Outcome-deciding PT with clock in the red

[Ciaran Trainor]

No PT for me either. potentially YCs but nothing there to say a try would probably be scored.

 

[Dickie E]

In a pick & go situation on goal line with ball carrier crouched & driving, it would be harsh to ping defender for some high contact.

 

[BikingBud]

In a pick & go situation on goal line with ball carrier crouched & driving, it would be harsh to ping defender for some high contact.

I offer the following from what we see on televised games in the UK.

In a pick and go from short distance it is entirely reasonable to expect that defenders remain onside, including back feet at rucks or tackles and behind the goal line if the breakdown is over the line or if the penalty has been given and the mark is on the 5m line.

If the defence encroach by being offside in the field of play then this erodes the opportunity to score and it could reasonably be considered that without the encroachment the try would have been scored.

Ben Earle carried defenders, 4 if I remember correctly, over the try line from a 5 m scrum in a recent 6 Nations game how many would have said that was probable?

Penalty tries are all about fashion, we never saw them for so long, now we regularly see them for deliberate KO. If it became more common to award PT for offside at short range pick and go then we might see the defenders play tot he law.

Perhaps we need to see a change in attitude to change attitudes.

 

[Flish]

Penalty tries are all about fashion, we never saw them for so long, now we regularly see them for deliberate KO. If it became more common to award PT for offside at short range pick and go then we might see the defenders play tot he law.

Would that not need a change in definition of a PT, at most try line pick and go phases there are 2 or 3 defenders capable of getting under or pushing back the ball carrier so very difficult to state that an offside player prevents a probable try?

I agree with the sentiment, but we have yellow cards for repeat / cynical infringements, Once 3 are in the bin the outcome is the same, if not worse?

 

[BikingBud]

No need to change the law by my reckoning. Just need to change the way it is applied, ie the fashion element. We hear the pundits, they've taken that for the team, it might be a yellow but the non-offending team has missed out on the score.

If the first tackler is offside, or high or no-arms/chop tackle when the ball carrier would otherwise have gained momentum and carried the ball over then why not award a penalty try? If the offside defender restricts the attacking options or positions to cut off a pass to the overlap then why not award a penalty try. The offence might not always be close to the breakdown but defenders holding in front of the line and then pushing up aggressively to stop the longer pass has become a common defensive tactic preventing probable tries.

See Fr v SA discussion where I was hoping @shebeen or others might explore the offside position of Green 13 and the possibility of WB giving a PT. As it happens he didn't as he decided the try was good.

We as a general concept we should be penalising cynical and negative play, if teams begin to realise that 5m offences carry the double jeopardy of PT and YC then teams will change their behaviour and fewer transgressions would occur and the non-offending team get appropriate reward for positive play.

From the "Principles of the Game":

The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management. In return, it is the responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.

We don't need to wait for someone on TV to start giving them we just need to consider what we see and how it fits with the laws, ensuring we are fair to teams and try to eliminate cynical play.

 

[didds]

Perhaps we need to see a change in attitude to change attitudes.

BikingBud for president

 

[BikingBud]

There was one from today, Loughborough Lightning v Gloucester Hartpury, game time around 67:50.

Ruck on Gloucester try line, Glaws player offside, hands in FOP, ref calls hands up twice, call penalty advantage and has arm out for advantage.

LL lift and drive but are tackled by the offside player. Refs goes to TMO and says I have a grounded ball, onfield decision try, but seeks TMO confirmation.

Much simpler to say "I had the tackler starting from an offside position therefore I am awarding a PT."

Who really needs convincing ?

 

[Dickie E]

From your description a try wasn't prevented, so PT not the right decision.

 

[jdeagro]

From your description a try wasn't prevented, so PT not the right decision.

FWIW, a PT can also be awarded if by the opinion of the referee the try would've been scored in a more advantageous position had the infringement not occurred.

 

[BikingBud]

From your description a try wasn't prevented, so PT not the right decision.

I also did not say the try had been given, you surmised that!

Perhaps the TMO observed a KO or a double move, unless you have seen the clip you didn't have that information. Would knowing that change your perspective?

Similar to the original post, where we are watching video without good audio and do not have the full context we are often pulled into surmising.

I am offering that C+O foul play inside the red zone should be more readily considered to breach the required threshold for a PT. To counter you might say, as above, that numerous defenders were present so fail the "beam me up Scottie" test but if they are all offside then that's a whole load of defenders suddenly go missing leaving a big gap.

Let's give the attacking side more support by eradicating cynical defence.

 

[Dickie E]

I also did not say the try had been given, you surmised that!

Perhaps the TMO observed a KO or a double move, unless you have seen the clip you didn't have that information. Would knowing that change your perspective?

