PDA

View Full Version : Dangerous Play - Penalty Try



Gracie
30-11-14, 10:11
For once watching rather than reffing, when an interesting situation arose.

Close game between two poor sides, dull but good playing conditions.

Yellow winger breaks away on his now and is ten yards out from the try line when the one covering player from blue come across and takes the winger out at head height with a 'clothes line' tackle and spills the ball forward in the process. Referee immediately signals for a penalty.

The referee, who was in reasonable proximity and had a straight line of sight did not opt to sanction the defending player. In my mind this was a red card offence (high gangrenous and try stopping). My question is could/should this have been a penalty try? But for the dangerous tackle the player has a ten yard free run to the line.

All thoughts welcome

The Fat
30-11-14, 11:11
No other defenders near the play so PT + YC minimum, (would need to see the tackle).

When you say "clothes line" tackle, are you describing a stiff arm tackle?

crossref
30-11-14, 11:11
PK / YC / RC is based on the severity of the tackle

PT or no PT is based on probability of scoring if the tackle hadn't happened.

Browner
30-11-14, 11:11
For once watching rather than reffing, when an interesting situation arose.

Close game between two poor sides, dull but good playing conditions.

Yellow winger breaks away on his now and is ten yards out from the try line when the one covering player from blue come across and takes the winger out at head height with a 'clothes line' tackle and spills the ball forward in the process. Referee immediately signals for a penalty.

The referee, who was in reasonable proximity and had a straight line of sight did not opt to sanction the defending player. In my mind this was a red card offence (high gangrenous and try stopping). My question is could/should this have been a penalty try? But for the dangerous tackle the player has a ten yard free run to the line.

All thoughts welcome

:holysheep:. Its a bit early to diagnose that tackle result ............. !

Deathanddecayofbodytissue,oftenoccurringinalimb,ca usedbyinsufficientbloodsupplyandusuallyfollowing injury ordisease.



If you meant to say "dangerous" , then min YC ( likely RC) + PT :biggrin: unless you were watching RL in which case just applaud the hit !!!!!!

Fatboy_Ginge
30-11-14, 11:11
Without seeing the try I can't give a definitive answer on ALL sanctions but had the dangerous play not occurred preventing the try IF a try would likely have been scored then it should be a penalty try. As for the card... depends on how dangerous but certainly minimum YC.

RobLev
30-11-14, 12:11
PK / YC / RC is based on the severity of the tackle

Not quite. If it was deliberate (and it's difficult from the OP to say it wasn't), it's YC or RC, no other outcome permitted by law (Law 10.2(a):

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.


PT or no PT is based on probability of scoring if the tackle hadn't happened.

In the OP, clear PT - "the one covering player" has to be beamed up, leaving an unopposed canter to the line.

Pegleg
30-11-14, 12:11
High tackle is a PK. Did it prevent a probable try? If so it's a PT.

Now about the card? That depends on several things. the old "You know when it's red" comes into play.

However, assuming you go for a PT, The following applies:

Law 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.


You have a call to make. Was the High tackle (FP) intentional? If so it is either a yellow or red card. If you deem it a "reaction" offence than a word may be acceptable.

Pegleg
30-11-14, 12:11
From the OP description I would say it reads, to me, like:

PT and a RC.

Browner
30-11-14, 14:11
High tackle is a PK. Did it prevent a probable try? If so it's a PT.

Now about the card? That depends on several things. the old "You know when it's red" comes into play.

However, assuming you go for a PT, The following applies:

Law 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.


You have a call to make. Was the High tackle (FP) intentional? If so it is either a yellow or red card.


I don't agree that "intention" is the only consideration when determining card colour of Foul Play offences.

crossref
30-11-14, 15:11
So, the decision tree is
1 was there an offence?
2 is it a PT? This is based on probability of scoring
3 is it a card?
If you have given a PT you must also give a card, colour of card depends on the severity of tackle
If no PT you still might give a card, of either colour, depending on severity of tackle

Gracie
30-11-14, 16:11
Thank you for the feedback - the consensus does seem to be PT and then a card. Based upon instinct for me it was a red. I know a couple of posters have noted was the dangerous tackle deliberate; my coaching has always informed me to ignore 'intent' (a term we hear lots of in TV commentary) - the guidance has always been that foul play is simply a matter of fact i.e. was it dangerous? If so then apply the appropriate sanction, I think this is where instinct does come into play perhaps.

OB..
30-11-14, 21:11
my coaching has always informed me to ignore 'intent' (a term we hear lots of in TV commentary) - the guidance has always been that foul play is simply a matter of fact i.e. was it dangerous? If so then apply the appropriate sanctionThat is not entirely correct. Ruling 9 of 2004 specifically distinguishes intentional from unintentional fouls in the context of a penalty try..

Dixie
30-11-14, 22:11
That is not entirely correct. Ruling 9 of 2004 specifically distinguishes intentional from unintentional fouls in the context of a penalty try..

RULING 9: 2004
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Laws Committee
23 December 2004
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal Law 10 - Foul Play
Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.
The first paragraph states:
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player
who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a
similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a
period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player
must be sent-off.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
The final paragraph states:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A
player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or
sent off.
The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.
The clarification sought is:
Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty
try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?
Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send
off a player in such circumstances? The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the
offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high,
but not dangerous, tackle - when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe.
While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could
also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums. Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an
offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary
suspension close to a goal-line.
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised:
Ruling
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.
The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally
Offending'.
Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be
either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.
Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.
If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable
to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.
Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.

Pegleg
01-12-14, 00:12
I don't agree that "intention" is the only consideration when determining card colour of Foul Play offences.

And you miss my point.I did not say that.

If there is no PT then you judge the offence on your normal criteria. If there is a PT and there is intent it must be a card, There is no option to judge intent and take the view that a warning is sufficient. The difference is slight but important.

My post was in two parts:

High tackle is a PK. Did it prevent a probable try? If so it's a PT.

1; Now about the card? That depends on several things. the old "You know when it's red" comes into play.

2; However, assuming you go for a PT, The following applies:

Law 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.


You have a call to make. Was the High tackle (FP) intentional? If so it is either a yellow or red card.