PDA

View Full Version : reversing a PT



Dixie
18-02-08, 13:02
In a different thread, a contributor suggested reversing a PT to counter dissent. I wondered whether this is a reasonable thing to do.

The PT is awarded because the defence avoids a probable try through illegal action. It seems to me to be much more than just a penalty, and so reversing it is a bigger deal - if it is even possible.

An alternative, which seems more consistent with the Laws, would be to award the PT and restart with a PK to the defending side on half way. The reason is that the PT, once awarded, is a try and the ball is dead. The dissent comes after that fact, and so is the subject of a PK at the restart.

I would hold this to be the correct course of action, even if the PT has not yet been awarded at the time of the dissent. So: a trip with the leg prevents a try, ref puts whistle to lips, before he can blow, attacker shouts obscenity at ref. In such circumstances, PT (with cards if appropriate for the offenders of each side) followed by penalty restart would be my action. To reverse the PT is to give a try, then take it away again. I can't justify this in law.

How would others view the reversal of a PT?

dave_clark
18-02-08, 13:02
depends on when you think the try has been awarded. i would say the moment you decide it is a PT, regardless of when you actually blow the whistle to award it.

i think your suggestion is fair.

Andyr8603
18-02-08, 13:02
I posted a reply on this and it appears to have gone, oh well here goes. What I said in the other thread was that when explaning my decison to award a penalty against Blue for swearing at me I would say that 'I would have' awarded a PT 'but-for' his dissent. I made an assumption that the Referee had not in fact awarded the PT, but was about to when he heard the Blue player say what he did (not for the first time I might add). I am in complete agreement that if the PT had been awarded then the ball is dead and it cannot be reversed, UNLESS some previous misconduct, not seen by the Ref, is the indicated to you by a TJ, by way of an oustretched flag. Whether you accept a 'club' TJ's view on Foul Play is a different argument.

OB..
18-02-08, 14:02
Whether you accept a 'club' TJ's view on Foul Play is a different argument.
Only an officially appointed TJ can signal foul play.

truck'n'trailor
18-02-08, 15:02
I would say that once an event has occured to warrant a PT, that PT stands - in much the same way as if the ball were touched down (you surely wouldn't suggest not blowing for a legitimate try because you heard dissent, would you?)

The penalty is then awarded against the player offering dissent, with pk going to the scoring side.

Davet
18-02-08, 15:02
Although it seems fairly academic. If the PT had been awarded promptly then there would have been no outburst.

OB..
18-02-08, 15:02
Davet - good comment.

The corollary is similar to a red card: if you do not immediately think PT, then perhaps it wasn't.

chopper15
18-02-08, 15:02
Ref. Dixie;
How would others view the reversal of a PT?

The conversion in front of the posts can be viewed as a compensatory penalty award . . . so why not take that away and leave the try stand?

Having stated that, there are anomolies with awarding the PT( see my query mailed a few mins ago 'Grounding for a PT' in Law Changes!), so think a PK at restart the obvious answer.

Dixie
18-02-08, 15:02
Although it seems fairly academic. If the PT had been awarded promptly then there would have been no outburst. While prompt ref action is clearly desirable, Davet, I imagine an outburst of frustration could easily pre-empt even the quickest ref's ability to whistle to mouth.

ex-lucy
18-02-08, 17:02
yes, in my case, it was very soon after the knock on ... hand out.. "advantage" .. almost at the same time as the outburst.
now, if the outburst had been delayed so that it had occurred as i had turned to run under the posts .. would i have reversed the PT? .. good question.
Probably not.
Big bollocking for centre. Possible YC.
Penalty at half way to reds.
i guess it's all in the timing.
In my case, i hadnt made a decision to turn to run under the posts (if indeed i was going to) as i was waiting for advantage.

OB..
18-02-08, 17:02
In my case, i hadnt made a decision to turn to run under the posts (if indeed i was going to) as i was waiting for advantage.
If you had not made up your mind at that point in time, then I suggest it was not a penalty try. By all means play advantage (the try scorer would be grateful) but you should know you have a PT in reserve.

Greg Collins
19-02-08, 00:02
Darn it - I thought I was following this (and the parallel thread)

If I think it is a PT surely I shouldn't be playing advantage which implies I'm going to wait, see if they score, then if they don't award a PT instead. Struggle to see how that would be credible but am prepared to be 100% wrong.

cymrubach
19-02-08, 00:02
Greg. your spot on, the reason for awarding a penalty try is that a try would most probably have been scored if it wasn't for a foul play interventon by the opposition that prevented the try in the first place, so how can you play advantage :chin: Maybe I'm wrong but I can't think of any circumstance where you would play advantage, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.....

OB..
19-02-08, 00:02
It's the secondary bit about scoring in a better place.

A player running round his opposite number in at the corner is tripped and falls on the ball in in-goal. He has scored, but could probably have scored in a better place but for the foul play.

In the case of a deliberate knock-on, it is hard to see that advantage would normally accrue, but suppose that the knock-on falls into the hands of another attacking player, who goes on to score. If he does so under the posts, why award a penalty try instead? You can still card the foul play if appropriate.

Even if the gut reaction is PT, it may sometimes be worth keeping an open mind for a fraction.

Simon Griffiths
19-02-08, 01:02
This idea of what to do regarding incidents surrounding a PT was discussed just a few months ago (in this (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4563) thread - well worth a perusal).

My thoughts paraphrased (if I remember them correctly). As soon as the incident preventing the try has happened I believe the try to be scored (the team shouldn't be penalised for my reaction time/slow arm bringing the whistler to mouth). So anything after the original (PT) incident I would deal with by awarding a PK restart as appropriate.

I.e. I don't believe a PT should be reveresed, it is not a PK, and thus I treat it differently.

Davet
20-02-08, 19:02
Greg - correct. If you are going to award a PT then what possible advantage can there be?

You have spotted the offence, identified it's a PT - award it immediately.

If you play advantage the you indicate that you may get a point where advantage is over - and thus NOT award the PT... which may well be what triggered the outburst.