PDA

View Full Version : Pretty sure but.........



Taffy
26-11-14, 22:11
Blue kicks long today from around half way. It is touched in flight by black (very lightly). Ball goes into in goal where it is picked up by Black who probably hasn't seen the touch from his angle (although I did shout out "touched in flight". He dabs the ball down in goal. So I think, it was put into goal by Black (from the touched in flight) and is therefore a scrum 5. Can't believe the looks I got. But surely this is right?

Ian_Cook
26-11-14, 22:11
Yes, with Blue to throw in

You saw it and called it touched. Its their responsibility to understand what will happen next.

Taff
26-11-14, 22:11
Bang on in my book.

Put in-goal by Black and made dead ie attacking 5m scrum.

Someone is bound to say "Shout louder". Perhaps they just need to listen harder.

crossref
26-11-14, 23:11
Quite right...
But shout louder :-)

crossref
26-11-14, 23:11
I had something similar at the weekend. Also u18
Clearance kick by white, inside own 22m, lightly touched by blue.
I shout 'touched by blue'
Ball travels a long way, and goes into touch.
One player is really paying attention.. White 9 who sees the opportunity, races after the ball, collects it in touch and takes a quick throw-in to his winger who was following his lead

He was an excellent player, not the only moment in the game where he was quicker thinking than any other player on the pitch.
(And from Simon's old school, if I am not mistaken)

Dickie E
27-11-14, 01:11
I had something similar at the weekend. Also u18
Clearance kick by white, inside own 22m, lightly touched by blue.
I shout 'touched by blue'
Ball travels a long way, and goes into touch.
One player is really paying attention.. White 9 who sees the opportunity, races after the ball, collects it in touch and takes a quick throw-in to his winger who was following his lead

He was an excellent player, not the only moment in the game where he was quicker thinking than any other player on the pitch.
(And from Simon's old school, if I am not mistaken)

was white 9 onside at time of kick?

Dickie E
27-11-14, 01:11
Bang on in my book.

Put in-goal by Black and made dead ie attacking 5m scrum.



22.7(d) says this:


If a defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5-metre scrum. The position of the scrum is in line with where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball.

Its remains a bit of stretch to consider a graze as being "threw" or "took".

But not an argument I am likely to win :(

Ian_Cook
27-11-14, 02:11
was white 9 onside at time of kick?


It may not matter. Touched in flight puts everyone onside except players offside under the 10m Law.

11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an
action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under
the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside
player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put
onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not
catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Drift
27-11-14, 04:11
was white 9 onside at time of kick?

Does it matter? The ball was touched.

Dickie E
27-11-14, 05:11
Does it matter? The ball was touched.

maybe, as per Ian's post

crossref
27-11-14, 07:11
He may well have been in front of the kicker, as he had passed the ball to him a few seconds before, but as Ian points out he is put onside by blue touching ball.

Browner
27-11-14, 13:11
I had a "touched in flight" ( called loudly by me) , a few weeks back, that was kicked by Gold, caught in their own 22 by BLUE on their own 5m line.

Blue promptly called 'mark' and stopped , i immediately shouted " no mark-play on" ... But all blue players had already stopped, as did all gold players apart from one player who legally flattened the blue catcher taking him 2-3m backwards in the process.

howls of protest from blue players and supporters

gold immediately got to his feet tried to take possession of the ball, Blue remained on tbe ground desperately holding on onto the ball c.2m from the goal line.

Blue spectator disquiet increased ,when I then YC the blue player and awarded a PT because no other blue defender was within 5m of the ball.

crossref
27-11-14, 13:11
I had a "touched in flight" ( called loudly by me) , a few weeks back, that was kicked by Gold, caught in their own 22 by BLUE on their own 5m line.

Blue promptly called 'mark' and stopped , i immediately shouted " no mark-play on" ... But all blue players had already stopped, as did all gold players apart from one player who legally flattened the blue catcher taking him 2-3m backwards in the process.

howls of protest from blue players and supporters

gold immediately got to his feet tried to take possession of the ball, Blue remained on tbe ground desperately holding on onto the ball c.2m from the goal line.

