Yellow Card?

[thepercy]

Does scoring a try negate the need to issue a yellow card to a defender who deserves a yellow card?

 

[SimonSmith]

No, in a word

 

[crossref]

I reckon
- if it was dangerous/foul play - definitely not. Card him.
- if was cynical - no, card him
- if it was a team warning situation, and he was that unlucky guy in the next tackle that ended up on the ground, half trapped, blocking ball, but they got it away anyway - - - in theory still a YC, but in practice I wouldn't give it 'capt it was your #6s lucky day'

 

[thepercy]

I ask because in last weekends Aus v SA game AAC gets tackle by his head, and dots down for a try. NO says to the defender, something along the lines of "I'm not going to yellow card you, because a try was scored."

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Does scoring a try negate the need to issue a yellow card to a defender who deserves a yellow card?

Now you've clarified the OP with post #4. I'd say, if you are a law unto yourself then - yes! :biggrin:

 

[Pegleg]

I believe the reason a card was not issued is simple:

Had the try been prevented by intentional foul play then a card is mandatory. This hold whether or not the foul play in itself was worthy of a card. - See law 10.

Nigel Owens is saying. The offence was not a yellow in my opinion (taking into account whatever factors he did) and because the try was scored (so I did not need to award a PT) I am not forced to issue a card.

Now, of course, we may feel that the offence did warrant a card. In that sense we disagree with Owens. However, the suggestion that a card was not required merely because the non offender gained the 5 points. Owens does not subscribe to that view and he has, on many occasions, carded (both yellow and red) players following the scoring of a try.

 

[The Fat]

I disagree with pegleg.
If NO believed that it didn't deserve a YC, he could have simply told the Springbok player to be careful as the attempted tackle was both high and dangerous.
To say to the player, "I'm not going to card you because a try was scored", is simply wrong. He is effectively saying that it was worthy of a YC.
If a player does something that deserves a card the ref should follow through and bin that player. What other circumstances could there be where a player should be carded but then the ref decides against doing so other than when a player does something that is not seen by the officials or can't be identified?

 

[The Fat]

Here is just one video but there are plenty of examples of referees following through with a YC even though a try has been scored.
[video]http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830606/[/video]

 

[Pegleg]

I guess you must know Nigel better than me.

 

[Taff]

... Nigel Owens is saying. The offence was not a yellow in my opinion (taking into account whatever factors he did) and because the try was scored (so I did not need to award a PT) I am not forced to issue a card.

But the try could probably have been "scored in a better place" if the offender had been "beamed up".

 

[The Fat]

Need another example do we?
[video]http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830391/[/video]

 

[The Fat]

I guess you must know Nigel better than me.

It's not a matter of knowing NO better than you. NO says that he is not going to card the high tackler only because a try was scored so in a round about way is saying if the try had not been scored, the high tackler WOULD have earned himself a YC. If that had been the case, then one would have to assume that a PT would also have been awarded.

 

[Pegleg]

Nigel does not like (along with many of us) to be forced to give cards by law. So the compulsory card following a PT sits uncomfortably with him He would prefer to work on the "You know when it's a red" principle. I remember after the Sam Warburton card in the World cup he was interviewed and said that he did not want to comment on the specific card as he would be judging it at second hand, having not watched the game, He emphasised: That Rolland had seen it and made the call in real time and that was good enough for him. That Rolland worked within the protocols that required certain actions in response to specific incidents. He also added that he was not in favour of being told, as a referee, that this offence IS a RED or that this offence is a YELLOW . A lot of management factors should apply.

The best referees judge when to issue cards better that some of us. Some of my colleagues issue cards like confetti, some (lime myself)would rather keep 30 men on the park if possible and are reluctant to card - possibly not carding at times when we should.


In the incident we are referring to. He felt that the situation / game was better managed by a word than a card. And yes had a Try not been scored a card would have been mandatory (due to the awarding of a PT) despite Nigel not feeling it was "right" in the circumstances. So the player was lucky.

Nigel is certainly not afraid to card. He felt he could manage the game better and keep the player on the park. I have no real problem with that.

He could have issued a card and I doubt many would have said he was wrong. He chose to manage it differently. Considering how the game when can you honestly say he was wrong rather than different?

 

[Pegleg]

Compare with the reversal of a Penalty following retaliation. The law book says retaliation earns a reversal of a penalty. Do we always do so? NO! Sometimes we judge the original offence was worse than the retaliation and that the original offence stands. "Wrong" in law but good management.

 

[Phil E]

And yes had a Try not been scored a card would have been mandatory (due to the awarding of a PT)

A card following a PT is only mandatory if the offence was intentional. None intentional foul/poor play that stops a Try being scored should not result in an automatic card. :nono:

 

[Pegleg]

A card following a PT is only mandatory if the offence was intentional. None intentional foul/poor play that stops a Try being scored should not result in an automatic card. :nono:

I'd already covered that in an earlier post (#6). I did not think it needed repeating.

 

[Phil E]

I'd already covered that in an earlier post (#6). I did not think it needed repeating.

Then I suggest you are a bit more accurate in your statements. :chin:

 

[The Fat]

I'm not arguing about NO's judgement of when he does or does not issue cards. As I said earlier, if he didn't believe a card was necessary, he could simply have had a word on the run with the tackler to be careful with his technique and no-one would have batted an eyelid. However, to make the statement, "I'm not going to give you a YC because a try was scored", is basically telling the infringing player, "You have just committed a YC offence but I'm going to let you get away with it this time".
The bottom line is that the offence either deserved a YC or it didn't. The fact that a try was scored immediately following the offence should make no difference.
I like NO, I think he is probably the best in the business when he has a good day and is still in the top three even when he has a bad day so my comments are not a personal attack on NO. In the incident we are discussing here, I believe his choice of words were poor.

 

[Pegleg]

I was accurate. The second post note was written with your "correction" already stated.

 

[OB..]

The law book says retaliation earns a reversal of a penalty.

[LAWS]10.4 (l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent. Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]Not mandatory, just an optional sanction?