Penalty try Hurricanes vs Blues - What the?

[Inside Shoulder]

Scott, I guess what makes this difficult is that this is not a new interpretation and the situation occurs very rarely. I think there was a very similar incident in a NZ test against a NH nation in the June window in the last 5 years and I can definitely remember going to a RWC qualifier in Canberra in 1998 between 2 PI teams where a penalty try was awarded for this scenario. So I would argue that it has been publicly available but you would have to look very closely to notice it. I guess it would be interesting to know if John Kirwan was aware of it.
The "player not there" interpretation can be used in dangerous tackle scenarios as well where there is the same debate as to what result would have occurred had the tackle been completed legally.

I could draw a parallel to the touch law. What the law says about the ball in touch and what the flowchart says about many different scenarios that can occur with respect to starting position, ball position, body position and whether it is held or touched are very different in their level of detail provided by the Law and flowchart. I doubt that most people / players / coaches are aware of all these scenarios but the information is available if you want it.
I suspect that you are seeing inconsistent responses between YMS and myself because referee education can be hard to deliver to the broad referee population (ie from elite to Div 6 Subbies to Juniors). The penalty try is a particular difficult area as it involves a judgment call, so education on it is probably more tailored to the level you are refereeing. I suspect IS and/or Scott won't like this either as it will appear inconsistent but all along I have just been trying to provide some insight into the penalty try decision making process and why I have come to agree with this interpretation.

are you saying "take the player out the equation" only applies to knocking the ball dead or in touch deliberately?
because if it apples to collapsed scrum/mauls it happens not infrequently and the issue is how many of the forwards do you take out of the equation?
[Just for the record I'm quite happy to throw the book at collapsed 5m scrums cause i think they look really dangerous and one day they will be.]

 

[ACT Crusader]

As with anything IS it would depend on the circumstances and the general feel of what the ref is seeing.

Penalty tries from scrum situations are generally made when repeated infringements are made against a scrum going forwards. I've seen situations when maybe the first or 2nd scrums have been collapsed by a front row under pressure. They are penalised and then on say the third occasion the scrum holds but a halfback (or loose forward) dives on a ball from an offside position, so it's that player that is in the position of "take that player away, etc".

When it's the scrum, it's the collapsed part, but again I've only ever seen that on repeated infringements not an isolated act ala Halai

 

[Eyes and Ears]

are you saying "take the player out the equation" only applies to knocking the ball dead or in touch deliberately?
because if it apples to collapsed scrum/mauls it happens not infrequently and the issue is how many of the forwards do you take out of the equation?
[Just for the record I'm quite happy to throw the book at collapsed 5m scrums cause i think they look really dangerous and one day they will be.]

No the "take the player out of the equation" interpretation is not relevant for scrums but it is for dangerous tackles. For scrums, the question is whether a try would probably have been scored but for the collapse. I disagree with ACT Crusader in that I believe repeated infrignements that don't meet the "probable" test should be yellow carded and not result in a penalty try. I acknowledge that he he can dispute that with many examples.

 

[ACT Crusader]

No the "take the player out of the equation" interpretation is not relevant for scrums but it is for dangerous tackles. For scrums, the question is whether a try would probably have been scored but for the collapse. I disagree with ACT Crusader in that I believe repeated infrignements that don't meet the "probable" test should be yellow carded and not result in a penalty try. I acknowledge that he he can dispute that with many examples.

I don't think it's a common situation that a collapse in and of itself has resulted in PT - I certainly cannot recall any. However when collapses have occurred on 5 m scrums situations when a pack is going backwards, the probable try test is met when basically the attacking no8 just needs to fall on the ball however that chance has been taken away by what a ref deems a deliberate (ie repeated) collapse under pressure.

Again these situations are very rare.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

ACT Crusader and Eyes and Ears: my point in posing the scrum question was to expose the double standard, but its actually a double double standard - for a scrum collapse penalty try you need "probably would have been scored" (i.e. more than a 50% chance) and repeated infringements.
The irrationality in that approach is deplorable: someone could get seriously injured in a scrum collapse whereas no one ever broke their neck having the ball deliberately batted over the dead ball line.
I would be quite happy, if there are times and places where we are not going to insist on >50%, for one of those times and places to include a first collapsed scrum.

 

[Bullrush]

Someone intentionally kills a ball in a ruck 10m out from the line with a clear overlap for the attacking team.....probably would have scored so yellow card and penalty try?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

ACT Crusader and Eyes and Ears: my point in posing the scrum question was to expose the double standard, but its actually a double double standard - for a scrum collapse penalty try you need "probably would have been scored" (i.e. more than a 50% chance) and repeated infringements.
The irrationality in that approach is deplorable: someone could get seriously injured in a scrum collapse whereas no one ever broke their neck having the ball deliberately batted over the dead ball line.
I would be quite happy, if there are times and places where we are not going to insist on >50%, for one of those times and places to include a first collapsed scrum.

