[Law] Offence warranting YC the. Try, go back and YC?

[Zebra1922]

Bit of advice required.

game yesterday, penalty offence c.15m out, quick tap and an immediate, cynical tackle within 2m of the offence by a player who didn’t retreat. Advantage and I’m thinking YC for the offender. Phase or two later team scores before I have to go back for the penalty/YC.

i chose not to YC after the try, but I’m thinking this isn’t right. The offence was worthy of a YC and would have had one if the try had not been scored so in hindsight I think I got this wrong.

What do you do (or would do) in a similar situation?

 

[crossref]

Bit of advice required.

game yesterday, penalty offence c.15m out, quick tap and an immediate, cynical tackle within 2m of the offence by a player who didn’t retreat. Advantage and I’m thinking YC for the offender. Phase or two later team scores before I have to go back for the penalty/YC.

i chose not to YC after the try, but I’m thinking this isn’t right. The offence was worthy of a YC and would have had one if the try had not been scored so in hindsight I think I got this wrong.

What do you do (or would do) in a similar situation?

I have - on occasion - awarded the try and then also gone back and issued a retrospective YC

But on other occasions not... it all depends.

In your particular game - only you can tell what would have been best - and I think you answered that yourself!

 

[Flish]

Yup, as above, sometimes a word in the ear of the player can be sufficient to ram home that it very easily could have been a YC, sometimes the card should be issued, especially if there have been warnings / niggle / you need to set a marker.

 

[Zebra1922]

I had a word to the player. Game was played hard but generally fair, close game, very little niggle or dissent so I didn’t want to YC unless I had too. Just felt a bit wrong not to YC just because a try was scored.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Simples!

If you thought it a YC offence (taking into account tone of the game etc) then it is a YC whether or not the try is scored. So, if you would YC the offender had there been no try then YC him after the try.

 

[MadRef77]

If a player succeeds in denying the opponents a try by means of foul play it is a PT and a YC. I don't see why being unsuccessful in denying the try should make it any better: it's like the offending player played cynically but gets away with it because he sucks at it.

 

[Arabcheif]

PT are awarded if foul play denies a likely score. I'm guessing in this instance there were other players who would've been able to make the tackle to stop the try fairly. Therefor no PT. I'm thinking that a word in the ear of the offender and maybe even the captain was enough on this occasion. I'd say that given the match was played generally fairly the right call was made.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

PT are awarded if foul play denies a likely score. I'm guessing in this instance there were other players who would've been able to make the tackle to stop the try fairly. Therefor no PT. I'm thinking that a word in the ear of the offender and maybe even the captain was enough on this occasion. I'd say that given the match was played generally fairly the right call was made.

Probable not likely.


The point in the OP is that he decided that the offence warranted a Yellow Card and then softened because there was a score. For me that is wrong. Once the bell has rung to say: "That's a card!", what happens next does not alter the issuing of any card~(s).

 

[leaguerefaus]

Probable not likely.


The point in the OP is that he decided that the offence warranted a Yellow Card and then softened because there was a score. For me that is wrong. Once the bell has rung to say: "That's a card!", what happens next does not alter the issuing of any card~(s).

probable

/ˈprɒbəb(ə)l/

adjective

• likely to happen or be the case.

Probable and likely are both > 50%.

 

[Dickie E]

The point in the OP is that he decided that the offence warranted a Yellow Card and then softened because there was a score. For me that is wrong. Once the bell has rung to say: "That's a card!", what happens next does not alter the issuing of any card~(s).

True enough but in reality it often doesn't happen that way. 20th phase, 4th advantage for defender offside, attackers score. Unlikely to see a card.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

probable

/ˈprɒbəb(ə)l/

adjective

• likely to happen or be the case.

Probable and likely are both > 50%.

Not in this context. For a PT we are looking at a much higher probability than 51%.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

True enough but in reality it often doesn't happen that way. 20th phase, 4th advantage for defender offside, attackers score. Unlikely to see a card.

Whilst I accept that after such a time you may have forgotton who the original offender was so you are unable to issue a card. however, if you've had "4 advantages for offside" in such a period of play, a card should be coming for repeated offences, if nothing else.

 

[Flish]

The point in the OP is that he decided that the offence warranted a Yellow Card and then softened because there was a score. For me that is wrong. Once the bell has rung to say: "That's a card!", what happens next does not alter the issuing of any card~(s).

I get what you're saying, and in most cases you're probably right, but don't think it's always black and white *must* be a yellow if the try was scored, eg Juniors (or even Vets) games, or 5 minutes to go and result is in the bag, second yellow and would thus be a red (especially if first was a team / technical yellow) - there are cases I think where I would back away from the yellow. Maybe that makes me a weak ref, I'm not a big carder, maybe I need to be tougher as I move up.