Blue spectator disquiet increased ,when I then YC the blue player and awarded a PT because no other blue defender was within 5m of the ball.

shout louder!

:wink:

Phil E
27-11-14, 13:11
Pardon?

crossref
27-11-14, 13:11
actually Browner - I really feel for you in that scenario, it's a referee's bad dream! :-)

Dickie E
27-11-14, 21:11
when I then YC the blue player and awarded a PT because no other blue defender was within 5m of the ball.

Wow. That's a huge call and not one I would have made. No wonder the spectators were after your blood

Dickie E
27-11-14, 21:11
He may well have been in front of the kicker, as he had passed the ball to him a few seconds before, but as Ian points out he is put onside by blue touching ball.

If he was in front of the kicker and moving forward between the time of kick and time of touch, is that not a material offence?

Browner
27-11-14, 23:11
Wow. That's a huge call and not one I would have made. No wonder the spectators were after your blood

Straight forward for me, as it happening i was thinking ...If gold gets the ball then it's a certain try ...then he couldnt.... blue couldnt tackle him because he was on the ground.

Once explained even blue captain nodded in acceptance. As he said "everyone heard your call"

I will openly admit to taking a moment to replay my decision process in my head for a good moment or so.

Pegleg
14-12-14, 11:12
Correct call Browner. It's not your job to make sure the catcher knows the law. He forgot the basic (unwritten) law that trumps every law:


PLAY THE WHISTLE.

winchesterref
14-12-14, 13:12
Quite a hefty punishment with a YC too. Brave man!

Browner
14-12-14, 14:12
Quite a hefty punishment with a YC too. Brave man!

Good job I'm not climbing the slippery ladder toward panel refereeing, I might have felt pressure to keep such decisions off my report.

PS...Q? How would any of our assessor friends have viewed this? OB, Simon...others?

OB..
14-12-14, 17:12
As described by Broiwner, the decision was valid.

Whether or not there where any other factors, I cannot say.

Simon Thomas
14-12-14, 18:12
I was not there, and not seen a video, so really cannot comment. Browner made a decision based on his experience and judgement - in public I would support that decision, in private we might discuss it or I might be critical of it.

Correct use of YC, or not to usenYC, will be based on the match context and a host of separate decision criteria I would look to apply.

Blackberry
14-12-14, 20:12
For my part I would be helping Browner analyze how he managed his correct but easily misunderstood application of the laws, both during its unfolding and in the aftermath. The use of cards could depend in part on the level of the match.

Because an event is unusual it is not to be shirked and a referee with the wit to analyse it and bring it to the correct conclusion should be supported. I would spend less time on the event itself and would concentrate on how he managed it.

RobLev
14-12-14, 21:12
Quite a hefty punishment with a YC too. Brave man!

The YC was the only punishment administered...

winchesterref
14-12-14, 22:12
Ok mr pedant, you know what I meant...!!

Dickie E
14-12-14, 23:12
Good job I'm not climbing the slippery ladder toward panel refereeing, I might have felt pressure to keep such decisions off my report.

PS...Q? How would any of our assessor friends have viewed this? OB, Simon...others?

Sounds like you're having second thoughts if you're now fishing for support?

RobLev
14-12-14, 23:12
Ok mr pedant, you know what I meant...!!

Sorry; but I wasn't strictly speaking being pedantic, simply making the point that the PT isn't a punishment, it's simply putting things right as if the foul play hadn't happened. Without a card, the foul itself goes unpunished...

Browner
15-12-14, 01:12
Sounds like you're having second thoughts if you're now fishing for support?

Nope, definitely happy.

But others are questioning the need for big gonads. So I thought I'd ask.

Browner
15-12-14, 01:12
Correct use of YC, or not to use YC, will be based on the match context and a host of separate decision criteria I would look to apply.

???
So not merely the incident then?

winchesterref
15-12-14, 08:12
Fair point RL, strictly speaking you are correct.