IS, IMO you only assess the "probable" test. Repeated infringements should be dealt with by YCs. I suspect where there is both a reasonable chance of a try and repeated infringements, you would see a penalty try as referees are unlikely to give the defending team any benefit of doubt (not a technical term). Having said that, the only thing that should matter IMO is the "probable" test. There is nothing that prevents referees from awarding a penalty try on the first scrum and I have seen this on many occasions. The reason why we don't see it that often is that a defensive team under pressure will drop the scrum early, so that there is enough doubt that the referee can't make the "probable" determination.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Someone intentionally kills a ball in a ruck 10m out from the line with a clear overlap for the attacking team...probably would have scored so yellow card and penalty try?

Yes, this is a possible outcome but I think we need to look at specific footage to have an appropriate debate.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

I think the video on this webpage clears up any doubt about intent - see slow mo at 40 seconds.

http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/halai-penalty-try-controversy-rages-5353070

He clearly batted it back on purpose. Thus, he committed a penalisable offence to stop a try being scored. Professional foul, so the yellow card is a certainty.

Now, did this act stop a certain try - well thats where the debate can rage on. He dived too early to do anything legal with the ball, so if he had taken an extra step, would Savea have gotten to the ball first? Thats a judgement call, pure and simple of which we'll never know the answer.

Either way, Halai did what he did & took the risk of what happened, happening.

 

[yourmatesam]

did this act stop a certain try

This is irrelevant according to the law book. The test is not a "certain" try being scored, the test is a "probable" try being scored.

See Law 10.2 (a) Foul Play

 

[Inside Shoulder]

IS, IMO you only assess the "probable" test. Repeated infringements should be dealt with by YCs. I suspect where there is both a reasonable chance of a try and repeated infringements, you would see a penalty try as referees are unlikely to give the defending team any benefit of doubt (not a technical term). Having said that, the only thing that should matter IMO is the "probable" test. There is nothing that prevents referees from awarding a penalty try on the first scrum and I have seen this on many occasions. The reason why we don't see it that often is that a defensive team under pressure will drop the scrum early, so that there is enough doubt that the referee can't make the "probable" determination.

I reckon in 47 years in the game they play in heaven watching at all levels, coaching and playing, I have seen maybe 2 or 3 first collapsed scrum penalty tries.
That betrays the fact that refs actually do require repeated infringements in this area before going to the posts.
You don't mean to suggest that on the 2nd or 3rd reset the defending team drops it any later, surely, and yet the result on that 2nd or 3rd occasion is PT!

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I don't believe it is mandatory requirement to have repeated infringements for penalty tries from scrums but I have acknowledged previously that you could provide me with many examples.

I do think that front rowers drop it early on the first one to get either another shot at winning the hit and/or that referees will re-set rather than penalise the first collapse. As the sequence goes on, the defending scrum knows they are more liable to penalty, yellow card for repeated collapsing and/or penalty tries, so they will try to hold the oncoming scrum and hope the attacking scrum stuffs up.

As a result, I think that this is also a reason that penalty tries are more likely after the first scrum.

 

[Proud Pig]

I think the decision was correct.
When you look at Halai did I think the intent was fairly clear.
He deliberately batted the ball into touch as can be seen by the fact that from where he attacked the ball he gave himself no chance to ground the ball legally. He made the decision to dive for the ball rather than an take extra step and come over the top of the ball. Therefore the foul and yellow card are perfectly reasonable given that it is a deliberate foul.
Now as to the probablity of the try being scored I think it was a fifty/fifty scenario up to the point of Halai diving. Once he dived thus taking the grounding out of the equation it left a decision of the illegal act or not touching the ball at all. Had he chosen the legal action, not touching the ball, then the probability of the try being scored was better than 50/50.
The decision the ref had to make is not if he took another step or two and tried to ground the ball would a try have been scored but if all events up to the illegal act remain the same would the try have been scored?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

If there is general agreement about the TMO and Ref got it right in this game, any comment on the Qld Reds vs Force?

One very blatant one by the Force right on 1/2 time, and one possible one by Chris F-S from the Reds. Result - Nothing.

 

[qwerty51]

Should've been a penalty, not a penalty try though. (The one by Dellit)

 

[Sully]

Really can't believe it wasn't pulled up. Genia even asked about it.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Scoey]

The one just prior to half time looked deliberate to me but you only get to see it once and from a not great camera angle really. CFS's one I don't think was deliberate. His hands appeared to be pushing down as opposed to forward. I assume the TMO would've considered it in CFS's case. I was annoyed that they didn't look at the Force one though.

 

[Scoey]

Should've been a penalty, not a penalty try though. (The one by Dellit)

Using the justification that was used in the Kiwi match though it probably would've been given as a penalty try. ie the player knocking the ball out is assumed to not have been there or whatever it was. Not saying I agree. I think a penalty in that instance would've been fine.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I didn't think any of them in the Reds v Force game should have been a Penalty Try.

I argee that Dellit should have been penalised at least.

Folou got penalised in the Trial vs Rebels (I think) for a less blatant mungo style handball across the dead ball line.

Does Dellit have any mungo background? It seemed to be an extraordinary thing to do on the stroke of 1/2 time as there wasn't any real pressure on him at the time.

 

[Rassie]

It is hard to see that in this case a try would probably have been scored. The right decision would have been a penalty, five metres from the Blues' goal-line and 15 metres in from touch.