Penalty Try

[Marc Wakeham]

to be fair, the OP saw a (potentially) safety-related oddity on a televised game and wondered if there was a better way - especially since no conversion now required. We should always be open to new ideas.

But there was no need for his to repeatedly claim that the law demanded something that it does not. Yes be open t oa new way of signalling a PT. However, Crossref did not need to use falsehoods to do so.

 

[crossref]

gosh Marc you do manage to work yourself up into quite a state!

 

[SimonSmith]

gosh Marc you do manage to work yourself up into quite a state!

Well done for addressing the point made to you.

Oh. Wait. You didn't.

Yet again.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

gosh Marc you do manage to work yourself up into quite a state!

Why don't you :

1: answer the question?

2: tell the truth?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well done for addressing the point made to you.

Oh. Wait. You didn't.

Yet again.

Spot on!

 

[crossref]

sigh - really not sure why this is so controversial for you, it was just an idea, a suggstion.


I'll have a go at explaining again!

The context is that a team have just been denied a try scoring opportunity by an act of foul play - so it's quite often a potential flashpoint that we have to deal with.

I think we all agree so far, right?

The Law as it stands creates some tensions for the ref
1- on the one hand we need to dissolve the flashpoint, which is best done staying close to the players

2 - on the other hand we want to quickly make it clear to the teams, the coaches and spectators that we are awarding a PT, which might require being 30m away.

3 and ideally we want to do these things at the same time, because making it clear that the PT is being awarded is a big part of dissolving the tension. the non-offending team will calm down when they know the foul play is going to be dealt with by a YC and seven points

Of course the way have to manage this is as Phil said "the ref can separate the teams, deal with the incident, issue any cards and signal the try as the final act once everything else is dealt with", but this is not ideal, it solves for #1 but tensions #2 and #3 remain

It also brings in another factor

4 - while you are calming the flash point, the non-offending team and coaches are probably appealing for a PT.
Being asked several times for a PT and then 20 seconds later awarding one isn't a great look, it can give the impression you are responding to the appeals, rather than driving the situation

obviously you mitigate that AS WELL by quickly telling the captain its PT -- but the coaches, the players further away, the spectators can't hear that.

So it's not ideal.

Yes we manage around it as we are experienced refs, but it's not ideal .

But is there any way these tensions could be removed ?


Hey, here's an idea ! Why don't we change the Law so that a referee can signal a PT right where he is standing .

Now that's a good idea, right ?

Now we can stay in one place, manage the flashpoint and award the PT all at the same time, which helps with the flashpoint ..


What a good idea crossref, that is interesting - -indeed it's hard to see any downside with that....


Now, you may legitimately say 'it's a not really a very big tensin, it's not often a big problem.
And I would say : yes, but I am not proposing a big change. All I am proposing is a different signal for a PT.. It's not that radical!

 

[OB..]

If foul play occurs and starts a fight, the referee's first action is to blow loudly to try and get their attention while trying to defuse the situation and trying to remember who did what to whom. He will not stop to give the relevant foul play signal first.

 

[crossref]

If foul play occurs and starts a fight, the referee's first action is to blow loudly to try and get their attention while trying to defuse the situation and trying to remember who did what to whom. He will not stop to give the relevant foul play signal first.

Correct but by blowing his whistle (with a PK blast) he has successfully and clearly communicated that he is giving a PK.

So the decision is clearly communicated

(which is why whistle tone is important)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

sigh - really not sure why this is so controversial for you, it was just an idea, a suggstion.


I'll have a go at explaining again!

The context is that a team have just been denied a try scoring opportunity by an act of foul play - so it's quite often a potential flashpoint that we have to deal with.

I think we all agree so far, right?

The Law as it stands creates some tensions for the ref
1- on the one hand we need to dissolve the flashpoint, which is best done staying close to the players

2 - on the other hand we want to quickly make it clear to the teams, the coaches and spectators that we are awarding a PT, which might require being 30m away.

3 and ideally we want to do these things at the same time, because making it clear that the PT is being awarded is a big part of dissolving the tension. the non-offending team will calm down when they know the foul play is going to be dealt with by a YC and seven points

Of course the way have to manage this is as Phil said "the ref can separate the teams, deal with the incident, issue any cards and signal the try as the final act once everything else is dealt with", but this is not ideal, it solves for #1 but tensions #2 and #3 remain

It also brings in another factor

4 - while you are calming the flash point, the non-offending team and coaches are probably appealing for a PT.
Being asked several times for a PT and then 20 seconds later awarding one isn't a great look, it can give the impression you are responding to the appeals, rather than driving the situation

obviously you mitigate that AS WELL by quickly telling the captain its PT -- but the coaches, the players further away, the spectators can't hear that.

So it's not ideal.

Yes we manage around it as we are experienced refs, but it's not ideal .

But is there any way these tensions could be removed ?


Hey, here's an idea ! Why don't we change the Law so that a referee can signal a PT right where he is standing .

Now that's a good idea, right ?

Now we can stay in one place, manage the flashpoint and award the PT all at the same time, which helps with the flashpoint ..


What a good idea crossref, that is interesting - -indeed it's hard to see any downside with that....


Now, you may legitimately say 'it's a not really a very big tensin, it's not often a big problem.
And I would say
: yes, but I am not proposing a big change. All I am proposing is a different signal for a PT.. It's not that radical!

