Hurricanes v Blues Penalty Try

[damo]

It seems that this place is the only rugby forum where this decision hasn't had a mention. Does anyone doubt that this should have been a PT and a YC? I thought the TMO was exactly right, but it does raise the thorny issue of whether the "beam me up" philosophy is correct.

I also think that Conrad Smith should have been penalised earlier in the movement for not releasing a tackled player, although that would have been harsh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmuRcZiUbg&feature=player_detailpage#t=311s


(Starts at 5:15)

 

[menace]

I have no issue with the PT as it looked pretty deliberate to me and is a Law 10 breach, but YC seems harsh despite the law suggesting that it was required (my highlight below). TBH, I probably would not have issued a YC, but im sure my assessor would have had words about that. I don't think it was all that controversial.

[LAWS]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.

(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick
(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touchline, or, at the place of infringement if the offence occured elsewhere in the field of play, or, 5 metres from the goal line and at least 15 metres from the touchline if the infringement occured in in-goal.
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.
[/LAWS]

As for the Conrad Smith steal, it was a 50/50, as he may well have had possession before the original ball carrier went to ground / or knees touched the ground. When I paused it at that point I think the ref was blocked by other players so probably would not have had a clear view, so at that speed I think fair enough to play on (white had no support in coo-ee either).

 

[Dixpat]

The key word in the law is intentionally

Can one say with any degree of certainty that the act was intentional.

I think an argument could be made that he was trying to force the ball by pulling it from in front of the attacker but it doesn't follow that his intention was to knock it dead

Also the TMO said words to the effect that if he weren't there the try would have been scored - at what point in the play does one determine that he shouldn't be there? - At the start of the movement, when he is jostling with the attacker, or when they both dive for the ball?

If it is when they both dive then I don't think that it passes the "probably otherwise have been scored" test

 

[Ian_Cook]

It seems that this place is the only rugby forum where this decision hasn't had a mention. Does anyone doubt that this should have been a PT and a YC? I thought the TMO was exactly right, but it does raise the thorny issue of whether the "beam me up" philosophy is correct.

I also think that Conrad Smith should have been penalised earlier in the movement for not releasing a tackled player, although that would have been harsh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmuRcZiUbg&feature=player_detailpage#t=311s


(Starts at 5:15)

Nailed on PT IMO

Halai commited an act of foul play, so beam him up, and that leaves the Hurricanes player alone with the bouncing ball, a deep in-goal and no defender near enough to stop him grounding the ball.

As to the YC, I have no problem with that either.

If the referee/TMO have ruled that Halai acted intentionlly then the YC is justified.

NOTE:

SANZAR referee manager Lyndon Bray has backed up Glenn Jackson and Vinny Munro, but has said that the Chileboy Ralpelle try should not have been awarded.

 

[Dickie E]

Well, I have a different view. While the defender clearly batted the ball away I don't believe he was intentionally knocking it dead, just away from the attacker

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, I have a different view. While the defender clearly batted the ball away I don't believe he was intentionally knocking it dead, just away from the attacker

1. He intentionally knocked the ball

2. The ball went dead

therefore

3. The ball went dead because he intentionally knocked the ball

...a difference that isn't a difference!

 

[Dickie E]

The ball went dead because he intentionally knocked the ball

Is this the same as ...

[LAWS]
A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line

[/LAWS]

A player passes to a team mate who isn't there and the ball goes into touch. Penalty?

 

[OB..]

Given the (legal) jostling, I doubt if Halai had full control over where the ball went, but nonetheless he clearly knocked the ball away rather than trying to ground it, so he took a significant risk of it going dead. And lost.

As to the probability of a try otherwise, I agree that if you take him out of the equation, a try was a very strong probability.

 

[Chogan]

Halai was making a play for the ball with his left arm. I believe he had a strong chance of grounding it till Savea batted Halai's arm away by making contact with Halai's upper left arm. In doing so Halai lost control of his intended movement and knocked the ball dead. This only happened because of Savea's attempt at grounding the ball firstly pushed Halai.

