread this was in....

I saw the player dive on in the first run through, and in the first re-play, saw the strip on the ground as well.

Love the commentators comment of "What else could he do to prevent the try from that position?" - my response - nothing, once you're in that position, so don't get into that position!!!!

Think these decisions are right in regard to the PTs, but wish the YCs were not given (I know the law doesn't give the ref much option). Think the law should be YCs in relation to FOUL play preventing a try, and not situations like these.

 

[talbazar]

Think these decisions are right in regard to the PTs, but wish the YCs were not given (I know the law doesn't give the ref much option). Think the law should be YCs in relation to FOUL play preventing a try, and not situations like these.

I'm with you regarding the YC. And in this case, as the infringement is outside the try area, theref does have a choice!

 

[Account Deleted]

... And in this case, as the infringement is outside the try area, the ref does have a choice!

Can you clarify the bold bit please?

 

[talbazar]

Can you clarify the bold bit please?

Law 22.17.(b) states
[LAWS]A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]
This is the only place in the law where there is a direct link between a PT and a card.
As the PT is stated in law 10 too, I've always interpreted the above as only applying in in-goal.

I realise now it may be disputed but it still makes sense to me...

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Love the commentators comment of "What else could he do to prevent the try from that position?" - my response - nothing, once you're in that position, so don't get into that position!!!!

That is exactly my view Flip Flop. The correct and legal way for the Blue team to have prevented this try was for Blue 11 not to miss the tackle on White 15, 5m out from the goal-line.

Why should the Law be suspended to provide a remedy for a situation that the defending team is entirely responsible for allowing themselves to get into. Let the ball carrier get to the goal-line, then intentionally infringe to prevent the try, and you risk a PT and a YC.

As Colonel Nathan R. Jessop said in A Few Good Men... "....its that simple!"

 

[Account Deleted]

Law 22.17.(b) states
[LAWS]A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]
This is the only place in the law where there is a direct link between a PT and a card.
As the PT is stated in law 10 too, I've always interpreted the above as only applying in in-goal.

I realise now it may be disputed but it still makes sense to me...

Cheers,
Pierre.

Why on earth would it only apply to in goal? The law you quote may be in Law 22 but clearly the it does not apply just to in goal.


If you prevent a try through Foul play on the half way line it is a penalty try AND a card.

Law 10 applies everywhere not just in-goal.

 

[talbazar]

Why on earth would it only apply to in goal? The law you quote may be in Law 22 but clearly the it does not apply just to in goal.


If you prevent a try through Foul play on the half way line it is a penalty try AND a card.

Law 10 applies everywhere not just in-goal.

Ok, I just re-read Law 10 and there is a link between PT and Card so my all point is wrong...

My confusion came from the fact only law 10.2.(a) states that "A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."
The rest of Law 10 doesn't and neither does Law 22...

Too many laws in that game... Why on earth did I pick up the whistle? :biggrin:

 

[Account Deleted]

I think it is because the mandatory card was a later addition to the law book. sadly the book has not been tidied up (no shock there).

 

[Dickie E]

Well, for me it was a penalty for diving on player and then stripping the ball. No problem with the YC.

But I disagree with the PT. Ball carrier was never going to get in goal via momentum and there is plenty of doubt about attacking team's ability to retain possession from the tackle/ruck and score.