PDA

View Full Version : Goal Line Stand Penalties



woody
27-10-14, 14:10
Low level college game. Red has a 7 point lead in the final minutes. Blue are attacking 3 meters out.

Penalty advantage to Blue for Red not rolling away followed by penalty awarded to Blue for hands in the ruck. Time off for a player down and warn Red captain about penalties. Blue restart and at first tackle/ruck another penalty against Red. Yellow card. Restart again and again at the first breakdown, Red tackler who is still on the ground simply picks up the ball over the ball carrier and places it on his side of the ruck. Blue was not ready to play the ball and Red was set on defense.

What is the best way to manage this? Penalty, PT, card, combination?

Phil E
27-10-14, 15:10
For me it doesn't sound like a Penalty Try.

I would give another penalty and Yellow Card the red tackler, with a severe warning to the Captain that the next card might be a different colour if this continues.

FlipFlop
27-10-14, 15:10
Can't be a PT - a try was not "probable".

So I would give another YC and a warning that your options are being limited even further, and if they didn't learn with yellows - then you have to go red.

Ronald
27-10-14, 15:10
Agree with the comments; YC the tackler, tell the captain that next infringement will be red...not my problem if they finish the game with 9 players!

Phil E
27-10-14, 15:10
Agree with the comments; YC the tackler, tell the captain that next infringement will be red...not my problem if they finish the game with 9 players!

I wouldn't paint myself into a corner like that.
What if the reds get the ball and then knock it on?

didds
27-10-14, 15:10
is a knock on an infringement?

that pedantry aside, i agree with not painting yourself in a corner.

heavy hints are sufficient.

didds

Ian_Cook
27-10-14, 18:10
No point going to RC as the in game penalty of YC is effectively the same as RC in the last 10 minutes.

The only difference is that by giving RC, you create paperwork for yourself.

Save RC for real acts of nastiness or repeat offences by the same player.

woody
28-10-14, 01:10
4 minutes prior to all this, Red kicked off and tackled the receiver whilst in the air for a YC. I went with two yellow cards by the goal line so Red were down to 12 and the penalties were just getting more flagrant. It felt odd to keep pulling out the YC and I was starting to think if Blue kept at this, Red would be down to 5 players.

Some yahoo on sidelines kept shouting about me giving Blue the game. I wanted to drag him around to see the other side of the rucks so he could see this stupid crap. In the end Blue scored and then missed the tying kick.

The best part was one of Red's players that intentionally pushed to see where my limits were, thanked me for those limits.

menace
28-10-14, 05:10
4 minutes prior to all this, Red kicked off and tackled the receiver whilst in the air for a YC. I went with two yellow cards by the goal line so Red were down to 12 and the penalties were just getting more flagrant. It felt odd to keep pulling out the YC and I was starting to think if Blue kept at this, Red would be down to 5 players.

Some yahoo on sidelines kept shouting about me giving Blue the game. I wanted to drag him around to see the other side of the rucks so he could see this stupid crap. In the end Blue scored and then missed the tying kick.

The best part was one of Red's players that intentionally pushed to see where my limits were, thanked me for those limits.

Wow. That sounds very similar to a game I had during the season where both teams had amassed 6 YC (5 red, 1 white). Early in the game, YC to for red taking a player out in the air (more clumsy than deliberate), then 10 mins later the non feed SH decided to just bitch-slap the opposing flanker during a scrum ( :wow::Looser:) and the flanker decided he didn't like that and retaliated. I decided it was better that both hot heads could have a rest in the bin to cool down.

The rest of the game was good until the last 5 mins with red Had the game won, but white pushing red line looking for a moral boosting consolation try. After a warning for high tackles (more from fatigue than malice) red tackled high again so he got to rest on the line for the remainder of the game. No more than a few phases later just inside the 22 the red captain cynically comes from the side of a ruck and took out the SH who was just digging for the ball (claiming he thought it was out - yeah right!). Red now down to 13. Within the next few phases White were right on the line and red hands in the ruck to slow down ball, I play advantage (no chance of PT) as I see the ball is coming and white look to have an overlap and then the same player I'm about to PK and YC deliberately falls into the same ruck to try and kill the ball. He fails but I have his number and am going to YC him as soon as I blow for the PK, but I see ball come out and white want to go so I allow it to give them an opportunity (knowing I'll come back to the YC as soon as they score). But that raid falls flat. I come back to the mark and YC the player who knows what's coming and he dutifully trots off without a word. Red now down to 12. White fail to convert with their dominant numbers.

