Penalty try Hurricanes vs Blues - What the?

[The Rant]

Week 2. If you saw the game or the highlights - I just can't believe that this was a penalty try. 2 wingers diving after a ball in goal. They say the defending winger deliberately knocked it dead (even though there is no proof of intention - their both reaching out and the blues player was being railroaded out of the way as well) and then the video ref concluded that he should be yellow carded and that if you then take that defending player away Savea would score - but it's not like the blues player disappears and how can they say his one hand one would have grounded it - Really bad decision - is this a new rule? Commentators were fully miffed.
Please explain how this was right or this rule can be better worked?

 

[Braveheart81]

There were a few comments about this in the match thread. I believe this was decision was to the letter of the law but I also think it's a stupid premise.

To have the premise that an offending player is no longer considered to be part of the play at all is ridiculous.

Based on this idea, if a team is attacking close to the goal line and there are one on one situations and the defensive side rushes up offside, should it also be a penalty try? By taking the same logic, you'd have to assume that the offside players aren't actually on the field and if that is the case then it is a certain try.

Clearly that is never going to happen and that is why I believe that this decision (and the logic behind it) is ridiculous.

I don't think it should have even been a yellow card, let alone a penalty try. It was an even race for the ball and when they dived the ball was well up off the ground. It is unlikely that a try would have been scored if the defender had made a legal attempt to ground it.

I think it should have been a penalty to the Hurricanes five metres out and nothing more.

 

[Scott Allen]

Covered by Law 10 – Foul Play

Definition:

“Foul play is anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.”

Law 10.2 deals with Unfair Play and includes the provision:

“A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play, must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.”

Law 10.2 (c)

“A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.”

“A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.”

My bolding and underlining in each of these.

Working backwards - the penalty try must be based on the offence, not whether the player was there or not.

It is an offence to intentionally knock the ball over the dead ball line.

If a penalty try is awarded due to unfair play, the player must be temporarily suspended (yellow card). It's not a discretionary matter for the referee to decide on as to whether to issue a yellow card or not.

The issues in this instance are therefore was it intentional? And would the try have been scored but for the offence?

Could argue either way on being intentional or not - he may have been trying to ground the ball but got it all wrong.

Would the try probably have been scored but for the offence? Got to be doubt about that - the offence wasn't going shoulder to shoulder - it was tapping the ball away - at the time that occurred the ball was still in the air and who's to know where it would have bounced when it hit the ground.

I think they got it wrong on both intentional and whether the try would probably have been scored. But having made the decision to award a penalty try they got the yellow card decision correct.

 

[Ash]

Definitely wrong on whether a try would have been scored. Even discounting being shoulder to shoulder, Savea was diving and the ball had bounced pretty highly - not guaranteed he would put it down clearly. Shoulder to shoulder with a defender makes it more unlikely.

It looks like a deliberate slap to me, however.

 

[Bullrush]

Scott, doesn't the law u just referenced say that the player MUST be cautioned or carded? Does that indicate refs discretion as to whether it's a card or not?

 

[Braveheart81]

Scott, doesn't the law u just referenced say that the player MUST be cautioned or carded? Does that indicate refs discretion as to whether it's a card or not?

It is cautioned AND temporarily suspended OR sent off.

So if the referee forms the view that a try would have certainly been scored then a yellow card must be given.

The mistake in this situation was deciding that a try would have definitely been scored which is far from the reality.

 

[Scott Allen]

It is cautioned AND temporarily suspended OR sent off.

So if the referee forms the view that a try would have certainly been scored then a yellow card must be given.

The mistake in this situation was deciding that a try would have definitely been scored which is far from the reality.

Agree on both points here.

 

[Braveheart81]

What I think went wrong as I said in my earlier post is Vinny Munro deciding that if the offending player hadn't been there, a try would have been scored. That might be true, but the player was there whether they offended or not.

As I said above, if there is a one on one situation close to the line and the defender is offside, should that be a penalty try because if the player hadn't existed, the attacker would have had a clear run to the line.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Savea did not have a very good game all round.