Still unwilling to explain why you lied by claiming the laws demand the referee runs away (from the potential flashpoint) to award the PT.

You either lied about the law OR you don't know the law. Either apologise for telling lies OR admit you got the law wrong!

 

[crossref]

i don't understand your confusion: the law requires the ref to go under the posts to award a PT.
That's exactly what we are discussing.

Now the Law doesn't require him to run - is that what you are banging on about ? But in (2) and (3) above, I explain why a good referee will want to quickly make everyone aware that he is awarding a PT. (although it hardly needs explaining)
Which is is why we normally see refs move quickly.

So , as clear as possible...
- the ref will want to make the award as swiftly as possible to defuse tension and for clarity
- but the law requires the ref to be under the posts
- so the ref will often run

really this is the whole point of the discussion.

What I am not clear about is why you don't think allowing him to award the PT where he is, is a good suggestion....

 

[Marc Wakeham]

i don't understand your confusion: the law requires the ref to go under the posts to award a PT.
That's exactly what we are discussing.

Now the Law doesn't require him to run - is that what you are banging on about ? But in (2) and (3) above, I explain why a good referee will want to quickly make everyone aware that he is awarding a PT. (although it hardly needs explaining)
Which is is why we normally see refs move quickly.

So , as clear as possible...
- the ref will want to make the award as swiftly as possible to defuse tension and for clarity
- but the law requires the ref to be under the posts
- so the ref will often run

really this is the whole point of the discussion.

What I am not clear about is why you don't think allowing him to award the PT where he is, is a good suggestion....

At last!

You finally admit the referee is not required by the laws of the game to run away from a flash point.

Only took you 7 pages to tell the truth. Thank you and good night!

 

[crossref]

I think my idea, and the reasons for it has been pretty clear all along !
What do you think of it ?

 

[OB..]

I think my idea, and the reasons for it has been pretty clear all along !
What do you think of it ?

I think it is unnecessary. I do not see a significant problem with the current arrangements.

The referee's primary responsibility is to run the game safely.

Signals are mainly for non-participants and are secondary (or even tertiary) There is no significant downside to delaying the current signal in order to stop a fight.

 

[SimonSmith]

The issue we have is an incorrect statement of starting principles, which means the rest of the argument is fundamentally flawed.

You boldly assert that a referee is trying to do all these things at once, when nowhere in regular practice, nor in law, is that the case.

Take that limb from your argument and the rest tumbles.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The issue we have is an incorrect statement of starting principles, which means the rest of the argument is fundamentally flawed.

You boldly assert that a referee is trying to do all these things at once, when nowhere in regular practice, nor in law, is that the case.

Take that limb from your argument and the rest tumbles.

100%! Start with a lie ( "missinterpretation") and the argument is always dead in the water.

 

[crossref]

The issue we have is an incorrect statement of starting principles, which means the rest of the argument is fundamentally flawed.

You boldly assert that a referee is trying to do all these things at once, when nowhere in regular practice, nor in law, is that the case.

Take that limb from your argument and the rest tumbles.

i think you understood perfectly well what I meant ...

but any in case if my proposal wasn't made perfectly clearly, I wrote it out carefully in post #66

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

What do we think about wearing leggings?

 

[chbg]

What do we think about wearing leggings?

Definately (sic) a PT.

 

[Dickie E]

Still unwilling to explain why you lied by claiming the laws demand the referee runs away (from the potential flashpoint) to award the PT.

You either lied about the law OR you don't know the law. Either apologise for telling lies OR admit you got the law wrong!

I think the "you're a liar" diatribe has run its course. Please bring it to an end. Thanks.

 

[SimonSmith]

To be clear then, as you referred me back to this:

...
The context is that a team have just been denied a try scoring opportunity by an act of foul play - so it's quite often a potential flashpoint that we have to deal with.

I think we all agree so far, right?

The Law as it stands creates some tensions for the ref

The only person who sees tension here is you. Most of the rest of us have laid out what seems to be fairly standard management practice

1- on the one hand we need to dissolve the flashpoint, which is best done staying close to the players

Yes

2 - on the other hand we want to quickly make it clear to the teams, the coaches and spectators that we are awarding a PT, which might require being 30m away.

I'm not sure I agree on the need for speed

3 and ideally we want to do these things at the same time, because making it clear that the PT is being awarded is a big part of dissolving the tension. the non-offending team will calm down when they know the foul play is going to be dealt with by a YC and seven points

(My bold)
And this is where we part ways and my previous point about starting principles comes to the fore. Nowhere, except here in your assertion, does the law or anyone I know, advocate for the simultaneity of these things
As a result, most of the rest of your post below dies on the vine.

Of course the way have to manage this is as Phil said "the ref can separate the teams, deal with the incident, issue any cards and signal the try as the final act once everything else is dealt with", but this is not ideal, it solves for #1 but tensions #2 and #3 remain

It also brings in another factor

4 - while you are calming the flash point, the non-offending team and coaches are probably appealing for a PT.
Being asked several times for a PT and then 20 seconds later awarding one isn't a great look, it can give the impression you are responding to the appeals, rather than driving the situation

obviously you mitigate that AS WELL by quickly telling the captain its PT -- but the coaches, the players further away, the spectators can't hear that.

So it's not ideal.

Yes we manage around it as we are experienced refs, but it's not ideal .

But is there any way these tensions could be removed ?

As others have said, a solution in search of a problem