Like you, all the YCs at the end didn't feel right and I wondered where my management went wrong that red were so eager to blatantly infringe? I felt that perhaps I should have escalated one of the last 2 to RC, but it didn't feel right had I done that. I felt maybe I pocktetted it? The player that I last YC came up to me and apologised and admitted he knew what he was doing and said 'I'd had enough and I just wanted a rest!'.

Because of the last 3 YC I felt I had a bad game but could not think where I had done wrong. I spoke to our top referee in the area about it and asked whether I should have escalated to red to change behaviour. He agreed that I'd done the right thing and a RC would have been harsh. He suggested that multiple YC for cynical infringements was fine and they don't get escalated to RC.....just keep YC them (save the RC for foul play).

Ian_Cook
28-10-14, 06:10
You know, looking at the last two posts, there is a lot to be said for having something like OB's idea (at least, I think was his).

When a PK is taken at goal and the kick is successful, the game is restarted with a scrum to the non-infringing team at the place of infringement. As long as the defending team keep intentionally infringing close to their own line, the attacking team can keep getting 3 points and the ball back in good field position.

Ronald
28-10-14, 12:10
Apologies, I forgot that the game was close to an end, would certainly then only use yellow for repeated infringements.

OB..
28-10-14, 12:10
OB's idea (at least, I think was his).I certainly claim it, based on my letter in the Times in the late 1990s.

menace
28-10-14, 14:10
You know, looking at the last two posts, there is a lot to be said for having something like OB's idea (at least, I think was his).

When a PK is taken at goal and the kick is successful, the game is restarted with a scrum to the non-infringing team at the place of infringement. As long as the defending team keep intentionally infringing close to their own line, the attacking team can keep getting 3 points and the ball back in good field position.

I agree. It has some merit. Make it a double whammy - a score and keep them under pressure (and maybe a man down) for another potential scoring opportunity. Maybe it will reduce the cynical play closer to full time.

didds
28-10-14, 15:10
It is indeed OB's occassional suggestion, and IMO it has great merit.

I wrote and suggested it to the RFU over 15 years ago :-) They replied with a rather bizarre letter about increasing the number of points for a penalty to 6 and what a disaster it had been when trialled.

didds

woody
28-10-14, 15:10
I agree. It has some merit. Make it a double whammy - a score and keep them under pressure (and maybe a man down) for another potential scoring opportunity. Maybe it will reduce the cynical play closer to full time.

Perhaps only when it is a YC to distinguish it is a "higher level" penalty.

- - - Updated - - -


I agree. It has some merit. Make it a double whammy - a score and keep them under pressure (and maybe a man down) for another potential scoring opportunity. Maybe it will reduce the cynical play closer to full time.

Perhaps only when it is a YC to distinguish it is a "higher level" penalty.

Browner
28-10-14, 15:10
It is indeed OB's occassional suggestion, and IMO it has great merit.

I wrote and suggested it to the RFU over 15 years ago :-) They replied with a rather bizarre letter about increasing the number of points for a penalty to 6 and what a disaster it had been when trialled.

didds

Couldn't a team with a significant scrum dominance , opt for a scrum 15m in front of the posts, get a PK then merely re-scrum for 80 mins & watch the score go .....3,6,9,12,15,18..........150-0 ?

I'm sure Cockers would be in favour of that improvement to the game, might even make LT competitive again ! (Ducks)

didds
28-10-14, 16:10
Couldn't a team with a significant scrum dominance , opt for a scrum 15m in front of the posts, get a PK then merely re-scrum for 80 mins & watch the score go .....3,6,9,12,15,18..........150-0 ?

