• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Ireland vs South Africa - penalty try.

C

Cross

Member
Two questions/issues I'd like to understand better. Hopefully you guys can point me in the right direction:

1) End of 1H, ref awards a penalty try. No yellow card thou. At the time Ireland was already playing with 3 YCs.
My question is, why? Why was there no YC given after the penalty try. Tried googling a bit and i understand the ref does have some discretion but a) every single (recent? say 5 years or so) penalty try i could think of came with a YC (or RC) included and b) if such discretion exists, surely the criteria can't be 'they already had 3 YCs', can it?

What i found really interesting was that it wasnt just the ref/ar/tmo who didn't address this. i didnt hear a single south African player calling the ref out for it, which looked odd. Very odd. Additional question: what if the South African captain, after talking to the coach, came back to play the second half and mentioned it to the ref. Could the ref yellow card an Irish player then (seems logical, no time on the clock has passed)?


NB: i pasted the game's key events which show the end of the first half, the penalty try and the beginning of the second half without a YC in between.

2) Hypothetical. Say that yellow card happens. 2H begins at 11 vs 15. It wouldn't be much of a stretch that given that, a situation arises that merits another YC (multiple scrum collapses comes to mind but it could be anything). At which point would it be reasonable to expect the ref to call it claiming safety issues or something along those lines? Where exactly would we go from "this has never happened" to "well, we need to consider the possibility of this being the first time ever". 10 players? 9?
I've seen it happen but the stage was quite different. Is there some memo/protocol/guidance for this? Or 100% refs discretion?

Thanks in advance.






1763849110316.png
 
Thanks! I can understand the theory behind that, but i am having a bit of trouble reconciling it with my experience watching/playing the game. I've seen refs pick up people at random from collapsing mauls. Scrums are even easier.
Scrums penalties are caused generally by one of four players (4 props) the overwhelming majority of cases. By picking a penalty you are already eliminating 2 of those 4 and the the "guess" between the remaining two is generally determined by which side of the scrum fell first.
 
The PT wasn't for scrum collapse. It was for Irish flanker #8 breaking early & interfering with play. No way Carly had any doubt about the offence & culprit. I expect he decided 3 in bin was enough
 
Dickie E said:
The PT wasn't for scrum collapse. It was for Irish flanker #8 breaking early & interfering with play. No way Carly had any doubt about the offence & culprit.
Click to expand...
Thank you!

Dickie E said:
I expect he decided 3 in bin was enough
Click to expand...
Here is where the argument eludes me. I am not educated on the process, maybe i missed the irony, but i imagine at one point or another, somehow, formally or informally, refs have to explain themselves regarding their calls. Referee manager or something along those lines, as i recall? Would that be an acceptable answer among other refs or people who judge ref's calls?
 
Kinda following on from @Dickie E - with 3 in the bin he had to balance the unwritten rule that at this level it’s as much (if not more) about entertainment and he had to maintain at least the veneer of competition.
 
Thanks. Maybe it's just me, but i find that hard to accept. I'll bite thou. At t the risk of being called pedantic (apologies in advance), i hope you understand how such an interpretation opens an entire line of questioning that looks bizarre. Questions of the sort:

a) Why is 3 YCs the limit? Why not 2? Or 4? Call me cynical but i believe the most obvious reason was that he thought he could get away with it given the timing of the events (mega long 1H, players going back to the lockers, etc).
b) What happens if we apply the same criteria elsewhere? Say a team commits 25 knock-ons. Are we to expect the ref not to penalize knock-ons anymore from a team dropping the ball because entertainment is paramount? The difference i see is that knock ons are quite obvious and a ref not following the laws there would be very exposed.

I'm pushing the envelope with the examples, i know. My point is that i can understand a ref twisting the interpretation of the laws in the spirit of entertainment. The problem i have is that that's not what i see. He isn't bending the interpretation of the laws. He is changing the laws themselves. The difference is not minor and that was precisely why i asked if such a reason/excuse would be acceptable in front of peers/reviewers.
On paper (and in practice most of the time) calls are supposed to be independent of previous events (except for things like repeated infringements, etc). But here, for some weird reason, instead of treating it as an aggravating factor (or neutral one), the ref uses it as mitigation.

Anyway, i dont want to sound like a prick by disregarding input that is much more educated than mine. I dont have to like the answers i get to the questions i present. Thanks again.
 
He was on a hiding to nothing.

In an of itself, I don't think the Irish player was worth a PT and then YC. The bigger issues was that it was the end of a chain of PKs, and I think he was out of options. Personally, I'd have sold it as an entire FR issue - that way I'm not getting my cards out.
 
When both sides seemed so intent on trying to cheat and get away with whatever they could, Mr Carley had a very difficult job but I do feel he set himself up from the outset with a poor call on Green 10 and it got worse.
 
I'm interested in why you think it was a poor call re. Green 10. I don't disagree, just interested in your reasoning
 
He was prompted to review it by his AR and the TMO.

To me it was a typical early match cheap shot perhaps to see what they could get away with, and they did.

SA 7 had made the tackle, SA 10 charged in no arms and barged into Ireland 14. There was head contact, it was deliberate It was avoidable, Green 7 had already tackled so the shot was only to impose himself not to cover any threat or contain an attack. And he also added a bit of afters as well to deal with.