I suspect Sir John et al did their homework on him and pressured him into many mistakes.

The wiser heads showed up the young pup. He was never going to score the try.

Halai nearly got away with this one. A less blatant bat of the ball was all that was needed.

In saying so, the PT/YC did appear to galvanise the Blues into matchwinning action, so Savea's theatrics appealing to the referee and carrying on like a pork chop at "try time" backfired big time. Maybe next time he will be a little less dramatic and ask his Captain to have a quiet word with the Referee on his behalf.

I concur with Braveheart81 and Scott Allen.

 

[Scott Allen]

What I think went wrong as I said in my earlier post is Vinny Munro deciding that if the offending player hadn't been their, a try would have been scored. That might be true, but the player was there whether they offended or not.

As I said above, if there is a one on one situation close to the line and the defender is offside, should that be a penalty try because if the player hadn't existed, the attacker would have had a clear run to the line.

Agree again - wonder if that's what Munro really meant or whether he just used the wrong wording and meant to say "if the offending player hadn't done that" - he's a pretty experienced referee who would know the laws - there hasn't been any change in that area of the law in years.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The words that Vinny used are commonly used by referees in determining whether a penalty try should be awarded - it wasn't just a poor chooice of words - more it is one interpretation on determining a penalty try. This is a situation that shows how hard it can be to adjudicate on penalty tries. I am not sure exactly of the origins of this thought process but I believe the rationale is that if a player is unable to stop a try through legal options or decides to use illegal means under extreme pressure, then the test should be whether the attacking player would probably score if the illegal defending player was not there. It is clearly a highly debatable decision making process but probably designed to bring a higher level of objectivity to the process.
In terms of this situation, I think the player deliberately hit the ball dead and he did this in a potential try scoring situation, so for mine a yellow card is a must. Others have already disagreed with my opinion on the deliberate element of the action.
If we assume that it was deliberate, then on to the penalty try decision here. When a player decides to hit the ball deliberately dead, does he now think that a try will probably be scored and that is the motivation for his action ie why didn't he choose a legal option? Did he not know the rules (is that a defence?). I am OK with a penalty try here as he was under extreme pressure and choose to commit a deliberate infringement and in the long run, this will force players not to commit foul play in these situations.
I would ask you to consider if you would view this situation differently if the Blues player had pushed or tackled the attacking player. I think many more people would be comfortable with a penalty try under those circumstances but are they really different.
My view is different to many above, so I will put my crash helmet on and wait for a response. It will be intersting to see if Lyndon Bray supports my view.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Based on this idea, if a team is attacking close to the goal line and there are one on one situations and the defensive side rushes up offside, should it also be a penalty try? By taking the same logic, you'd have to assume that the offside players aren't actually on the field and if that is the case then it is a certain try.

Sorry I should have added - the difference between off-side and this situation is that off-side is not Law 10 - Foul Play. It could be if it was deliberately off-side and I think you could and do see penaly tries from deliberate off-side.

 

[Braveheart81]

I only partly disagree with you Eyes and Ears. In terms of the main question in the incident framed by the rules, would the Hurricanes have probably scored had the Blues player not batted the ball away.

I think the answer to that question is no. The ball was well off the ground, the players were shoulder to shoulder and scoring a try from that situation was I would say, a less than 50% chance (i.e. not probable).

 

[Scott Allen]

The words that Vinny used are commonly used by referees in determining whether a penalty try should be awarded - it wasn't just a poor chooice of words - more it is one interpretation on determining a penalty try. This is a situation that shows how hard it can be to adjudicate on penalty tries. I am not sure exactly of the origins of this thought process but I believe the rationale is that if a player is unable to stop a try through legal options or decides to use illegal means under extreme pressure, then the test should be whether the attacking player would probably score if the illegal defending player was not there.

E&E - where does this interpretation come from as this is not what the law says?

