RWC Wales v Fiji penalty try

[Treadmore]

Around 54mins, Fiji are awarded a penalty try.

[laws]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. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.[/laws]

But no YC nor RC was issued.

Any ideas why?

At the time, I thought perhaps unkindly that Garces simply didn't want to YC a second Welsh player within 2 minutes of each other.

 

[crossref]

That makes two this RWC doesn't it, as NZ had a PT with no YC issued to the oppo.

Odd

 

[Treadmore]

I missed the NZ one.

I thought it odd indeed. Would have had Wales down to 13 players...

 

[crossref]

I missed the NZ one.

I thought it odd indeed. Would have had Wales down to 13 players...

Discussed here
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21641-NZ-v-Canada&highlight=Read+penalty+try

No YC issued

New secret guidance?

 

[Flish]

Saw this at the time myself, this was a pulled down maul so maybe couldn't find a single culprit? But seems unusual as between ref and AR they normally get a number (is it within the TMO protocol to use TMO to find the number? Or only if the incident as a whole is referred?)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

A collapsed maul is Law 16 11.2. Foul play is Law 9. So it was not an automatic Card not is a scrum offence. Although it can / possibly should be taken as Law 9.7. in which case it would be one. Perhaps WR want refs to have wriggle room.

Not saying I agree with it. Of course, the 2018 "simplification" omitted the "foul play" bit from the PT sanctions. But clearly it is still being refereed under the pre simplification mantra.

 

[Treadmore]

A collapsed maul is Law 16 11.2. Foul play is Law 9. So it was not an automatic Card not is a scrum offence. Although it can / possibly should be taken as Law 9.7. in which case it would be one. Perhaps WR want refs to have wriggle room.

Not saying I agree with it. Of course, the 2018 "simplification" omitted the "foul play" bit from the PT sanctions. But clearly it is still being refereed under the pre simplification mantra.

Marc, the law 16 says intentionally collapsing a maul is a penalty; also says a maul ends unsuccessfully if collapsed not as a result of foul play, which leads to the conclusion intentionally collapsing is foul play and so you can go to Law 9 (which permits just a caution).

However, Law 8 is clear on the PT scenario, quoted above. It gives no wriggle room as far as I can see: you can award a PT if there has been foul play; having done so there must be a YC or RC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Discussed here
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21641-NZ-v-Canada&highlight=Read+penalty+try

No YC issued

New secret guidance?

I thought that in the NZ one, the whole Canadian front row stood up in the scrum.

IMO, it would be manifestly unfair to either pick one at random, of YC all three of them.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

[LAWS2017]10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be
cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]

There was a clarification (around 2004) that only if the offence was deemed to be intentional would a Card be compulsory, also separately the need for clear id of the offender was required. This reference was omitted in 2018. Now it would be odd if they made a clarification only to make a change via a "simplification re-write" in which WR stated there we no changes. Now we know that has led to much debate and confusion. After all how could a ref joining in 2019 beexpected to know the 2017 book let alone clarifications from the early 2000s?

So, there is room for wriggle and debate on whether or not a YC was compulsory in either the NZ PT or the Fiji one. Perhaps Brett Gosper would be better making his Temporary "holiday" from Twitter permanent whilst he gets a grip on the Laws department Or he could use twitter and other vehicles to clearly explain what is going on.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Saw this at the time myself, this was a pulled down maul so maybe couldn't find a single culprit? But seems unusual as between ref and AR they normally get a number (is it within the TMO protocol to use TMO to find the number? Or only if the incident as a whole is referred?)

I'd say yes it is in the protocol. But others can be sure.

 

[DocY]

TBH I'd not noticed this in the 2018 laws.

I'm sure in 2017 it was only cynical offences that mandated a YC - to avoid things like Canada's front row just not being able to take the pressure.

Maybe referees are still adopting the 'nothing changed' mantra. Doesn't explain the lack of a card for Fiji's PT, though

 

[crossref]

I thought that in the NZ one, the whole Canadian front row stood up in the scrum.

IMO, it would be manifestly unfair to either pick one at random, of YC all three of them.

I thought the protocol was to pick one .. the one you think moved first. (Bit I am not sure about that, and the fact that he didn't pick one suggest you are right)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I thought that in the NZ one, the whole Canadian front row stood up in the scrum.

IMO, it would be manifestly unfair to either pick one at random, of YC all three of them.

Spot on, as the then IRB confirmed in a "clarification" later.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Can I make it clear that, In my opinion, had the referee identified the Welsh culprit, a YC should have been issued.