[INTERNATIONAL] Sonny Bill Williams/Sinny Bin Williams

[Dickie E]

At what point in time is Scotty beamed up?

at the point in time that the offence occurs.

 

[Ian_Cook]

deja vu all over again for AG:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCOIOTKy78M

Not sure why this wasn't a PT

Likewise, and there are two other things that are rather baffling

1. Why the Waratahs player who late shoulder-charged the Rebels' kick returner wasn't carded as well?

2. Why was the restart a scrum and not a PK to the Rebels on the Waratahs 5m line?

[LAWS]22.16 INFRINGEMENTS IN IN-GOAL
All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.
A knock-on or a throw forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place
of infringement.
Sanction: For an infringement, the mark for a penalty kick or free kick cannot be in the ingoal.
When a penalty kick or free kick is awarded for an infringement in the In-goal, the
mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of
infringement.[/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

2. Why was the restart a scrum and not a PK to the Rebels on the Waratahs 5m line?

right on youtube time 2:04 (TV clock 63:09) Gus gives the penalty primary signal and Rebels opt for the scrum alternative. Unless that was the time on signal (oddly he is standing about 8 metres from Waratahs goal line).

 

[Ian_Cook]

right on youtube time 2:04 (TV clock 63:09) Gus gives the penalty primary signal and Rebels opt for the scrum alternative. Unless that was the time on signal (oddly he is standing about 8 metres from Waratahs goal line).

Ah. No sound on the work computer I am using.

 

[damo]

My view is that even if the French player had caught it he was in the air, his momentum was towards the dead ball line which was very proximate and in all probability he would have not been able to ground the ball before going dead.

My opinion is that there was a higher probability of going dead than there was of getting the ball grounded and therefore at best he possibly not probably would have scored ergo no PT

I don't agree, but that is a very plausible reason not to give a PT.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Jarrod, can you clarify your thoughts on this? Are you suggesting that the "beam me up, Scotty" appraoch is always unfair or only in this particular situation?

In this situation, I'm not comfortable with a relatively minor infringement In Goal being equated to a swinging head high, both result in a YC, but one is thuggery the other stupidity. Thuggery needs to be wiped out, but stupidity less so.

 

[Pegleg]

In this situation, I'm not comfortable with a relatively minor infringement In Goal being equated to a swinging head high, both result in a YC, but one is thuggery the other stupidity. Thuggery needs to be wiped out, but stupidity less so.

Sorrry Is preventing a try by knocking the ball dead foul play? Yes or no.

If "YES" then the normal PT protocols apply.

Therefore, "Beam me up" applies as does the YC.


If "NO" you need to re-read Law 10 [specifically 10.2 (c)] The law makers have clearly put the offence under foul play.


A secondary question. Why did the player feel the need to knock it dead rather than take the legal option?

 

[crossref]

We YC people for cynical offences all the time, especially when near the try line . this was a pretty straightforward example .

 

[Ian_Cook]

Sorrry Is preventing a try by knocking the ball dead foul play? Yes or no.

If "YES" then the normal PT protocols apply.

Therefore, "Beam me up" applies as does the YC.

If "NO" you need to re-read Law 10 [specifically 10.2 (c)] The law makers have clearly put the offence under foul play.

Agree. Any act of foul play, if when committed, prevents a probable try from being scored, should result in a PT. This includes

Intentionally knocking the ball dead
Intentionally knocking the ball on
Collapsing a maul
Collapsing a scrum
Dangerous tackle
Playing an opponent without the ball
Tripping


In this matter, the Law does not distiguish between dangerous play and cynical infringing; its all considered foul play.

 

[ChuckieB]

It doesn't have to be compelling, it only has to be probable (that’s the Law).

When you completely remove the infringing player from the scenario (as per current protocol) then that leaves Huget unopposed to catch the ball and ground it.

Please, where is this "beam me up Scotty" protocol set out?

From the 10.2 C law and associated video example (together with the entirely similar Warratah's example) it is far from obvious that a try would have been scored. It would require this unrealistic "Beam me up Scotty" approach to materially change the probability in favour of the attacking side.

If it's the law makers intent to penalise such play with a PT sanction have they somewhere just come out and said it? The Laws clip does not follow through to confirm that a PT was what should have been awarded. It might be implied but we then have situations like this with two very different outcomes. One not awarded and one awarded. That helps no one. So a brain fart on the part of the law makers on this one.