I'm sure Cockers would be in favour of that improvement to the game, might even make LT competitive again ! (Ducks)

presumably it would very quickly be a standard try, 7 points, then KO half way up the pitch though?

didds

chbg
28-10-14, 21:10
Couldn't a team with a significant scrum dominance , opt for a scrum 15m in front of the posts, get a PK then merely re-scrum for 80 mins & watch the score go .....3,6,9,12,15,18..........150-0 ?


Surely the scrums would have gone uncontested at some stage, which would stop the sequence?

Browner
29-10-14, 00:10
Surely the scrums would have gone uncontested at some stage, which would stop the sequence?
Why would they?

Browner
29-10-14, 01:10
presumably it would very quickly be a standard try, 7 points, then KO half way up the pitch though?

didds
Not nowadays, more likely an offence of some kind being given ....

RobLev
29-10-14, 03:10
Why would they?

Because the defending team giving away all the PKs would swiftly run out of STE FR players, at a guess? Or is your hypothetical ref keeping his cards in his pocket for some reason?

Dickie E
29-10-14, 05:10
In soccer it is relatively hard to score a goal in general play but relatively easy to score a goal from a penalty. The result? Lots of diving in the penalty area.

The point being we don't want to make the penalty for an infringement so punitive that the attacking is encouraged to milk penalities.

Browner
29-10-14, 10:10
Because the defending team giving away all the PKs would swiftly run out of STE FR players, at a guess? Or is your hypothetical ref keeping his cards in his pocket for some reason?

I was merely responding to the "another scrum follows a successful PK" suggestion, and repeat carding likely wasn't tabled within it ( it being 15 yrs ago, repeat carding wasn't in vogue then)

FlipFlop
29-10-14, 11:10
Or it can all be solved with a exception:
At the scrum following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal may not elect to kick for goal in the event they are awarded a penalty at the scrum.

So you get a PK, kick the goal (3pts), have the scrum, get a PK, then you have a choice of kick to touch, tap and go, or scrum.

OB..
29-10-14, 15:10
Couldn't a team with a significant scrum dominance , opt for a scrum 15m in front of the posts, get a PK then merely re-scrum for 80 mins & watch the score go .....3,6,9,12,15,18..........150-0 ?

I'm sure Cockers would be in favour of that improvement to the game, might even make LT competitive again ! (Ducks)


presumably it would very quickly be a standard try, 7 points, then KO half way up the pitch though?

didds


Surely the scrums would have gone uncontested at some stage, which would stop the sequence?


Why would they?


Not nowadays, more likely an offence of some kind being given ....


Because the defending team giving away all the PKs would swiftly run out of STE FR players, at a guess? Or is your hypothetical ref keeping his cards in his pocket for some reason?


I was merely responding to the "another scrum follows a successful PK" suggestion, and repeat carding likely wasn't tabled within it ( it being 15 yrs ago, repeat carding wasn't in vogue then)


Or it can all be solved with a exception:
At the scrum following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal may not elect to kick for goal in the event they are awarded a penalty at the scrum.

So you get a PK, kick the goal (3pts), have the scrum, get a PK, then you have a choice of kick to touch, tap and go, or scrum.
Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

In soccer it is relatively hard to score a goal in general play but relatively easy to score a goal from a penalty. The result? Lots of diving in the penalty area.

The point being we don't want to make the penalty for an infringement so punitive that the attacking is encouraged to milk penalities.Currently teams are happy to risk a penalty if it prevents a try. That is what the proposal is primarily aimed at.

Teams cannot force the opponents to give away penalties. Years ago I was at Twickenham in the old South Stand on a freezing day to watch England play Ireland. England had a 5m scrum in front of us and got the shove on. Ireland could not get a proper grip on the frozen ground. No attempt to collapse the scrum. Classic pushover try.

At present a sequence of penalties at a scrum cannot lead to a penalty try unless the scrum was actually moving forward significantly. The proposal woud deal with that.

Ian_Cook
29-10-14, 19:10
Or it can all be solved with a exception:
At the scrum following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal may not elect to kick for goal in the event they are awarded a penalty at the scrum.

So you get a PK, kick the goal (3pts), have the scrum, get a PK, then you have a choice of kick to touch, tap and go, or scrum.


Alternatively, following a successful kick at goal, the team which kicked the goal gets a FK at the mark at which they cannot opt for a scrum at all.