[Tackle] YC/RD

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,444
Post Likes
611
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
crossref said:
All PK offences are intentional, (or presumed intentional) aren't they ? That's why they are PK and not scrum

that's tricky. If what you say is correct then every penalty is a law 9 (foul play) offence which says:

[LAWS]A player must not:
Intentionally infringe any law of the game. [/LAWS]

and

[LAWS]A player who commits foul play must either be cautioned or temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]

Do you caution a player at every penalty?





Clearly not all PK are intentional or there would be no need for Law 9.7. Nor would we have needed the old clarification that Cards wre ony compulsory after "intentional offending"

An example of an non - intentional PK would be, a high tackle where, the arm slips up to the neck. It is a a PK but it is not "intentional".
 
Last edited:

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,444
Post Likes
611
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Here is the old law clarification (Note the old law numbers.)

Ruling
9-2004
Union / HP Ref Manager
IRFU
Law Reference
10,22
Date
23 December 2004
Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

The first paragraph states:
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. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

The final paragraph states:
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.

The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

The clarification sought is:
Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending
, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,467
Post Likes
1,677
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Nice pick up, Marc, and thanks for sharing. And even though it refers to 'old' numbering, it is still a current & valid clarification ... yes?
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,384
Post Likes
286
Current Referee grade:
Level 9
Interesting if still valid, certainly hope so, as allows some common sense to be applied by us.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,831
Post Likes
2,277
Interesting if still valid, certainly hope so, as allows some common sense to be applied by us.

Law 8.3 is very clear on this

[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]

Generally speaking if you go down the route of favouring very old clarifications over the current Law Book you are going to go very far astray there are loads of clarifications from the past that are now superseded by subsequent Laws
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,203
Post Likes
328
I never have thought that it is compulsory to YC for a PT. Recently at one of our training sessions one ot our professional referees said that they try to avoid a ‘double whammy’ as much as possible. The real question is does it meet YC criteria.
At a recent match one scrum was being totally decimated. A PT resulted. Who do you YC? T/H, L/H, Hooker, No8 for releasing bind, second row for going to ground? Nobody was really at fault; the opposition were too big and strong. There was nothing that the opposition scrum could do to resist the pressure. If they (and one player in particular) were deliberately dropping the scrum (or similar) to prevent the drive it would be a different matter.

In the above scrum scenario the referee adopted the ‘I must YC’ approach. This resulted in uncontested scrums and the dominant scrum (and coach in particular) was livid!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,831
Post Likes
2,277
If you can't identify a culprit I think it's obvious you can't give a card

Interestingly Law 8.3 also says that PT are awarded as a result of Foul Play and scrum penalties aren't foul play anyway
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,203
Post Likes
328
If you can't identify a culprit I think it's obvious you can't give a card

Interestingly Law 8.3 also says that PT are awarded as a result of Foul Play and scrum penalties aren't foul play anyway

It is if you keep releasing you binding etc. Repeat infringements are foul play, by definition.

Basically releasing binding is what you give the PT for in the above circumstances. It’s not done deliberately. If the opposition have made you do it do you penalise the dominant side? :)
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,840
Post Likes
1,228
You are (WADR :) ) overthinking it.

One card, one offence. Maybe the offense is a "double whammy" but the PT is an added "what if scenario" toan otherwise standard card.

High tackle in midfield ? PK
Dangerous? YC

High tackle 1m off goal line no other defenders around? PT
Dangerous? YC

ISTR the move is definitely away from automatic cards for PTs (huge discussions in other threads)

It may well be the act that meant a PT is awarded is not deserving of a card at all. We can I am sure all find an angel to dance on a pin head to proide a scenario.


didds
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,831
Post Likes
2,277
ISTR the move is definitely away from automatic cards for PTs (huge discussions in other threads)


didds

It's the other way round, as it's now enshrined in Law, without qualification
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,840
Post Likes
1,228
good advice from Crossreff but it is never 2 yellow cards for one offence. Of course if you give the yellow then the player gives you verbals which warrant a second yellow, that would be ok.

... because that is a _second_ offense etc. For clarity. Etc.

You're welcome...

didds
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,831
Post Likes
2,277
It is if you keep releasing you binding etc. Repeat infringements are foul play, by definition.

