Penalty Try In Wrwc

[jboulet4648]

Kudos to Simon McDowell who is the second half of the World Cup final awarded a penalty try to England, after NZ collapsed two driving scrums 5 M out. Very ballsy thing to do in an international, never mind a final of a world cup. Well done!!!

Now I would have given him the BIG brass balls award if he gave a yellow card with the Penalty Try!

 

[Josh's Dad]

Unfortunately due to TV constraints on showing any sport, but golf and tennis and a few highlights from the football (with a round ball), in this country despite the fact that we haven't managed anything close to a world final in the latter two, I did not manage to see the WRWC Final!

However, surely the Law says that the 'yellow card' should have followed the penalty try in any event, World Cup Final or not? In fact, had the yellow card had been issued, with the average points score of 7 when a team is down to 14 players, may have seen England leading 17 - 15 going into the final quarter of the game! All ifs, buts and maybes I grant you but if I had been the England coach I would have been very upset with the referee's decision.

 

[Deeps]

You would only award a yellow card if you would have done so elsewhere on the park; it is not automatically awarded with a penalty try. On the other hand, referees are not supposed to shy away from using a yellow card by reasoning that the PT is probably a sufficient enough sanction or worrying about the double whammy effect.

 

[Robert Burns]

Was it the same person though all the whole front row, if the later you can't card them all.

 

[didds]

Was it the same person though all the whole front row, if the later you can't card them all.

if you think all 3 were responsible both times - why not?

didds

 

[Josh's Dad]

The letter of the Law

You would only award a yellow card if you would have done so elsewhere on the park; it is not automatically awarded with a penalty try. On the other hand, referees are not supposed to shy away from using a yellow card by reasoning that the PT is probably a sufficient enough sanction or worrying about the double whammy effect.

Sorry Deeps; although I believe the penalty try, normally giving the attacking team 7 points seems enough of a 'penalty', the Law 10.2(a) states:

'A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must be either cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off'

Foul play of course includes repeated infringements, Law 10.3, which the case against the New Zealand Women clearly is. At our level I am sure we can count on a degree of ineptitude, but this cannot be said at international level. The referee clearly believed that the Kiwis were 'cheating' but the law was not applied to its letter as it should have been.

As for who is sent from the field; if it is not the same person then it is counted as a team infringement and the last player to do it sees a yellow card, simple as that!

 

[Robert Burns]

You may then be doing the non offending team an injustice by making the scrums uncontested (definetly in Didds case). Have you actually ounished the offending team by making sure all scrums are now won by the side putting in and cannot be pushed?

 

[PeterTC]

You may then be doing the non offending team an injustice by making the scrums uncontested (definetly in Didds case). Have you actually ounished the offending team by making sure all scrums are now won by the side putting in and cannot be pushed?

There are 7 replacements, and at that stage of the game (WRWC Final) meant that there were still FR replacements on the bench. In Didd's case, it would be harsh (but technically possible).

With regards to the incident, from what I remember of watching it late at night and being tired, I thought the referee missed a trick earlier on by not awarding a PT or YC earlier when the scrum was pulled down again. England were dominant and NZ should at least have been warned earlier that further infringements would be dealt with more severely. With regards to the actual PT awarded, I thought it was a reasonably good call, although I feel in a way he made a rod for his own back by not dealing with it earlier. Out of all the penalties awarded at the scrum, the chances of a try being scored looked the least at that one, although on the basis of previous scrums, the total disengagement very early of the NZ back row causing it to splinter meant that the scrum beyond that point bared little resemblence to what one would expect.

With regards to the Yellow Card, it is true that a YC should come with a PT, the problem with the incident was identifying the offender (IMHO) as it appeared that NZ could have been penalised for a number of their players, and that the offence overall was probably not solely committed by one player.

On a side note, remember that in awarding a Penalty Try, the need in law for a YC is only there if it is an intentional offence (if I understand and remember the Law correctly).

 

[OB..]

PeterTC - you are remembering Ruling 9 of 2004, which said:
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.
The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.
Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.
Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
a collapsed scrum [...]

I don't like automatic cards, so I agree the referee should use his judgement. Not having seen the play, I can't use mine.

 

[Robert Burns]

It's on Sky Sports Extra now if anyone wants to see it!

 

[Josh's Dad]

In regard to PeterTC's viewing of the event it appears that the YC should have gone to one of the back row not the front row!

On OB's comment, I must agree with his view on the automatic YC; that referees discretion should be applied at lower levels, but surely at international level any such disruption of the scrum is intentional and the YC should be issued accordingly.

If the game was between England (men) and the All Blacks would we not be berating the referee at this point for not issuing the YC?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Law and ruling is very clear, and both RFU National Panel and iRB Panel protocols state YC for foul play. So if it was FR collapsing a NZ player should have been YC - FR player, probably NZ tight head would have been my choice. It might be argued by sonme that the BR early break would be a technical offence not foul play so no YC ?

I agree with PTC that ref should have dealt with it earlier - but it was Cup Final and whatever anyone says enormous pressure on him all round. He should be congratulated for awarding PT in any case.

Refereeing at level 6 / 7 / 8 or assessing a referee at same levels, I would YC as well as PT for deliberate FR collapse at push-over try opportunity and with previous evidence that a try would have been scored due to attacking scrum shove.

 

[didds]

You may then be doing the non offending team an injustice by making the scrums uncontested (definetly in Didds case). Have you actually ounished the offending team by making sure all scrums are now won by the side putting in and cannot be pushed?

excellent points Robert. Maybe all one could day in mitigation is the loss of scrummage domination would (should!) be offset by the three man advantage available.

???

We are creating a dangerous precedent I believe if we accept NOT applying suitable sanctions becuse it may have an adverse effect on the opposition, however "tough" that appears on the non-offenders.

didds