 

[Arabcheif]

When I'm playing, the only thing I want is consistency from the ref of that match. I'd expect that given the same situation he'd judge the same way. I remember playing in a Bowl match not last year but the year before. One of our players (a bit of a hothead), did a football slide tackle (feet first) as the last man about 10m out. No PT, and YC was the decision. I'd have given the PT and issued RC for serious/dangerous foul play. He did us a favour allowing us to keep 15 men o the field (after the yellow). I understand that decision now, he made it to keep the game competitive (the other team was a division above). They won 35-19 eventually (I think). We subbed the offender when the 10 mins was up so he didn't play in the game anymore. It helped us be competitive in that match and the game was tough and fair (apart from that incident).

While his decision may have been technically wrong in Law, I think he was right for that match. In another match he may well have went for the RC.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I get what you're saying, and in most cases you're probably right, but don't think it's always black and white *must* be a yellow if the try was scored, eg Juniors (or even Vets) games, or 5 minutes to go and result is in the bag, second yellow and would thus be a red (especially if first was a team / technical yellow) - there are cases I think where I would back away from the yellow. Maybe that makes me a weak ref, I'm not a big carder, maybe I need to be tougher as I move up.

THe point that I am making , and they you are missingis this:

The OP decided that it was a Yellow Card. (consideringn the level of the game the tone etc).

What I am saying is, once you make that call (in your decision process) the fact that a try was or was not scored does not change that evaluation.

Obviously in diference situations / games you use context to make your calls. Here the referee said to himself: "That is a card" (a judgement in context) he then changed it based on a try being scored. That is my issue,

 

[Marc Wakeham]

When I'm playing, the only thing I want is consistency from the ref of that match. I'd expect that given the same situation he'd judge the same way. I remember playing in a Bowl match not last year but the year before. One of our players (a bit of a hothead), did a football slide tackle (feet first) as the last man about 10m out. No PT, and YC was the decision. I'd have given the PT and issued RC for serious/dangerous foul play. He did us a favour allowing us to keep 15 men o the field (after the yellow). I understand that decision now, he made it to keep the game competitive (the other team was a division above). They won 35-19 eventually (I think). We subbed the offender when the 10 mins was up so he didn't play in the game anymore. It helped us be competitive in that match and the game was tough and fair (apart from that incident).

While his decision may have been technically wrong in Law, I think he was right for that match. In another match he may well have went for the RC.

Sounds like a RC for me it looks like a PT from the info given. However the Op was about a Penalty (worthy of a card) from which advantage was played and a try scored. This caused the referee to change his mind about the card. for me that was wrong.

Had the original call been advantage (no card required) that may well have been fair enough.

Was the original call, that the offence was a card, correct? I don't know (I was not there!) I am just going by the OP.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Here the op to remind. I've highlighted the critical bits (as I read them):

[OP]
Game yesterday, penalty offence c.15m out, quick tap and an immediate, cynical tackle within 2m of the offence by a player who didn’t retreat. Advantage and I’m thinking YC for the offender. Phase or two later team scores before I have to go back for the penalty/YC.

I chose not to YC after the try, but I’m thinking this isn’t right. The offence was worthy of a YC and would have had one if the try had not been scored so in hindsight I think I got this wrong.[/OP]

I nlight of the Bold bits It think the underlined bits are errors.

I agree with the OP that, in hindsight he got it wrong.

 

[Arabcheif]

I think the key point in the OP is he was "thinking" YC. I don't think he'd made the final decision about that??? Then he allowed the advantage and the try was scored. He then decided that he wasn't going to issue a card. Happy to be corrected by Zebra if that's not the case

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Coincidentally I had this last night.

PK from some offence about 20m out. Blue 7 taps it and sets off. Black 9 grabs Blue 7 almost immediately and slows him appreciably but Blue 7 breaks clear - we are playing PK adv - and heads for line. He is tackled short but reaches out and scores.

I award try and YC black 9. Blue miss the conversion.

PT never entered my thoughts as there was (onside) cover beyond Black 9.

In the bar afterwards (which is good) Black 9 asks why the card when Blue scored anyway?

I explained that given it was a Cup Final - albeit a low level one - then such cynical play, which he may well have got away with on any other Saturday at L10/11, didn't warrant such leniency in the particular match. I then suggested we never had another occurrence of it from the 2-3 other tap penalties and that if I didn't card him then how would I justify a card for their opponents if there was no score in similar circumstances? He seemed "happy" with the explanation.

I get the feeling that some of my lower level colleagues let them get away with this and just march them back 10m - dunno?

Anyway, exciting game finished 25-22 to Black with last (PK) kick of game - a bit disappointed Black couldn't score from a long advantage but Blue were miles offside in midfield so we came back for the PK. 12m out bang in front. If it had finished as a draw Blue would have won as away team.

Too harsh?

I'm open to persuasion.

 

[Arabcheif]

I think that given there was another defender who nearly prevented the try, the likelihood of the Try being scored wasn't high enough for the PT. But as always it's difficult to tell without being there.

For me, the level of the game shouldn't come into it though, but the severity of the offence. As blue 7 got clear I'd prob have went back for the not back 10 and marched them (defending team) 10m back. Prob wouldn't have given a card unless it was a point for escalation for a repeat offence.

Warn (Shout Leave him) - Penalise (If warning wasn't heeded - Pen and chat with the captian - anymore will be a YC) - Card - (If player/team repeats the offence).