Basically releasing binding is what you give the PT for in the above circumstances. It’s not done deliberately. If the opposition have made you do it do you penalise the dominant side? :)

yes, if it's repeat you are correct, but I think that would have to be be repeat by the same player, and if that's the case there's your YC

Or if you have given a team warning and another player does it - well again that's your YC (regardless of it being a PT)

If it's a case where you can't identify a sepcific player well then you can't YC anyone, obvs
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,444
Post Likes
611
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Nice pick up, Marc, and thanks for sharing. And even though it refers to 'old' numbering, it is still a current & valid clarification ... yes?

Not sure. Reasoning being, the re-write kindly ommited the "intentional offending" Bit. There is not a 10.2 (a) in the new Law 9 (if you see what I mean) the reference to a PT is in a different law (8) and makes no reference to intentional or unintentional fould play in the PT bit.

Now, since WR said there was no changes only clarification 9in the re-write), we can, if we believe WR, take it that the omited reference is an error and we still apply the intentional / unintentional bit with regard to card calls. However if you take the view that the re-write DID include change then you have to go to your pocket at any PT.


For me it is still "optional".

The main point in poting was to show that WR clear disagree wit the notion that all PKs are "deliberate".
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,536
Post Likes
1,819
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Now, since WR said there was no changes only clarification 9in the re-write), we can, if we believe WR, take it that the omited reference is an error and we still apply the intentional / unintentional bit with regard to card calls. However if you take the view that the re-write DID include change then you have to go to your pocket at any PT.

I was a big proponent of following the World Rugby advice that there were no law changes in the (shit) re-write. This information as well as coming from WR also came from all my professional sources for law questions.

However, we are now three years on and it is becoming harder and harder to follow that advice. I think we have to go with what we've got, i.e. the 2020 law book. That is the only pragmatic view, especially for new referees. However we can follow the advice that has always been given regarding the laws of the game, the same advice I always gave when I trained new referees....

"The laws are a framework that we use to facilitate a game of rugby, they cannot be read in isolation and safety, equity and enjoyment always trump law."
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,506
Post Likes
427
Interestingly Law 8.3 also says that PT are awarded as a result of Foul Play and scrum penalties aren't foul play anyway

Eh? 9.19, collapsing the scrum is a common scrum penalty.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,444
Post Likes
611
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I was a big proponent of following the World Rugby advice that there were no law changes in the (shit) re-write. This information as well as coming from WR also came from all my professional sources for law questions.

However, we are now three years on and it is becoming harder and harder to follow that advice. I think we have to go with what we've got, i.e. the 2020 law book. That is the only pragmatic view, especially for new referees. However we can follow the advice that has always been given regarding the laws of the game, the same advice I always gave when I trained new referees....

"The laws are a framework that we use to facilitate a game of rugby, they cannot be read in isolation and safety, equity and enjoyment always trump law."

So: Do you have to issue the mandated card with a PT?
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,536
Post Likes
1,819
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
So: Do you have to issue the mandated card with a PT?

If you know who stopped the try happening I would say yes.

Even under the old description I have never seen an accidental offence cause a penalty try, so its probably a mute point.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,840
Post Likes
1,228
Does the law still explicitly state that a PT _MUST_ be followed by a YC/RC (caveat : assuming a cuklprit can be identified rather than guessing) ?

If so - fair enough (though I have personal reservations but if that is what the law says then that is what the law says).

If it doesnt... then I'd say a card is only pertinent if you'd give the card for that same offense elsewhere on the pitch for a non PT

didds
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,444
Post Likes
611
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Does the law still explicitly state that a PT _MUST_ be followed by a YC/RC (caveat : assuming a cuklprit can be identified rather than guessing) ?

If so - fair enough (though I have personal reservations but if that is what the law says then that is what the law says).

If it doesnt... then I'd say a card is only pertinent if you'd give the card for that same offense elsewhere on the pitch for a non PT

didds

Law 8.3 [LAWS]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] Use of bold is for emphasis.

If you know who stopped the try happening I would say yes.

Even under the old description I have never seen an accidental offence cause a penalty try, so its probably a mute point.

I saw one at Cardiff Arms Park. Player sidestepped the full back who, instinctively, stuck out an arm. PT and no card issued as "it was instinct not intention". Referee was a senior IRB (at the time RWC level) referee.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,840
Post Likes
1,228
Cheers Marc.

card it is. As long as its foul play and not e.g. offside presumably.

didds
 
Top