The ref had the opportunity to take the time and I felt he rushed into making a judgment, he was advised that contact was chest and then head but decided that he was not convinced that it was a no-arms tackle.:rolleyes:

He seemed flustered by the incident, the pressure that the players, not only the captains put on him and it put the afternoon on a poor footing from the outset.

But in broader terms, and not directly from this game this is what we get when we allow things to slide generally.

If we make up things like jackling, if we allow players at rucks to go off feet, if we allow players to come in the side of ruck, if we allow line outs to break and pre set for a maul, if we allow squint put in at line out and scrum, we are favouring cheating, we are removing the competition.

I feel both sides were intent on cheating blatantly and to the furthest possible extent and by the time someone wants to address it those behaviours have become extreme and supporters that have never and will never read or understand the laws only see their team getting penalised.

Aittudes will prevail until refereeing is firm and consistent.

This series of autumn games should provide much focus for World Rugby to review, not least given the shambles about head contact are they really interested in player safety and consider where they game is and if the are meeting the spirit of the game.
 
Agreed.
If there were arms in the tackle (and I'm not convinced there was), all that does is allow mitigation.
For me, the starting point was RC with possible mitigation down to YC. So YC with off field review.
And why did Carly bring the PK in 15 metres?
 
Dickie E said:
The PT wasn't for scrum collapse. It was for Irish flanker #8 breaking early & interfering with play. No way Carly had any doubt about the offence & culprit. I expect he decided 3 in bin was enough
Click to expand...
I thought that the penalty was for the complete scrum breaking up - team offence - hence no yellow. But I had been drinking and may not have seen it too clearly.
 
Cross said:
Thanks! I can understand the theory behind that, but i am having a bit of trouble reconciling it with my experience watching/playing the game. I've seen refs pick up people at random from collapsing mauls. Scrums are even easier.
Scrums penalties are caused generally by one of four players (4 props) the overwhelming majority of cases. By picking a penalty you are already eliminating 2 of those 4 and the the "guess" between the remaining two is generally determined by which side of the scrum fell first.
Click to expand...
Honestly, you may well be right but in my long life, playing, coaching and latterly refereeing, I have never seen a random yellow card.
 
Cross said:
Thanks. Maybe it's just me, but i find that hard to accept. I'll bite thou. At t the risk of being called pedantic (apologies in advance), i hope you understand how such an interpretation opens an entire line of questioning that looks bizarre. Questions of the sort:

a) Why is 3 YCs the limit? Why not 2? Or 4? Call me cynical but i believe the most obvious reason was that he thought he could get away with it given the timing of the events (mega long 1H, players going back to the lockers, etc).
b) What happens if we apply the same criteria elsewhere? Say a team commits 25 knock-ons. Are we to expect the ref not to penalize knock-ons anymore from a team dropping the ball because entertainment is paramount? The difference i see is that knock ons are quite obvious and a ref not following the laws there would be very exposed.

I'm pushing the envelope with the examples, i know. My point is that i can understand a ref twisting the interpretation of the laws in the spirit of entertainment. The problem i have is that that's not what i see. He isn't bending the interpretation of the laws. He is changing the laws themselves. The difference is not minor and that was precisely why i asked if such a reason/excuse would be acceptable in front of peers/reviewers.
On paper (and in practice most of the time) calls are supposed to be independent of previous events (except for things like repeated infringements, etc). But here, for some weird reason, instead of treating it as an aggravating factor (or neutral one), the ref uses it as mitigation.

Anyway, i dont want to sound like a prick by disregarding input that is much more educated than mine. I dont have to like the answers i get to the questions i present. Thanks again.
Click to expand...
All fair points, and I understand the certainly 3 YC limit comment was hyperbole - Lord forbid the blazers suggest that, we know that’ll result in “free hits” across the board.

When someone at my level is handing out cards like Oprah, sometimes it can indicate they lost control of the game but mostly they stamped down hard and early to make the line clear and the teams woke up.

I’m not sure a pro ref ever gets that option. They get called pedantic, or told to “stop make the game about them”, or have Sir Nige come out and explain what they did wrong. At that level we also have the commentators as the sole judge of fact and the law for the majority of viewers.

And of course, The Product comes first.

Carley may get the best view in the park, but that’s quite the price tag that comes with it.
 
Volun-selected said:
All fair points, and I understand the certainly 3 YC limit comment was hyperbole - Lord forbid the blazers suggest that, we know that’ll result in “free hits” across the board.

When someone at my level is handing out cards like Oprah, sometimes it can indicate they lost control of the game but mostly they stamped down hard and early to make the line clear and the teams woke up.

I’m not sure a pro ref ever gets that option. They get called pedantic, or told to “stop make the game about them”, or have Sir Nige come out and explain what they did wrong. At that level we also have the commentators as the sole judge of fact and the law for the majority of viewers.

And of course, The Product comes first.

Carley may get the best view in the park, but that’s quite the price tag that comes with it.
Click to expand...
And unfortunately many of the commentators being ex-elite players have very little knowledge of the Laws and persistently talk over the ref so they have no real idea what has been given nor why. This ensures the public remain ignorant, see the crowd reaction at Twickenham yesterday when Luke Cowan Dickie lost control and the try was scrubbed.
 
meanwhile going back to 3YCs already so why not n 4th at the PT ...

they make it up as they go along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top