[In-goal] Try or Penalty Try?

[Novice-Ref]

A winger is just about to score in the corner when the defender comes across with a high tackle but fails to prevent the grounding of the ball. Would you award the try or a penalty try and yellow card?

 

[Dickie E]

But for foul play, would the ball carrier have scored in a better location?

If not, award the try.

YC should be on the merits of the tackle, irrespective of try or penalty try

 

[Pegleg]

Only thing to add is that if it was intentional foul play and you go down the PT route than a card is mandatory under law 10.

That said from the description in the OP I would not be awarding a PT.

 

[didds]

I suggest a PT would depend on what other defenders were near.

Didds

 

[The Fat]

Try and apply the latest guidance on high/dangerous tackles to determine if the would be tackler is getting a card as well (may not just be Yellow)

 

[Ian_Cook]

From your description, it doesn't sound like the try scorer would probably have scored in a better position, so I don't think PT is an option.

However, that does not preclude you from giving a YC for the dangerous tackle.

 

[Novice-Ref]

In the moment, I awarded the try but on reflection perhaps it should have been a penalty try. I have been told that if there is foul play you imagine the perpetrator is not there and what would have happened. Following this through, he would have got much nearer the posts and made an easier score. Agree under law 10 this would have been followed by a Yellow Card. I wonder what the winger would have thought if I wiped out HIS try.

 

[ChuckieB]

Would you have been certain he would have attempted to go in closer? I am not aware the pt provisions extend to such territory?

The closest I have seen and recall was where it was suggested it would have been better had the player not grounded the ball, when reviewed by the TMO. Had the ball not been grounded, the ref said he was going for the PT for the deliberate collapse of the maul.

 

[Dickie E]

A winger is just about to score in the corner

he would have got much nearer the posts and made an easier score.

Well, its either one or the other :wtf:

 

[Pegleg]

In the moment, I awarded the try but on reflection perhaps it should have been a penalty try. I have been told that if there is foul play you imagine the perpetrator is not there and what would have happened. Following this through, he would have got much nearer the posts and made an easier score. Agree under law 10 this would have been followed by a Yellow Card. I wonder what the winger would have thought if I wiped out HIS try.

If he was diving in to score then taking out the tackle would probably not make a difference. If he was just rungg around aiming for the posts ewtc then I would say you are right. From your original description I say not PT but watching in real time I might take a different view.

 

[UpandUnder]

Would you have been certain he would have attempted to go in closer? I am not aware the pt provisions extend to such territory?

The closest I have seen and recall was where it was suggested it would have been better had the player not grounded the ball, when reviewed by the TMO. Had the ball not been grounded, the ref said he was going for the PT for the deliberate collapse of the maul.

As referees we really shouldn't use the word certain when discussing penalty tries. Leave that to the ignorant commentators

It is about what probably would have happened if a tackle (illegal or otherwise) was not made

 

[Pinky]

In the moment, I awarded the try but on reflection perhaps it should have been a penalty try. I have been told that if there is foul play you imagine the perpetrator is not there and what would have happened. Following this through, he would have got much nearer the posts and made an easier score. Agree under law 10 this would have been followed by a Yellow Card. I wonder what the winger would have thought if I wiped out HIS try.

N-R, the way you mention that the perpetrator is not there is perhaps a bit too generous in determining if it is to be a PT. If it was a 1 on 1, and the defender put in a high tackle, if he was not there then it would be a run in unopposed, and that is probably not going to meet the law requirement of "but for the foul play would have scored in a better place". So in this instance, think what would have happened if the perpetrator was there but didn't put in a high tackle. I think that is the measure for deciding on a PT.

Re the issue with the collapsed maul, if there was no grounding then there was no try to award, so the only option really would be to award a PT as the foul play had prevented the try, so good refereeing here.

 

[The Fat]

Where does the idea come from that if a player grounds the ball but except for the foul play he may have scored it in a better position that the referee can ignore the grounding and award a PT?

The law says;
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Where does the idea come from that if a player grounds the ball but except for the foul play he may have scored it in a better position that the referee can ignore the grounding and award a PT?

The law says;
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

[LAWS]22.4 h: Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.[/LAWS]
My bold.

 

[Rich_NL]

22.17.b
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Foul play by the defending team. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts. The defending team may charge the conversion kick after a penalty try.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/FONT][/LAWS]

Edit: Oops, I got the in-goal subsection, leaguerefaus the correct one.

 

[ChuckieB]

Where does the idea come from that if a player grounds the ball but except for the foul play he may have scored it in a better position that the referee can ignore the grounding and award a PT?

The law says;
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

Yes.. Hard to envisage such a circumstance, i.e. how we get to a progression to a PT once the ball is grounded for a try.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]

[/FONT]

 

[Pegleg]

To show the diffence and how the second part of 22.4 (h) could come into play:


Scenario 1
Attacking player rounding the full back is high tackled and knocked to the ground as he falls he grounds the ball. Nearest other defender 30 metres up field.

We take the full back out of the equation and it is reasonable to assume if the attacker had not been fouled he would have gone under the posts. So here we award the PT instead of the "actual" try.

Scenario 2
Attacking player diving for the line as the full back comes across and the attacker is high tackled, he grounds the ball. Nearest other defender the other side of the field behind the posts.

We take the full back out of the equation and here it is NOTreasonable to assume if the attacker had not been fouled he would have gone under the posts (he was diving to score). So here we award the "actual" try.

 

[UpandUnder]

N-R, the way you mention that the perpetrator is not there is perhaps a bit too generous in determining if it is to be a PT. If it was a 1 on 1, and the defender put in a high tackle, if he was not there then it would be a run in unopposed, and that is probably not going to meet the law requirement of "but for the foul play would have scored in a better place". So in this instance, think what would have happened if the perpetrator was there but didn't put in a high tackle. I think that is the measure for deciding on a PT.

Re the issue with the collapsed maul, if there was no grounding then there was no try to award, so the only option really would be to award a PT as the foul play had prevented the try, so good refereeing here.

We have been coached (ARU) that if foul play is committed then that player is removed from the equation. The reasoning was we can only deal with what happened not 'what if' and to be honest I agree with this stance

 

[DocY]

We have been coached (ARU) that if foul play is committed then that player is removed from the equation. The reasoning was we can only deal with what happened not 'what if' and to be honest I agree with this stance

I always thought that was a global interpretation.

I'd never considered it in the case of a try being scored in a better place before, but it makes sense - BC in goal running round to touch down behind the posts and being high tackled, I think the PT is fair.

Has anyone ever given one of these and how did the players react?

It does bring Tommy Seymour(?) against Wales to mind. High tackled as he dived for the corner and if he'd not grounded the ball it would have definitely been a PT - i.e. he'd have benefited from knocking on. I can't remember if the conversion was good or not.

 

[The Fat]

I always thought that was a global interpretation.

I'd never considered it in the case of a try being scored in a better place before, but it makes sense - BC in goal running round to touch down behind the posts and being high tackled, I think the PT is fair.

Has anyone ever given one of these and how did the players react?

It does bring Tommy Seymour(?) against Wales to mind. High tackled as he dived for the corner and if he'd not grounded the ball it would have definitely been a PT - i.e. he'd have benefited from knocking on. I can't remember if the conversion was good or not.

That is about the only situation I can think of where it would be used i.e. the BC has yet to ground the ball.
I don't see a situation where the BC has grounded the ball (i.e. has scored the try) and then had the referee over-rule "his" try with a PT.