Pretty sure but.........

[Browner]

Quite a hefty punishment with a YC too. Brave man!

Good job I'm not climbing the slippery ladder toward panel refereeing, I might have felt pressure to keep such decisions off my report.

PS...Q? How would any of our assessor friends have viewed this? OB, Simon...others?

 

[OB..]

As described by Broiwner, the decision was valid.

Whether or not there where any other factors, I cannot say.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I was not there, and not seen a video, so really cannot comment. Browner made a decision based on his experience and judgement - in public I would support that decision, in private we might discuss it or I might be critical of it.

Correct use of YC, or not to usenYC, will be based on the match context and a host of separate decision criteria I would look to apply.

 

[Blackberry]

For my part I would be helping Browner analyze how he managed his correct but easily misunderstood application of the laws, both during its unfolding and in the aftermath. The use of cards could depend in part on the level of the match.

Because an event is unusual it is not to be shirked and a referee with the wit to analyse it and bring it to the correct conclusion should be supported. I would spend less time on the event itself and would concentrate on how he managed it.

 

[RobLev]

Quite a hefty punishment with a YC too. Brave man!

The YC was the only punishment administered...

 

[winchesterref]

Ok mr pedant, you know what I meant...!!

 

[Dickie E]

Good job I'm not climbing the slippery ladder toward panel refereeing, I might have felt pressure to keep such decisions off my report.

PS...Q? How would any of our assessor friends have viewed this? OB, Simon...others?

Sounds like you're having second thoughts if you're now fishing for support?

 

[RobLev]

Ok mr pedant, you know what I meant...!!

Sorry; but I wasn't strictly speaking being pedantic, simply making the point that the PT isn't a punishment, it's simply putting things right as if the foul play hadn't happened. Without a card, the foul itself goes unpunished...

 

[Browner]

Sounds like you're having second thoughts if you're now fishing for support?

Nope, definitely happy.

But others are questioning the need for big gonads. So I thought I'd ask.

 

[Browner]

Correct use of YC, or not to use YC, will be based on the match context and a host of separate decision criteria I would look to apply.

???
So not merely the incident then?

 

[winchesterref]

Fair point RL, strictly speaking you are correct.

To qualify my statement when I say brave; working on the assumption that losing a man is often equal to another score, potentially a 14 point swing for a holding on offence is a huge negative for the offending team. Not saying I wouldn't do it as it all depends on context and previous warnings/cards etc, but in isolation it is a big choice to make.

 

[Browner]

To qualify my statement when I say brave; working on the assumption that losing a man is often equal to another score, potentially a 14 point swing for a holding on offence is a huge negative for the offending team.

Not saying I wouldn't do it as it all depends on context and previous warnings/cards etc, but in isolation it is a big choice to make.

Hmmnn,
another reply where context seemngly needs to apply? why ? doesn't the offence stand on its own merit? Sounds like the offenders team need to be well ahead to get such a levelling opportunity ! Least I hope context doesn't mean ud expect a referee to be considering the score when he makes his call :nono:

 

[OB..]

Sorry; but I wasn't strictly speaking being pedantic, simply making the point that the PT isn't a punishment, it's simply putting things right as if the foul play hadn't happened. Without a card, the foul itself goes unpunished...

It is called a penalty try, and for me the word "penalty" means it is a punishment for an offence.

I don't follow your logic, but I don't think it makes any real difference anyway.

 

[RobLev]

It is called a penalty try, and for me the word "penalty" means it is a punishment for an offence.

I don't follow your logic, but I don't think it makes any real difference anyway.

Looking at the substance, and not getting hung up on the terminology used:

If the PT was awarded simply for offences close to (by whatever definition) the try/goal line, without reference to whether it prevented a try, then I would agree that it is clearly a penalty. But that isn't the Law. A PT is awarded only when, absent the foul play, a try would probably have been scored. The PT has the effect of preventing the foul play from having its intended effect - if you like, it's compensation for the attacking side, putting them in the position they'd have been in had the foul play not occurred. It is the card that actually punishes the foul play per se.

It's like the difference between a criminal Compensation Order and a fine in the criminal courts.

 

[OB..]

Looking at the substance, and not getting hung up on the terminology used:

If the PT was awarded simply for offences close to (by whatever definition) the try/goal line, without reference to whether it prevented a try, then I would agree that it is clearly a penalty. But that isn't the Law. A PT is awarded only when, absent the foul play, a try would probably have been scored. The PT has the effect of preventing the foul play from having its intended effect - if you like, it's compensation for the attacking side, putting them in the position they'd have been in had the foul play not occurred. It is the card that actually punishes the foul play per se.

The substance is that if you award a penalty try against Blue, they have given away 7 points by foul play. They will certainly see that as a sanction (punishment) for the foul play.

It's like the difference between a criminal Compensation Order and a fine in the criminal courts.

What is the (financial) difference to the person who has to pay?

 

[RobLev]

The substance is that if you award a penalty try against Blue, they have given away 7 points by foul play.

This is where our disagreement lies. They haven't given away 7 points by foul play; they've attempted by foul play to avoid giving away 7 points , and the Law has stepped in to prevent that.

They will certainly see that as a sanction (punishment) for the foul play.

What is the (financial) difference to the person who has to pay?

None in the outcome; but significant in prospect. If you nick and trash a Rolls, you can expect to pay more compensation than if you nick and trash a Ford Asbo; the fine though would be pretty much the same, though, provided the Rolls wasn't the judge's car.

And of course, to the victim, he gets the compensation but not the fine. Or not, depending on how efficient HMCTS's Enforcement Service is.

 

[OB..]

This is where our disagreement lies. They haven't given away 7 points by foul play; they've attempted by foul play to avoid giving away 7 points , and the Law has stepped in to prevent that.

They will frequently have traded a probable 5 points for a near-certain 7 points.

I see 12.1 (f) includes a penalty in the Sanction paragraph.

In normal usage a penalty try is a sanction. I cannot see any value in arguing otherwise.