 

[Pegleg]

In writng? I don't know. In society meetings we are reminded all the time. It makes no sense to do anything else. THe player CHOSES to infringe. Why give him a second, hypothetical, chance to do it right?

So in this example:

SBW contravenes 10.2(c) so we are now in to "is it a PT?" treritory. So: What would happen if he did not comit foul play?
Well


1: He might have caught it - Happy days for SBW!

2: He might have failed to catch it (dropped) and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

3: He might have failed to catch it (dropped) and the French player might have gathered it and not scored.

4: He might have missed it and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

5: He might have missed it and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

If you apply "beam me up" (the logical option) Them options oneto three are not relevant. If you don't, ask yourself: "Why did SBW choses not to try to catch the ball?"

Options four and five could apply whether or not you apply "beam me up". They are the logical options to consider. I see no reason for allowing player to chose to offend and then saying well he might have caught the ball so lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

THe same applied to Liam Williams (Wales V RSA) a couple of years ago. Wales were 5 poiint up and we were at the death of the game. RSA were looking to score in the corner - if they scored they had a difficult kick to win but at least a draw. Williams put in an illegal challenge and the ref went under the posts (Wales lost by 2) If the ref had not applied the "beam me up" principle then a reasonalbe claim would be "if LW had tackled fairly the try could have been prevented (enough to say not a "probable try") so the ref only awards a Penalty. That would been a gross injustice. After all IF LW had attempted to tackle fairly the worse case scenario would have been a conversion attempt from the touchline to for RSA to win the game. In the actual game LW was a fool he got the card he deserved and the RSA got the win following a low pressure conversion.

SO I'm applying a consistant logic to a NZ offence as to a Wales offence so clearly no bias. Ian_Cook is a NZ'der who is also applying the same interpretation that referees all aver the world apply. There is your evidence of the protocol.

Ask at your next society meeting for their guidence.

 

[damo]

In writng? I don't know. In society meetings we are reminded all the time. It makes no sense to do anything else. THe player CHOSES to infringe. Why give him a second, hypothetical, chance to do it right?

So in this example:

SBW contravenes 10.2(c) so we are now in to "is it a PT?" treritory. So: What would happen if he did not comit foul play?
Well


1: He might have caught it - Happy days for SBW!

2: He might have failed to catch it (dropped) and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

3: He might have failed to catch it (dropped) and the French player might have gathered it and not scored.

4: He might have missed it and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

5: He might have missed it and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

If you apply "beam me up" (the logical option) Them options oneto three are not relevant. If you don't, ask yourself: "Why did SBW choses not to try to catch the ball?"

Options four and five could apply whether or not you apply "beam me up". They are the logical options to consider. I see no reason for allowing player to chose to offend and then saying well he might have caught the ball so lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

THe same applied to Liam Williams (Wales V RSA) a couple of years ago. Wales were 5 poiint up and we were at the death of the game. RSA were looking to score in the corner - if they scored they had a difficult kick to win but at least a draw. Williams put in an illegal challenge and the ref went under the posts (Wales lost by 2) If the ref had not applied the "beam me up" principle then a reasonalbe claim would be "if LW had tackled fairly the try could have been prevented (enough to say not a "probable try") so the ref only awards a Penalty. That would been a gross injustice. After all IF LW had attempted to tackle fairly the worse case scenario would have been a conversion attempt from the touchline to for RSA to win the game. In the actual game LW was a fool he got the card he deserved and the RSA got the win following a low pressure conversion.

SO I'm applying a consistant logic to a NZ offence as to a Wales offence so clearly no bias. Ian_Cook is a NZ'der who is also applying the same interpretation that referees all aver the world apply. There is your evidence of the protocol.

Ask at your next society meeting for their guidence.

I agree with this excellent post.

I don't even think we need to apply a beam me up principle - you just need to ask what would have probably happened in SBW hadn't knocked the ball into touch. For me, the Frenchman would probably have caught the ball and fallen in the in-goal for a try. It makes no sense to ask what SBW could have done legally if he had his time over again. All this "Beam me up" stuff is clouding the issue.

Ian and I are both very confident with the decision. As we are the two most vocal Kiwis on here this should give pause for thought.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In writng? I don't know. In society meetings we are reminded all the time. It makes no sense to do anything else. THe player CHOSES to infringe. Why give him a second, hypothetical, chance to do it right?

So in this example:

SBW contravenes 10.2(c) so we are now in to "is it a PT?" treritory. So: What would happen if he did not comit foul play?
Well


1: He might have caught it - Happy days for SBW!

