Penalty Try

[Lee Grant]

:ausardon a query from a non-referee, especially if it has been addressed before.

There was an incident in the Wales v Oz test last week that I was curious about. A defender got binned for an early tackle near his own goal line but the referee did not award a penalty try.

The facts of the matter are not that important, but the application of the law is:

[LAWS] Law 9.A.1 - 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]

What does “but for foul play of an opponent” mean? In deciding on probability, is the referee to suppose that the defender was not present at the incident - as we fans say: the defender is “taken out of the equation”. Or (surely not), is the referee to suppose that the defender could have done something legally instead, such as: waiting a couple of steps then tackling the attacker when he had the ball?

In the 2nd case a specious argument could be made of the “but”. This would contend that if foul play was not performed then the referee could consider whether or not the same defender could have performed legal play.

Another example is when a player is pole axed by a “head-high” tackle near an opponent's goal line. Does the referee bother to think of whether or not a try would probably have been scored had the same tackle been performed legally by the same defender?

Are there any law rulings or clarifications on the matter?

Thank you.

 

[Ian_Cook]

:ausardon a query from a non-referee, especially if it has been addressed before.

There was an incident in the Wales v Oz test last week that I was curious about. A defender got binned for an early tackle near his own goal line but the referee did not award a penalty try.

The facts of the matter are not that important, but the application of the law is:

[LAWS] Law 9.A.1 - 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]

What does “but for foul play of an opponent” mean? In deciding on probability, is the referee to suppose that the defender was not present at the incident - as we fans say: the defender is “taken out of the equation”. Or (surely not), is the referee to suppose that the defender could have done something legally instead, such as: waiting a couple of steps then tackling the attacker when he had the ball?

In the 2nd case a specious argument could be made of the “but”. This would contend that if foul play was not performed then the referee could consider whether or not the same defender could have performed legal play.

Another example is when a player is pole axed by a “head-high” tackle near an opponent's goal line. Does the referee bother to think of whether or not a try would probably have been scored had the same tackle been performed legally by the same defender?

Are there any law rulings or clarifications on the matter?

Thank you.

Yes, this is a very good question and one that comes up quite often.

You are right in your assertion that the infringing player is removed from the equasion. Effectively, the infringing player does not exist, and then the referee has to decide if a try would "probably" have been scored.

"Probably" is the key word. It is subjective, and down to the referee's judgment. It does not mean "more likely that not" which could be as little as 51/49 on. I like to think of it as "far more likely than not", maybe around a 75% chance

In any case like you mention in your post, a "last line of defence" high tackle on the goal-line with no other defenders within reach should result in a PT, but the same tackle 30 metres out, even if there were no defenders actually between the ball carrier and the goal-line might not be a PT, because there may be cover coming across from left and/or right whom the referee judges could have got to the ball carrier to tackle him..

I hope this helps to answer your question. Once the NH referees on the forum wake up later, I'm sure a few o them will chip in with their thoughts

 

[Account Deleted]

I think Ian sums it up well. We debated the incident watching the match and no conclusion was reached. Some thought that fact that the ball was loose and bouncing there was sufficient doubt about "probably". Others felt it was "probable". I think the "facts of the matter" ARE important in enabling the ref to make the call.

For me it was no PT - there was sufficient doubt. however, that could be down to the colour of my shirt. Had the ref gone under the posts I would not have felt hard done by. Interestingly on Welsh message boards I see a (small) majority in favour of the PT option.

 

[Lee Grant]

Thank you fellows.

I am not worried about the application of "probably", nor with the merits of the Halfpenny incident. Let's assume that there were no other defenders around and the try would "certainly" have been scored if the defender was taken out of the equation.

The "head high" tackle right on the defender's goal line case is probably the better example, because the question of whether or not the attacker would have taken a bouncing ball cleanly, had he not been tackled early, does not arise.

The question is really: can the referee impute a different action from the sole defender had he not infringed?

Also, are there any IRB rulings or clarifications on the matter?


But, putting the answer to my "impute" comment back into the actual situation in the test match: should Halfpenny, who was carded, be taken out of the equation?

Therefore should the probability question pertain only to whether or not:

1. JOC would have taken the ball (it seemed to be bouncing into his hands, but both arms were pinned in the tackle) and...

2. would North, the only person who could have stopped him, have got to JOC (JOC was in front of him and would have probably scored in North's tackle) in time?

[The bolded part is the more important part.]

 

[Phil E]

Lee, the answer is 'Yes', the offending player should be taken out of the equation, and we should not consider what would have happened had he done something legal.

The way I was taught to approach it was the Star Trek method.......or the Stargate method for you younger ones.

