Rule interpretation - Rebels vs Force Rd1- Higginbotham's sinibin..

[Elfster]

I may be totally off the point, but could someone please clarify the penalty in the case of Higginbotham's sin-

It isn't due to the actual sin binning, but where the resultant penalty kick was then given.

The force got a penalty in front of the goal posts. A penalty kick was decided, then the ref was aware of a touchie's flag (or assistant ref's flag). As a result of this a penalty is awarded to Force (or it must be as Higginbotham gets ten). I would have thought that the penalty is now at the point where Higginbotham transgressed. But no, the kick goes bak to where the ref had awarded the original penalty before being notified by the touchy.....

Why?? Shouldn't the kick have been taken back where the touchy informed of an earlier penalty???

I know I would have back in my reffing days

 

[qwerty51]

There was a penalty at that ruck in front of the posts, Higginbotham flopped on the ball from the side

 

[cyclopath]

I heard the ref explain that there was an advantage being played, then the new infringement (not the one Higgers got binned for) occurred, so he went to the later infringement. I think.

 

[Elfster]

There was a penalty at that ruck in front of the posts, Higginbotham flopped on the ball from the side

Was that why he was sin binned? I thought the touchie came in for a bit of big at an earlier ruck, very close to the side line, not where the actual penalty kick was taken. But I may be wrong..often am!!!

 

[qwerty51]

No he was sinbinned for the punch that the touch judge referred to

 

[TSR]

No - I believe you are right as to why he was sin binned. I'm not sure though whether that precludes the ref from awarding the penalty at a different spot if he feels that is to the attacking teams advantage.

 

[Italophile]

He was sin-binned for the punch. The original penalty call stood. Higgers' offence wasn't part of the penalty process.

 

[Quick Hands]

In general terms - the penalty should be awarded in the position most advantageous to the non-offending team.

I'd suggest it would be ludicrous for the Force to receive a penalty straight in front of the posts and then, because of a separate infringement by the opposition, have this penalty moved to a less advantageous position.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

On something of a sidetrack - interesting to see the difference from Thursday's trial to Friday's game.
Rebels far more disciplined in defence than the 'Saders were, at least thats how it looked on TV.
I had come to the view that Higgers had to go during that passage of play even before I learned he'd thrown a punch: "No6" had been called 3 times and one in particular was his not-so-deceptive mcCaw like burrowing round the edge of the ruck.
There should have been a penalty from the (I think) first scrum for his early detachment - which the ref called and did nothing about, despite it being arguably causative in the Force knock on at the base of that scrum.
So i think Higgers was out there to test the ref but one of the Force got him to lose his bottle before he had quite worked out the limits of the ref's patience.

 

[Quick Hands]

Higgo just needs to tone it down a fraction. I love the aggression, but giving away silly penalties tends to undo much of his good work.