To qualify my statement when I say brave; working on the assumption that losing a man is often equal to another score, potentially a 14 point swing for a holding on offence is a huge negative for the offending team. Not saying I wouldn't do it as it all depends on context and previous warnings/cards etc, but in isolation it is a big choice to make.

Browner
15-12-14, 11:12
To qualify my statement when I say brave; working on the assumption that losing a man is often equal to another score, potentially a 14 point swing for a holding on offence is a huge negative for the offending team.

Not saying I wouldn't do it as it all depends on context and previous warnings/cards etc, but in isolation it is a big choice to make.

Hmmnn,
another reply where context seemngly needs to apply? why ? doesn't the offence stand on its own merit? Sounds like the offenders team need to be well ahead to get such a levelling opportunity ! Least I hope context doesn't mean ud expect a referee to be considering the score when he makes his call :nono:

OB..
15-12-14, 11:12
Sorry; but I wasn't strictly speaking being pedantic, simply making the point that the PT isn't a punishment, it's simply putting things right as if the foul play hadn't happened. Without a card, the foul itself goes unpunished...It is called a penalty try, and for me the word "penalty" means it is a punishment for an offence.

I don't follow your logic, but I don't think it makes any real difference anyway.

RobLev
15-12-14, 13:12
It is called a penalty try, and for me the word "penalty" means it is a punishment for an offence.

I don't follow your logic, but I don't think it makes any real difference anyway.

Looking at the substance, and not getting hung up on the terminology used:

If the PT was awarded simply for offences close to (by whatever definition) the try/goal line, without reference to whether it prevented a try, then I would agree that it is clearly a penalty. But that isn't the Law. A PT is awarded only when, absent the foul play, a try would probably have been scored. The PT has the effect of preventing the foul play from having its intended effect - if you like, it's compensation for the attacking side, putting them in the position they'd have been in had the foul play not occurred. It is the card that actually punishes the foul play per se.

It's like the difference between a criminal Compensation Order and a fine in the criminal courts.

OB..
15-12-14, 14:12
Looking at the substance, and not getting hung up on the terminology used:

If the PT was awarded simply for offences close to (by whatever definition) the try/goal line, without reference to whether it prevented a try, then I would agree that it is clearly a penalty. But that isn't the Law. A PT is awarded only when, absent the foul play, a try would probably have been scored. The PT has the effect of preventing the foul play from having its intended effect - if you like, it's compensation for the attacking side, putting them in the position they'd have been in had the foul play not occurred. It is the card that actually punishes the foul play per se.
The substance is that if you award a penalty try against Blue, they have given away 7 points by foul play. They will certainly see that as a sanction (punishment) for the foul play.


It's like the difference between a criminal Compensation Order and a fine in the criminal courts.What is the (financial) difference to the person who has to pay?

RobLev
15-12-14, 18:12
The substance is that if you award a penalty try against Blue, they have given away 7 points by foul play.

This is where our disagreement lies. They haven't given away 7 points by foul play; they've attempted by foul play to avoid giving away 7 points , and the Law has stepped in to prevent that.


They will certainly see that as a sanction (punishment) for the foul play.

What is the (financial) difference to the person who has to pay?

None in the outcome; but significant in prospect. If you nick and trash a Rolls, you can expect to pay more compensation than if you nick and trash a Ford Asbo; the fine though would be pretty much the same, though, provided the Rolls wasn't the judge's car.

And of course, to the victim, he gets the compensation but not the fine. Or not, depending on how efficient HMCTS's Enforcement Service is.

OB..
15-12-14, 19:12
This is where our disagreement lies. They haven't given away 7 points by foul play; they've attempted by foul play to avoid giving away 7 points , and the Law has stepped in to prevent that.They will frequently have traded a probable 5 points for a near-certain 7 points.

I see 12.1 (f) includes a penalty in the Sanction paragraph.

In normal usage a penalty try is a sanction. I cannot see any value in arguing otherwise.