If the offending player was instantly 'beamed up' from the pitch, as though he never existed, would a try then have probably been scored?

 

[Lee Grant]

Thanks - and I assume that there is no ruling on the matter because one hasn't been requested, nor a clarification, because none was thought needed.

 

[Account Deleted]

Thank you fellows.

I am not worried about the application of "probably", nor with the merits of the Halfpenny incident. Let's assume that there were no other defenders around and the try would "certainly" have been scored if the defender was taken out of the equation.

The "head high" tackle right on the defender's goal line case is probably the better example, because the question of whether or not the attacker would have taken a bouncing ball cleanly, had he not been tackled early, does not arise.

The question is really: can the referee impute a different action from the sole defender had he not infringed?

Also, are there any IRB rulings or clarifications on the matter?


But, putting the answer to my "impute" comment back into the actual situation in the test match: should Halfpenny, who was carded, be taken out of the equation?

Therefore should the probability question pertain only to whether or not:

1. JOC would have taken the ball (it seemed to be bouncing into his hands, but both arms were pinned in the tackle) and...

2. would North, the only person who could have stopped him, have got to JOC (JOC was in front of him and would have probably scored in North's tackle) in time?

[The bolded part is the more important part.]

The only logical route is to take the offender out of the equation. If you want to "reconsider" what "might have" happened if he had not broken the laws, consider the following question: "why did he not take the legal option if it would have stopped the try?"

Going back to the Halfpenny incident, after all that is the one you used. Halfpenny is take out of the picture, the questions are:

Would the Aussie have probably gathered the ball?
Would another welsh player have been able (probably) to stop the Aussie from scoring?

The issues is "probably" and not "certainly". I am, therefore, struggling to understand; "...I am not worried about the application of "probably"..." and "...Let's assume that there were no other defenders around and the try would "certainly" have been scored...".

 

[4eyesbetter]

If you didn't discount the fouling defender entirely, you'd never award a penalty try because it's always possible to argue "but if he didn't tackle high he could have wrapped the ball up and held it off the ground!"

 

[Lee Grant]

Thanks everybody I am clear about it now; it's just that others on other rugby forums have mentioned stuff like: "How could the referee be sure that Halfpenny could not have got to the ball first" and such.

I contended that the presence of Halfpenny had to be ignored and therefore the question of whether he could have got to the ball first should not even arise.

Others indicated that the penalty try was not awarded because they thought the tackle was legal. Sorry, I said, but the illegality of the tackle could not be in question if the referee gave the Welshman a yellow card and mentioned that the early tackle was the reason for it.

I was more interested in the thought processes used by referees and everybody has confirmed the "take the player out of the equation" protocol.

But now I am sure that a try would probably have been scored because JOC probably would have taken the ball at belly height and North, who was behind the speedy Aussie, who needed only a few more steps to score, would probably (at least) not been been able to prevent the try.

[Kaplan's no penalty try decision was ineffectual because the Wallabies took a tap kick and scored soon afterwards anyway.]

 

[Lee Grant]

PS - don't want to start a separate thread for this.

I googled for rugby referees signals and the ones they had did not have one for "early engage" of the scrum.

My question is: is this signal the same one as is used for when a pack engages correctly but then doesn't wait for the ball to be thrown into the scrum and pushes through the "hit"?

 

[Ian_Cook]

PS - don't want to start a separate thread for this.

I googled for rugby referees signals and the ones they had did not have one for "early engage" of the scrum.

My question is: is this signal the same one as is used for when a pack engages correctly but then doesn't wait for the ball to be thrown into the scrum and pushes through the "hit"?

There is no official signal for either of these offences

You can view the IRB Referee sinals online here

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/signals/

or download them from here

http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Ref_Signals_EN.pdf

 

[Lee Grant]

Thank you. I had used that link before and not seen the signal I was talking about. I thought it was out of date because that "early engage" signal has been used for some time - but, as you explain, there is no official signal for it.

I'm guessing that the "missing" signal is used for both the "early engage" and for "pushing through the hit" (even if the engage itself was not early).

 

[Simon Thomas]

Lee Grant

Just to throw in some thoughts on both points from a refereeing point of view :

PT - the referee's judgement is a key skill and ability. It is his choice as what he thinks probably would have happened - not the players, coaches, spectators, comentators, etc. Use of TMO replays (and in cricket things like Hawkeye) are a useful tool to assist but we must retain it as the referee's final choice and his judgement that matters. Or referees become admin assistants with less 'job satisfaction'.

Early engage secondary signal - I usually see refs give the free kick signal, then drop their arm and extend the arm parallel to ground to simulate the early engagement (or indeed an early shove). But as you say no signals for these offences in the "Good Book".