Are you a referee that can confirm that this is something that is "documented" for referees or is it just your opinion as an observer?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Would the try probably have been scored but for the offence? Got to be doubt about that - the offence wasn't going shoulder to shoulder - it was tapping the ball away - at the time that occurred the ball was still in the air and who's to know where it would have bounced when it hit the ground.

I think they got it wrong on both intentional and whether the try would probably have been scored. But having made the decision to award a penalty try they got the yellow card decision correct.

Burden of proof: "probably" only means more likely than not. 50.1% chance try would have been scored is good enough.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Are you a referee that can confirm that this is something that is "documented" for referees or is it just your opinion as an observer?

Yes re referee. I don't think I could find you a "document" but the concept would be openly discussed in a referee education session on penalty tries in Australia and it would seem to be the case in NZ as well.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I only partly disagree with you Eyes and Ears. In terms of the main question in the incident framed by the rules, would the Hurricanes have probably scored had the Blues player not batted the ball away.

I think the answer to that question is no. The ball was well off the ground, the players were shoulder to shoulder and scoring a try from that situation was I would say, a less than 50% chance (i.e. not probable).

I understand where you are coming from. I guess the return question is why do we assume that the infringing player could prevent the try legally when he decided to take an illegal option?

 

[Scott Allen]

Yes re referee. I don't think I could find you a "document" but the concept would be openly discussed in a referee education session on penalty tries in Australia and it would seem to be the case in NZ as well.

Thanks

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I understand where you are coming from. I guess the return question is why do we assume that the infringing player could prevent the try legally when he decided to take an illegal option?

its not an assumption - its an assessment made by the officials.
the complain in this case is that this is one of the aspects that the TMO ignored because he proceeded on an assumption that the offending player wasn't there.
How many other laws do the refs interpret according to a secret code?

 

[Bullrush]

The words that Vinny used are commonly used by referees in determining whether a penalty try should be awarded - it wasn't just a poor chooice of words - more it is one interpretation on determining a penalty try. This is a situation that shows how hard it can be to adjudicate on penalty tries. I am not sure exactly of the origins of this thought process but I believe the rationale is that if a player is unable to stop a try through legal options or decides to use illegal means under extreme pressure, then the test should be whether the attacking player would probably score if the illegal defending player was not there. It is clearly a highly debatable decision making process but probably designed to bring a higher level of objectivity to the process.
In terms of this situation, I think the player deliberately hit the ball dead and he did this in a potential try scoring situation, so for mine a yellow card is a must. Others have already disagreed with my opinion on the deliberate element of the action.
If we assume that it was deliberate, then on to the penalty try decision here. When a player decides to hit the ball deliberately dead, does he now think that a try will probably be scored and that is the motivation for his action ie why didn't he choose a legal option? Did he not know the rules (is that a defence?). I am OK with a penalty try here as he was under extreme pressure and choose to commit a deliberate infringement and in the long run, this will force players not to commit foul play in these situations.
I would ask you to consider if you would view this situation differently if the Blues player had pushed or tackled the attacking player. I think many more people would be comfortable with a penalty try under those circumstances but are they really different.
My view is different to many above, so I will put my crash helmet on and wait for a response. It will be intersting to see if Lyndon Bray supports my view.

How much of a chance do you think Halai had of grounding the ball legally given the way the ball bounced, their dives, the fact Savea was on his shoulder etc? I think it was probably a pretty slim chance.

If Halai's chance to ground the ball was fairly unlikely, how much better was Savea's given he was almost in the exact same position? The only way to say Savea would have probably scored is to pretend that Halai wasn't there at all - which is pretty much what Vinny said. At what point in that chase do we become an alternate reality where Halai disappears? Right before he you touched the ball? A few metres bak at the try line maybe? Hell, why not make him disappear right at the beginning of the chase - that is most definitely a probable try at that stage.

I guess what I'm saying is that if both players are looking to do the same thing - ground the ball - but we are saying that Halai's only viable option was to knock it dead (even though he got to the ball first) how likely is it that Savea would have been able to ground the ball either?