Similar to the original post, where we are watching video without good audio and do not have the full context we are often pulled into surmising.

I am offering that C+O foul play inside the red zone should be more readily considered to breach the required threshold for a PT. To counter you might say, as above, that numerous defenders were present so fail the "beam me up Scottie" test but if they are all offside then that's a whole load of defenders suddenly go missing leaving a big gap.

Let's give the attacking side more support by eradicating cynical defence.

Let me see if i can untangle this.

1. Defending pillar is offside near goal line
2. Attacking ball carrier barrels through offside player & a couple of others to apparently ground ball
3. TMO decides ball carrier has knocked on so no try

BB suggests PT is the go.

Yeah, nah

 

[shebeen]

See Fr v SA discussion where I was hoping @shebeen or others might explore the offside position of Green 13 and the possibility of WB giving a PT. As it happens he didn't as he decided the try was good.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, I gave up on that thread trying to convince you the world was round.

Just to stop you hounding me further, I am happy to agree that a clear offsides defender right on the tryline seems like a fair cause for a PT. In general they will blow a penalty for the first 2/3 offences


edit: bit old, but here's a discussion on hands down/offsides at tryline. 3 PTs awarded (but not for this offence it seems) in the game.

Law discussion: Hands down

IN THE SPOTLIGHT: rugby365 law guru Paul Dobson looks at a couple of interesting incidents in a Premiership match at the weekend.

rugby365.com

 

[BikingBud]

Hounding an interesting thought! I'm sorry if you feel that way.

I felt we had fully explored the topic and that everybody else thought it was a try, based not least on the fact that Wayne Barnes did award a try, in an excellent position therefore did not need to consider awarding a penalty try.

I did expect that you might wish to discuss as you stated within post #38:

Penalty try for offsides I'd be happy to debate further

If you've changed your mind then that's fine.

A link to a discussion from 2016 is interesting, can you advise where the law that he refers to

Law 16 – Breakdown

1. A breakdown commences when at least one player from the attacking team is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler plus one more). At this point the offside line is created (new definition).

Is now captured?

I and World Rugby have Law 15 as Ruck and Law 16 as Maul

And Behind?

Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.

It is no longer defined, therefore it takes on the general meaning. The concept of Off feet however is defined:

Off feet: Players are off their feet when any other part of the body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.

and one must determine therefore that "babooning" with hand/s in the FOP is not behind the offside line.

Let me see if i can untangle this.

1. Defending pillar is offside near goal line
2. Attacking ball carrier barrels through offside player & a couple of others to apparently ground ball
3. TMO decides ball carrier has knocked on so no try

BB suggests PT is the go.

Yeah, nah

Does that mean you agree or disagree? If you disagree then a perspective and some reasoning would progress the discussion, not least as I can consider your thoughts and reflect upon my decision making.

My whole point is that a yellow card can be given for a single cynical occurrence or due to repeated infringements where the number of offences might be variable and based upon a warning being given.

You cannot give a PT for accumulation or repetition but if any one of those transgressions meets the standard then you can. I feel the bar is being set unnecessarily high and defenders are getting away with persistent cynical play and for the benefit of the game that should be reset.

 

[shebeen]

Hounding an interesting thought! I'm sorry if you feel that way.

I felt we had fully explored the topic and that everybody else thought it was a try, based not least on the fact that Wayne Barnes did award a try, in an excellent position therefore did not need to consider awarding a penalty try.

I did expect that you might wish to discuss as you stated within post #38:


If you've changed your mind then that's fine.

A link to a discussion from 2016 is interesting, can you advise where the law that he refers to

Is now captured?

I and World Rugby have Law 15 as Ruck and Law 16 as Maul

And Behind?


It is no longer defined, therefore it takes on the general meaning. The concept of Off feet however is defined:

and one must determine therefore that "babooning" with hand/s in the FOP is not behind the offside line.


Does that mean you agree or disagree? If you disagree then a perspective and some reasoning would progress the discussion, not least as I can consider your thoughts and reflect upon my decision making.

My whole point is that a yellow card can be given for a single cynical occurrence or due to repeated infringements where the number of offences might be variable and based upon a warning being given.

You cannot give a PT for accumulation or repetition but if any one of those transgressions meets the standard then you can. I feel the bar is being set unnecessarily high and defenders are getting away with persistent cynical play and for the benefit of the game that should be reset.

You've dragged me to this thread after I gave up debating a point with you on a different one. You then also directly misrepresented what was said on that thread, both by myself and other commenters (no one agreed with you, FYI).

I have no interest in a discussion with someone who has no intent on changing his mind.