Did Halai intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand over the dead ball line?
Inconclusive. Ball brought over by gold. 22

We must be certain about grounding the ball or else we can't give it. I would apply the same here. We must be certain Halai intended the action.
If Halai had clearly slapped the ball dead. PT + YC.

 

[OB..]

I'm afraid I do not see any sign of Halai trying to bring his hand down to ground the ball. The action to me is clearly trying to knock it away.

 

[TheBFG]

Yep PT, no issues with that, however i know there's a school of thought that says to YC a player too is harsh, they just lost 7 pts and to put them at 14 too is maybe a step too far, but that said thems the laws and it's there in black and white.

 

[Chogan]

Only look at Savea. Then ask yourself if Savea's actions (the contact only) changed Halai's.

 

[Dixie]

Well, I have a different view. While the defender clearly batted the ball away I don't believe he was intentionally knocking it dead, just away from the attacker

1. He intentionally knocked the ball

2. The ball went dead

therefore

3. The ball went dead because he intentionally knocked the ball

...a difference that isn't a difference!

Ian, like DickieE I see a significant difference, and this is one we are likely to hear much more of in the coming year:

1. I deliberately shot through the bathroom door
2. My bullets killed my girlfriend
3. It does not logically follow that I deliberately killed my girlfriend

 

[Buck1969]

Ian, like DickieE I see a significant difference, and this is one we are likely to hear much more of in the coming year:

1. I deliberately shot through the bathroom door
2. My bullets killed my girlfriend
3. It does not logically follow that I deliberately killed my girlfriend

From a legal perspective, Ian has this spot on, and it applies even more so to the Pistorious situation. He deliberately shot through the bathroom door, and in doing so he acted with "depraved indifference" to whomever was inside. Under those circumstances, the law (at least in most US jurisdictions), presumes intent as a result of such wanton disregard for the safety of others. The law in South Africa may well be different, such that he could argue

 

[Shelflife]

Where does this beam me up theory come from ?

my reading of that incident is that if the foul play act had not occured would a try probably been scored? In this instance I think that its only 50 50 and I wouldnt award a PT. I would YC for cynical foul play though.

 

[Pinky]

Where does this beam me up theory come from ?

my reading of that incident is that if the foul play act had not occured would a try probably been scored? In this instance I think that its only 50 50 and I wouldnt award a PT. I would YC for cynical foul play though.

Shelflife, the beam him up theory is one of the ways that you might assess what would have happened if the foul play had not occured. Take a high tackle, stopping a player in his tracks close to the try line. If the fould play had not happened, the high tackle, might be viewed as what if a proper legal tackle had taken place? Often that would have stopped the try as well, but that is not what some (and i think the majority of the refs on here) think. They think, what if the player who high tackled had not been there, ie he loses his right to influence the game by foul play, and that is where the beam him up comes from. Imagine if just before the high tackle you heard the funny noise and he disappeared, what would have happened then? More likely a try and thus the PT should be awarded.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

1. He intentionally knocked the ball

2. The ball went dead

therefore

3. The ball went dead because he intentionally knocked the ball

...a difference that isn't a difference!

Where does it say in the laws that you have to Ground the ball when you are trying to prevent a try being scored? for me it was inconclusive there was no clear hit of the ball to knock it dead,

 

[OB..]

Only look at Savea. Then ask yourself if Savea's actions (the contact only) changed Halai's.

As I see it, Halai always intended to knock the ball away from Savea, not try to ground it, regardless of any contact from Savea.

 

[Davet]

1. I deliberately shot through the bathroom door
2. My bullets killed my girlfriend
3. It does not logically follow that I deliberately killed my girlfriend

Given that you knew someone was in there, it follows that you deliberately killed someone, who happend to be your girlfriend. Given that you didn't ask who was in there, or offer any warning it follows that your shooting was designed kill whoever was in there and you didn't much care who that might be.

 

[Dixpat]

If you beamed up the defender just prior to him touching the ball then the attacker was in "flight" to try and ground it

The fact the defender got to it first would indicate that the attacker was behind the defender and therefore his probability of correctly grounding the ball was low - ergo no PT