Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:48 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: SR Week 2 Penalty tries
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17673
I posted the following on Rugby Refs
Quote:
Two "controversial" penalty tries during Week 2 of Super Rugby sparked some discussion on the forums.

1. In the Crusaders v Chiefs game Ryan Crotty was diving for the try when a Chiefs player tackled him from the side and into touch with a "high tackle" around the neck/head even though Crotty was almost at ground level. Decision, after a TMO discussion, was that it was a dangerous tackle (high tackle) and a penalty try was awarded with a yellow card to the tackler.

https://youtu.be/nP9Cb0MZGj8

2. In the Lions v Jaguares game (no video available as yet) the Lions #8 passed the ball to his wing on the 22m with an open tryline when a defender near the #8 was deemed to have deliberately knocked the ball on to prevent the pass. There were two defenders steaming across from midfield who many feel could have cut off the winger if he had received the ball. Ref and TMO decided that a penalty try is warranted

In PT1 I think part of the "controversy" is due to people using the term "high tackle" rather than "dangerous tackle" and people struggle to come to grips with a "high tackle" happening at ground level.

In PT2 the discussion is around the fact that from 22m out, with defenders steaming in to cover, too much can still happen to make a try a "certainty".

Just as a matter of interest, in the Waratahs v Stormers game a Stormers player, Siya Kolisi, was penalised for a deliberate knockon at around the 22m mark and the ref and TMO looked to see whether there was an overlap and then decided there wasn't, and also discussed this with the Waratahs captain, so it does seem as if they are looking to see if there was a possibility (and probability) of try from quite far out

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20769-Penalty-tries

The best response so far:
Quote:
the need for 'last ditch' tackling doesn't imply a permission to do so dangerously or unlawfully


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22120
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
The need to score a try shouldn't allow a ball runner to put himself into a dangerous position.

If rugby was serious about preventing this, they would change the laws so that the ball merely needs to cross the plane of the goal-line and not allow people to dive in but stay on their feet? (Dumb eh?)

The other option is to allow diving over the line and players are untouchable when they do so head first


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17673
Enzedder wrote:
The need to score a try shouldn't allow a ball runner to put himself into a dangerous position.

If rugby was serious about preventing this, they would change the laws so that the ball merely needs to cross the plane of the goal-line and not allow people to dive in but stay on their feet? (Dumb eh?)

The other option is to allow diving over the line and players are untouchable when they do so head first

Basically already the case unless you can go to his body.

The other view is, why should a defender suddenly have the laws suspended after the attack beat them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22120
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
The defence wasn't beaten.

Would have been fine if Mr Hollywood didn't roll around like a soccer player.

Surely, if tackles can only take place within a certain range then all play must also take place within that range. No jumping and no diving.

#Tanawaswrong


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17673
Enzedder wrote:
The defence wasn't beaten.

Would have been fine if Mr Hollywood didn't roll around like a soccer player.



:lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6581
On PT1 - and as a Chiefs supporter im a little bruised by the game - it raises a couple of things for me:

- its going to be hard for refs to be consistent in that ruling. They weren't in the saders game already, nor across games
- the aim of the laws is to protect the head, does the attacker have any responsibility?

KG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5896
Location: Madrid
I still don't see the big controversy about the Crotty PT. The tackle was high from the start and didn't have to be, but then he ended up pulling Crotty away from the line by his neck. If he'd carried on lower after the initial contact he may have saved himself. If the defence had been better set he may have been able to tackle Crotty head on, but Crotty got the jump on him being side on and going low, and I still don't believe it was impossible to stop that try with a legal tackle.

It was just an anti-climatic way for that game to be 'decided'. I thought the yellow was very harsh considering the ref said it was just a penalty if not for the try possibility. But it is what it is but I can see why that moment grated although I think it was the correct call.

Quote:
Just as a matter of interest, in the Waratahs v Stormers game a Stormers player, Siya Kolisi, was penalised for a deliberate knockon at around the 22m mark and the ref and TMO looked to see whether there was an overlap and then decided there wasn't, and also discussed this with the Waratahs captain, so it does seem as if they are looking to see if there was a possibility (and probability) of try from quite far out


Jens, if an intentional knock-on is called (anywhere on the field really) and that action is judged to have prevented a line-break and/or overlap then it would enter into the threshold for a yellow card. That's what the ref was checking with the TMO and explaining to the players. In that case it was just a penalty but they weren't looking at PT options.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22120
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Quote:
the aim of the laws is to protect the head, does the attacker have any responsibility?


In the same vein, a muck on the goal line and an attacker just jumps over the top of the maul. He cannot be tackled in the air - penalty try if an attempt is made?

