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

[Phil E]

Cynical offences like that don't get a warning. :yellow:

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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

Advantage and I’m thinking YC for the offender.


Not


Advantage and I’m thinking IS THAT A YC for the offender.


Big difference.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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.

Spot on!

 

[beckett50]

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?

My thoughts on this, and the discussions above are interesting.

1. Did the person who took the quick tap run into the defender deliberately to try and 'buy' the PK?
2. Was the defender too slow to react to the PK due to fatigue? Yes, we appreciate that the LotG state

"...members of the opposing team must immediately retreat 10metres toward their own goal line..."

3. Were there any defenders in a position to effect a tackle on the ball carrier? If not then I'm thinking penalty try and definite :noyc:
4. What was the level of the game?


Personally, if my reaction is to decide that the player warrants :noyc: then I will still sanction the player, even after multiple phases of play. My call to the teams at the time of the offence would be - in this case - "Penalty Advantage Blue, Red #x not retreating 10m and it will be a card" That way both teams know where they stand.

 

[L'irlandais]

probable

/ˈprɒbəb(ə)l/

adjective

• likely to happen or be the case.

Probable and likely are both > 50%.

You are right in saying the two words mean the same thing. Only they don’t mean a 50/50 situation.
[LAWS]probably
/ˈprɒbəbli/
adverb
almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.[/LAWS]
He would probaly have scored, but for the infringement. = He would almost certainly have scored, but for ....

 

[Dan_A]

Personally, if my reaction is to decide that the player warrants :noyc: then I will still sanction the player, even after multiple phases of play. My call to the teams at the time of the offence would be - in this case - "Penalty Advantage Blue, Red #x not retreating 10m and it will be a card" That way both teams know where they stand.

Genuinely interested in the idea that you are telling teams that a card is going to be issued. Does that make the offending player more likely to re-offend during the advantage period, as they are going to get a yellow anyway? And if they did would you then issue a second yellow card and, therefore, have to show a red?

 

[crossref]

I think it's a good idea.
I tend to do it when a team is likely to take a quick tap .. so they decide to take a quick tap against 15 players , or wait for the card and play against 14 more organised ones

 

[beckett50]

Genuinely interested in the idea that you are telling teams that a card is going to be issued. Does that make the offending player more likely to re-offend during the advantage period, as they are going to get a yellow anyway? And if they did would you then issue a second yellow card and, therefore, have to show a red?

Good question.

In my experience the part I have highlighted is not the case. As for the second question; don't know. It would depend upon the severity of the subsequent offence(s), and if it is close to the try line may give cause for a PT.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Genuinely interested in the idea that you are telling teams that a card is going to be issued. Does that make the offending player more likely to re-offend during the advantage period, as they are going to get a yellow anyway? And if they did would you then issue a second yellow card and, therefore, have to show a red?

For me, you don't issue (announce) the card until play stops. You just see the offence and make a mental note: "red 6 YC for cynical obstruction (or whatever)", the player only knows when the try is scored and you call him over.

 

[thepercy]

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).

I think in this case you turn an ordinary offense into foul play by way of 9.7.a intentionally offending, and not 9.8 repeated infringement. This definitely in my opinion warrants taking the level of the match into consideration. The higher the level of the match the less things happen on accident or due to ignorance.

 

[thepercy]

I think it's a good idea.
I tend to do it when a team is likely to take a quick tap .. so they decide to take a quick tap against 15 players , or wait for the card and play against 14 more organised ones

If I blow for a PK and a card is coming, double peep, time off, then card. I guess if they were 5 M out and no defenders around, but had lost advantage through their own offense, maybe I'd let them QT, but only if I was certain they would score. If they don't score and go 15 phases and you go back to card for an offense before the QT it will be very awkward.

 

[crossref]

If I blow for a PK and a card is coming, double peep, time off, then card. I guess if they were 5 M out and no defenders around, but had lost advantage through their own offense, maybe I'd let them QT, but only if I was certain they would score. If they don't score and go 15 phases and you go back to card for an offense before the QT it will be very awkward.

It's really not. Back for the YC

 

[beckett50]

If I blow for a PK and a card is coming, double peep, time off, then card. I guess if they were 5 M out and no defenders around, but had lost advantage through their own offense, maybe I'd let them QT, but only if I was certain they would score. If they don't score and go 15 phases and you go back to card for an offense before the QT it will be very awkward.

Totally agree with this; but in the OP - and my earlier post - we were playing 'Penalty Advantage' and permitting the non-offending team to play as they see fit until advantage is over.

 

[Arabcheif]

Im still interested in OP. Zebra said that he was thinking YC. I'm unsure if he means he was contemplating if it warranted a YC or if he had decided that it was a YC, then reversed his call after the try was scored.

 

[Zebra1922]

Im still interested in OP. Zebra said that he was thinking YC. I'm unsure if he means he was contemplating if it warranted a YC or if he had decided that it was a YC, then reversed his call after the try was scored.

I had decided it was a YC offence (attacker did not run into defender, defender deliberately moved to tackle within 1m of the mark). Attackers scored in 2 phases after the offence and I then decided the try was sufficient ‘punishment’. If a try had not been scored I would have issued the YC. My question was asking you guys if you thought that was right as I was questioning my inconsistency here and why I decided not to YC just because a try was scored.

Some comments about tenor of game etc. I think in hindsight I probably should have issued the YC after the score. If the offence was a high tackle worthy of a YC I’d have likely still issued the YC so I don’t see why I shouldn’t treat this offside tackle in the same way (as long as I deemed it worthy of a YC which I did).

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I had decided it was a YC offence (attacker did not run into defender, defender deliberately moved to tackle within 1m of the mark). Attackers scored in 2 phases after the offence and I then decided the try was sufficient ‘punishment’. If a try had not been scored I would have issued the YC. My question was asking you guys if you thought that was right as I was questioning my inconsistency here and why I decided not to YC just because a try was scored.

Some comments about tenor of game etc. I think in hindsight I probably should have issued the YC after the score. If the offence was a high tackle worthy of a YC I’d have likely still issued the YC so I don’t see why I shouldn’t treat this offside tackle in the same way (as long as I deemed it worthy of a YC which I did).

In view of you confiming my understand of the scenario. I stand by my comment that the card stands whatever happens afterwards. As, from the OP, I think you deep down feel also.

But hey, we've all forgotton who it was etc.

 

[Arabcheif]

Fair enough, in that case, yeah I agree Yellow Card probably should've been issued. I thought you were contemplating IF it was worthy of a Yellow, then decided it didn't.

 

[Zebra1922]

In view of you confiming my understand of the scenario. I stand by my comment that the card stands whatever happens afterwards. As, from the OP, I think you deep down feel also.

But hey, we've all forgotton who it was etc.

Don't joke, I regularly play advantage then come back for the penalty and when asked can't for the life of me remember what the offence was.

 

[crossref]

Don't joke, I regularly play advantage then come back for the penalty and when asked can't for the life of me remember what the offence was.

For me the solution is to say it out loud ,bRed 10 offside .

Then I rmemebr

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Don't joke, I regularly play advantage then come back for the penalty and when asked can't for the life of me remember what the offence was.

Me too. I've even forgotton who was due to have a scrum when there has been a delay. I now have a little aide to assist me.

Age does not come alone!