[Scrum] Penalty try vs advantage and a try in worse position

[halfwayline]

I had an interesting question from a coach after the weekend's game. The chap asked me why I did not award a penalty try, which would've put the team in a better kicking position, but instead I let them score a pushover try from a scrum in the corner whilst playing advantage for opposition loosehead scrumming in.

If they didn't score it would've been a penalty try (no doubt as they were clearly dominant and going forward from 5m out). They missed the kick as it was difficult one almost on touchline. Game ended in a draw and the try was scored 10mins before final whistle so a conversion could've had an impact on who wins the match.

My opinion is the penalty try is awarded if its reasonably certain a try would've been scored, had the defensive side not committed the offence - which is true here. It does not however mention you can still award the PT if a try was scored anyway (unless I am missing some literature).

The guy's response was that in future his team will try to show they are going to pushover and if they are given the penalty advantage they might collapse or knock ball on etc. to get the PT under the posts rather. This is against the nature of the game I feel, but I don't know what the law book says whether this is avoidable or whether I can even give PT in this case (don't think so...).

Any suggestions for a comeback answer in this scenario?

 

[FlipFlop]

PT is for when foul play prevents a probable try, or causes a try to be scored in a worse position.

Did the foul play prevent a Try inyour case? No appears to be the answer from your post.

Was it scored in a worse place? I am guessing not from what you say.

So the correct result is to award the try, not the PT.

The response to the coach - you can do that, but you risk only getting a PK, if the ref decides the try wasn't probable. If a player picked up, and knocked on, I might only give the PK, as it shows the try was not probable - they messed it up etc. Teams should play to score, and not try to not involve the referee. As when you involve the ref, you might not always get what you are expecting.

 

[DocY]

I'd educate the coach on deliberate infringements!

In the situation you describe, I'd probably go straight under the posts as soon as I see the offending action rather than letting them keep pushing, but mostly because I see a large mismatch in scrummaging ability as a potential safety issue.

In other positions I'd try to play advantage and let them score - as a player I certainly preferred that someone actually touched down and (perhaps naively) I'd expect players to think the same. I find most penalty try offences don't naturally lend themselves to playing advantage though.

 

[Phil E]

I just don't see a PT in the action described.

The prop was boring in (if I read it right), but this did NOT prevent the scrum being pushed over for a try.
Yes you were playing advantage, but that was for a penalty only.
As the scrum went over, nothing prevented a try being scored, so a penalty try was not in the offing.
So the answer to the coach is....stick to coaching.


Far too often I hear coaches (and commentators) complain that a PT is not given when a scrum goes down, or has to be reset. If the offence (if there is one) doesn't stop the scrum being pushed over, then a try would not have been scored anyway, so its not a PT situation. Just because a scrum goes down, it doesn't mean a PT. If the scrum isn't moving how is a try going to be scored?

 

[halfwayline]

Thanks for the replies. Flipflop - to your point, this was not foul play I believe. There was also no trend during the match with looshead continiously scrumming in, but of course being so close to their own goal there is a high probability this was done intentionally and can amount to a foul...so could probably argue that way as well and give PT. It wasn't scored in a worse position though as the scrum went straight(ish) and 8 dot down for try.
DocY - I do like your point about players wanting someone to actually dot down for the try, somethig which is obviously more in the spirit of the game and the main point why I only gave a try and did not immediately go to penalty try.

This is a difficult one and I think going back to the fact that it was tight and the conversion could've meant the team could've got the win...I could've maybe given the PT on the basis that loosehead intentionally scrummed inwards to stop attacking team from scoring,therefore causing a foul.

 

[JSAK]

...when you involve the ref, you might not always get what you are expecting.

Well said. The quote would make a great signature line.

 

[OB..]

I think going back to the fact that it was tight and the conversion could've meant the team could've got the win...I could've maybe given the PT

I know itis difficult, but you should really think whether you would have given a PT earlier in the game. If not, don't give it now.

 

[Phil E]

...I could've maybe given the PT on the basis that loosehead intentionally scrummed inwards to stop attacking team from scoring,therefore causing a foul.

But his actions/foul-play didn't stop them from scoring, because they still scored. So how can you give a PT under Law 9.A.1

[LAWS]Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a
try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts.[/LAWS]

 

[FatherFlipper]

I'm not sure if this scenario belongs in this thread (apologies if not), but I do believe at the Quins v Sarries game a few weeks back, Quins were pinned in their own corner early on conceding line out penalty and scrum penalties galore (with Horwill already in the bin). I think it was two consecutive scrums where the scrum caved in and had the Saracens fan baying for a penalty try. The referee (who I cannot remember at this time) clearly spoke to Joe Marler at this point - I can only presume to warn about further consequences. Sarries opted for the reset - Quins scrum got marched backwards, didn't go to ground, and Wigglesworth the scrum half dotted down over the line.

In subsequent viewings on the replay, there is a suggestion that Chris Robshaw informed the pack that if Sarries got the hit on to take the try (ie, let them have it), rather than concede the penalty try and potentially have a man sent to the bin. Sure enough, that's what they did - Sarries knocked over the conversion, and Horwill's ten minutes was up. So Quins lost the seven points, but without any further loss of players to the bin (which would ultimately have meant that they played the first 20 minutes with 14 men).

It's a long shot, but is Quins "deliberate" conceding of the try against the spirit of the game? Again, the point about Robshaw taking the loss of points was something I have seen mentioned in social media and I believe it may have been mentioned in the game commentary, so it might not be true - maybe Quins just suddenly scrummaged straight and just went backwards naturally (and apologies if this has hijacked the thread somewhat, though I kinda think it might be the other side of the same coin).

 

[crossref]

But his actions/foul-play didn't stop them from scoring, because they still scored. So how can you give a PT under Law 9.A.1

[LAWS]Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a
try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts.[/LAWS]

I agree with Phil - the scenario described just isn't a PT

 

[didds]

I'd educate the coach on deliberate infringements!.

I'd agree - but then why aren't deliberate drops to the floor to gain a scrum at advantage PK'd (they aren't that common but they still do occur).

eg George Gregan?

didds

 

[winchesterref]

But his actions/foul-play didn't stop them from scoring, because they still scored. So how can you give a PT under Law 9.A.1

[LAWS]Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a
try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts.[/LAWS]

Agree. Either give it immediately that close to the line, or play on and see if they score themselves.

 

[pwhaling]

I'd educate the coach on deliberate infringements!.

I'd agree - but then why aren't deliberate drops to the floor to gain a scrum at advantage PK'd (they aren't that common but they still do occur).

eg George Gregan?

didds

Because you go back to the original infraction

 

[didds]

Because you go back to the original infraction

I'm not saying the coach's idea was correct - but its too trite to say its a PK for deliberately infringing, because we see deliberate infringements occurring often that go unpunished. Even if there was a prior infringement, it is STILL a deliberate infringement carrying a PK. PK's don't trump knock-ons? If following a knock-on by blue, red thumps blue and you only go back for the scrum?

When you start creating ifs, buts, maybes then the game loses what simplicity it still has and can only lead to differences on match day with the man with the whistle - which whether we like it or not frustrates everybody. So if you are going to allow one lot of deliberate infringements then surely all? Or none?!


I appreciate you won't be converted


didds

didds