The law makers have shot themselves in the foot


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6581
Toro - i'm not sure it contentious either however look at:

https://youtu.be/bV15r48Bh3I?t=173
Tahs vs. Stomers - 2 hours after Saders vs. Chiefs...

In the act of scoring - Ned H - was:
- grabbed around the head by Rule (11 Stormers) - no sanction, yet was above the shoulders / arm to head / neck
- tackled over shoulder/neck - exactly same as Crotty - by 16 Stormers, no sanction

We know it was in act of scoring and would have scored - as he did - but no yellow cards for two high hits - the second exactly like Crotty one.

Is it on a YC because no try was scored? Seems wrong...

KG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
kiwigreg369 wrote:

Is it on a YC because no try was scored? Seems wrong...

KG


The ref took pains to clearly explain at the time to Cane, that BECAUSE THE PLAYER IS IN THE ACT OF SCORING blah blah... and 'ordinarily it's a penalty but...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5896
Location: Madrid
Enzedder wrote:
Quote:
the aim of the laws is to protect the head, does the attacker have any responsibility?


In the same vein, a muck on the goal line and an attacker just jumps over the top of the maul. He cannot be tackled in the air - penalty try if an attempt is made?

The law makers have shot themselves in the foot


Players being tackled in the air while diving for a try happens regularly and is not a problem, the only time this has ever come up, outside of jumping for a kick, was the Garces' rubbish call in the Lions test.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5896
Location: Madrid
kiwigreg369 wrote:
Toro - i'm not sure it contentious either however look at:

https://youtu.be/bV15r48Bh3I?t=173
Tahs vs. Stomers - 2 hours after Saders vs. Chiefs...

In the act of scoring - Ned H - was:
- grabbed around the head by Rule (11 Stormers) - no sanction, yet was above the shoulders / arm to head / neck
- tackled over shoulder/neck - exactly same as Crotty - by 16 Stormers, no sanction

We know it was in act of scoring and would have scored - as he did - but no yellow cards for two high hits - the second exactly like Crotty one.

Is it on a YC because no try was scored? Seems wrong...

KG


Yep, if it prevented the try then you'll almost certainly be looking at a yellow.

A whole lot of stuff is forgotten often when a try is scored. I'm not sure if there's any directive on that or whether they just forget once someone dots down. It grabs my attention more when you see no-armed charges in the corner to hit someone into touch but the player scores anyway, never gets a second glance. Sexton on Barrett was another one.

The reverse example was Havana's action the rwc semi before Barrett scored, then the ref came back and carded him even though try had been scored.

That tackle on Hannigan wasn't so bad, just a penalty so nothing more to see there. The Crotty one wasn't much worse about from the pull on the neck so while I agree with the PT I don't think it warranted a yellow too but that's the way it's called these days. The only PT you won't see cards for is when one player can't be identified as the one responsible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22120
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Toro wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Quote:
the aim of the laws is to protect the head, does the attacker have any responsibility?


In the same vein, a muck on the goal line and an attacker just jumps over the top of the maul. He cannot be tackled in the air - penalty try if an attempt is made?

The law makers have shot themselves in the foot


Players being tackled in the air while diving for a try happens regularly and is not a problem, the only time this has ever come up, outside of jumping for a kick, was the Garces' rubbish call in the Lions test.


But ... but... but ... it's the negative vibe and it's ... against the rules to tackle a player who has jumped into the air.

What sanctions should a player get for the dangerous actions of diving headfirst into a tackle (e.g. Crotty)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 451
Always good to post the laws in these discussions
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17673
Quote:
DEFINITIONS: Penalty try: Awarded when, in the opinion of the referee, a try probably would have been scored (or scored in a more advantageous position) if not for an act of foul play by an opponent.

Note: in the opinion of the referee. that suggests that if the referee's opinion is that a penalty try should be awarded, the referee is right. He is allowed his opinion.

Secondly, the word is probably, not certainly and not definitely. Probably suggests 6 to 9 out of 10.

http://www.rugby365.com/laws-referees/law-discussions/83518-law-discussion-two-penalty-tries

So the ref is always "right" when he awards a penalty try :shock: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
Jensrsa wrote:

So the ref is always "right" when he awards a penalty try :shock: :lol:


The ref is always right.

Comprehende?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17673
guy smiley wrote:
Jensrsa wrote:

So the ref is always "right" when he awards a penalty try :shock: :lol:


The ref is always right.

Comprehende?


True.

The point is that for a penalty try it is specifically written into the law that it's about his opinion.

Not talking about a general "the ref is always right"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: camroc1, ElementFreak, Farva, fatcat, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], grimoald, IBWT, Jay Cee Gee, Jeff the Bear, J Man, Mick Mannock, Olo, pjm1, Rugby2023, Sards, SedatedFMS, Ted., topofthemoon, unseenwork and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group