2: He might have failed to catch it (dropped) and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

3: He might have failed to catch it (dropped) and the French player might have gathered it and not scored.

4: He might have missed it and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

5: He might have missed it and the French player might have gathered it and scored.

If you apply "beam me up" (the logical option) Them options oneto three are not relevant. If you don't, ask yourself: "Why did SBW choses not to try to catch the ball?"

Options four and five could apply whether or not you apply "beam me up". They are the logical options to consider. I see no reason for allowing player to chose to offend and then saying well he might have caught the ball so lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

THe same applied to Liam Williams (Wales V RSA) a couple of years ago. Wales were 5 poiint up and we were at the death of the game. RSA were looking to score in the corner - if they scored they had a difficult kick to win but at least a draw. Williams put in an illegal challenge and the ref went under the posts (Wales lost by 2) If the ref had not applied the "beam me up" principle then a reasonalbe claim would be "if LW had tackled fairly the try could have been prevented (enough to say not a "probable try") so the ref only awards a Penalty. That would been a gross injustice. After all IF LW had attempted to tackle fairly the worse case scenario would have been a conversion attempt from the touchline to for RSA to win the game. In the actual game LW was a fool he got the card he deserved and the RSA got the win following a low pressure conversion.

SO I'm applying a consistant logic to a NZ offence as to a Wales offence so clearly no bias. Ian_Cook is a NZ'der who is also applying the same interpretation that referees all aver the world apply. There is your evidence of the protocol.

Ask at your next society meeting for their guidence.

 

[damo]

A secondary question. Why did the player feel the need to knock it dead rather than take the legal option?

Because he is an ex leaguie and under pressure his instincts kicked in.

He should cop some grief from his team mates over this. I imagine the AB's don't do court sessions any more (and SBW doesn't drink anyway), but geeze in my day he would have had a hard time of it the next morning.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It makes no sense to ask what SBW could have done legally if he had his time over again. All this "Beam me up" stuff is clouding the issue.

The "Beam Me Up" principle is simply a vehicle for making it clear that anything else the infringing player might have done is irrelevant, what he actually CHOSE to do is at hand, and is the only thing that does matter.

Ian and I are both very confident with the decision. As we are the two most vocal Kiwis on here this should give pause for thought.

Yes

 

[Ian_Cook]

Because he is an ex leaguie and under pressure his instincts kicked in.

He should cop some grief from his team mates over this. I imagine the AB's don't do court sessions any more (and SBW doesn't drink anyway), but geeze in my day he would have had a hard time of it the next morning.

At HSOB in Christchurch, we used to have a wooden toilet seat. It was the "Dick of the Day' award, and if you were named, you had to wear it around your neck at the after match. It had words on something like..."I may not know why I am wearing this, but you can be damned sure the other 14 guys do!"

 

[ChuckieB]

Beam me up. Is that, pretend he wasn't there?

That he infringed is not under question.

That he he is there Is what makes it a difficult call under the circumstances. It would be an easier one if there was more visibility on the decision making protocol, something not confined to the back rooms of society meetings and referees forums.

if you compare against the application of the high tackle protocols, it might be better to scribe in the laws that if the player should have reasonably known that his action might prevent a try then it might serve as a clearer warning and perhaps a better deterrent.

I would find that much easier to stand behind.

 

[crossref]

I find it hard to imagine that NZ players on the pitch were disappointed with decision. If it had a been a game I was reffing it seems like an incident that might might well prompt some discussion in the bar afterwards, because it was unusual, but on pitch I think the players would have accepted a PT quite easily, and with a PT it's always a card

 

[crossref]

Any thoughts on him allowing the French to retake a penalty after they I suspect “inadvertently” tapped the ball directly behind the mark on which he stood and the ABs came forward and made the tackle - his decision was on the basis “he hadn’t moved off the mark”

that is intriguing - anyone know what time in the game that happened? I'd like to see the video..

my instinct is that you can't take a PK inadvertently. for instance if the ball happens to be on the ground behind the mark and player walks into it and moves it with his foot, that doesn't count as taking the PK

 

[didds]

If you don't accept the break me up about approach, ten you have to accept that you are giving a cheat a second chance.

There are mo other options.

Meanwhile I don't buy this SBW ex leaguie natural reactionstuff. He didn't swap codes last week, has significant RU experience and is a highly paid professional. Its his JOB yo understand his JOB.

Didds