In answer to the OP
Yes the ref has to run under the posts to signal a penalty try. It tells everyone that there wont be a conversion required and more importantly that the Ref has seen whatever skulduggery took place.
The bit about running away from an incident is just smoke screen, 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. On the pitch he can tell the team captains there is a penalty try coming so they know what's happening in advance. The signal under the posts is mainly for the benefit of the spectators.
This is something that used to be called Referee Protection. If everyone knows what happening it protects you from any flak, which mainly comes from people NOT knowing what's happening.
Camquin said:Moving under the posts is conventionally how you indicate to the crowd it is a penalty try, but you can whistle, deal with any potential flare up and then go under the posts.
Spot on. Should have been the approach when ther was a conversion required. NEVER leave the potential flashpoint unobserved.
................flak, which mainly comes from people NOT knowing what's happening.
...but I am in a minority when I say that the Law that requires the ref to run off could be reconsidered.
...but I am in a minority when I say that the Law that requires the ref to run off could be reconsidered.
I think more to the point the law doesn't require the ref to "run off" at all.
[/LAWS]
In answer to the OP
Yes the ref has to run under the posts to signal a penalty try. .
.
shrug - my question was prompted by watching Luke Pearce on TV running away from the action ... in order to award a PT...
presumabkly just becasue Luke Pearce does it doesnt mean its right ?
i think we all agree it's not right.
so why does it happen ?
i think we all agree it's not right.
so why does it happen ?
i think we all agree it's not right.
so why does it happen ?
but I am in a minority when I say that the Law that requires the ref to run off could be reconsidered.
but I am in a minority when I say that the Law that requires the ref to run off could be reconsidered.
A solution in search of a problem?shrug, part of good management is to make it clear that a try is being awarded (calms down the non-offending team), and the law is unhelpful here as this has to be done under the posts.
current law
[LAWS]Penalty try
8.3 A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position.[/LAWS]
propsoal
[LAWS]Penalty try
8.3 A penalty try is awarded if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position.[/LAWS]
simpler, more flexible, removes a constraint on the referee.
the whole 'under the posts' idea came because a conversion was going to follow, so the PT had to have a 'location' for the kick which is no longer the case
shrug, part of good management is to make it clear that a try is being awarded (calms down the non-offending team), and the law is unhelpful here as this has to be done under the posts.
current law
[LAWS]Penalty try
8.3 A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position.[/LAWS]
propsoal
[LAWS]Penalty try
8.3 A penalty try is awarded if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position.[/LAWS]
simpler, more flexible, removes a constraint on the referee.
the whole 'under the posts' idea came because a conversion was going to follow, so the PT had to have a 'location' for the kick which is no longer the case
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.