Referees in America
- Apr 12, 2009
- Post Likes
I just speak incorrect grammar, not teenager.
I know where you're coming from but as I read it the main fight started with the retaliation from White on Red. After all is said and done that is what would have reversed the penalty in the first place. Everything else is surely follow on from that point. If Red get a 3 point advantage from a PG after this then the White player shouldn't have have punched the Red. If it all hadn't kicked off isn't that the likely outcome anyway?
Where does the law give the criteria for reversing a penalty? Where does it give guidance on which type of foul play is considered the more serious?
It is surely well established that reversing a penalty is a judgement call by the referee.
There is nothing automatic about reversal for retaliation. I have seen many cases where the referee talked to the retaliator but stuck with a PK for the original offence.However, in both cases, 10.4(l) says that the retaliation should receive a PK (and therefore a PK reversal even though not specifically written as such).
And I've seen many instances in which the scrum half fed the ball into the second row's feet right in front of the ref's nose - but that is not to say that the ref acted correctly. So what does the law say?There is nothing automatic about reversal for retaliation. I have seen many cases where the referee talked to the retaliator but stuck with a PK for the original offence.