Here's one I've never seen in Senior Rugby.

[Marc Wakeham]

I didn't at L7 when awarding a PT at a 5m scrum when it was clear that the TH had been unable to push in the right direction. It was his first (at 45 mins) (and it turned out only) offence at an otherwise excellent scrum contest all match. I took that into consideration, and wondered what problems any replacement would give us! The MOD made no comment about the lack of YC, including when I specifically asked him.

Wit ha scrum offence i it not always so easy to id the culprit so a little more leeway is avaiable (and a Law Clarification stated that some years ago) of course, if it obvious that 3 did it then yes a card should follow.

 

[crossref]

Wit ha scrum offence i it not always so easy to id the culprit so a little more leeway is avaiable (and a Law Clarification stated that some years ago) of course, if it obvious that 3 did it then yes a card should follow.

for me, I wish the Law allowed a little bit of discretion in a PT.

Just sometimes there are occasions when a YC seems wrong. I had one this season where a defender playing only her second ever game clumsily caught an attacker high as she went for a try. It was all very slow, unintentional and very low impact and caused no excitement at all - but alas it did cause the ball carrier to lose possession as she went over the line.
I gave a PT but omitted to YC. In the context of that particular game, and that player, it felt right.
Although, obv, it was also wrong.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

for me, I wish the Law allowed a little bit of discretion in a PT.

Just sometimes there are occasions when a YC seems wrong. I had one this season where a defender playing only her second ever game clumsily caught an attacker high as she went for a try. It was all very slow, unintentional and very low impact and caused no excitement at all - but alas it did cause the ball carrier to lose possession as she went over the line.
I gave a PT but omitted to YC. In the context of that particular game, and that player, it felt right.
Although, obv, it was also wrong.

Agreed and down in the sticks we "see what we see". Of course it was bulit intothe pre simplification Law Book that it was "intentional" foul play only that was a compulsory card. I would say your situation did not come under that criteria.