Peter O'Mahony Yellow Card

[Tady Walsh]

Hi folks,

Not sure if you saw Munster's match against Scarlets last week, but I've been trying to get my head around the Peter O'Mahony YC (or more precisely, the consequences of it).



For those not aware or who didn't see it, Munster scored a ligitimate try. However, in the act of "ensuring" the grounding, O'Mahony carelessly fell on the players on the ground, elbowing a Scarlets player in the head. The video was reviewed with the TMO and the decision was that the try stood, but O'Mahony received a yellow card, his second in the game, thus a red. The conversion was taken and Scarlets restarted with a penalty on halfway, which Halfpenny converted. Action starts at 1:20 in the video above.

I don't understand how the try was allowed to stand. I understand that O'Mahony wasn't directly involved in the scoring of the try, but how was his team allowed to retain points scored when he commited an act of foul play in the same instance. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Cheers

[Decorily]

For me the ball had clearly been grounded prior to O' Mahony committing the offence. The referee was actually in the act of signalling the score when the offence took place.
Therefore the try rightly stands and the restart is correct.

Question is if O' Mahony struck a prone player in the head with an elbow or shoulder should the card have been a different colour?

[Tady Walsh]

For me the ball had clearly been grounded prior to O' Mahony committing the offence. The referee was actually in the act of signalling the score when the offence took place.
Therefore the try rightly stands and the restart is correct.

Question is if O' Mahony struck a prone player in the head with an elbow or shoulder should the card have been a different colour?

But surely the act of dangerous play overrides the score? I don't understand how the try is allowed to stand.

Agree with your analysis of the card colour.

[Decorily]

But surely the act of dangerous play overrides the score? I don't understand how the try is allowed to stand.

Agree with your analysis of the card colour.

The act of "dangerous play" occurred after the try was scored not in the act of scoring.

If we separate the 2 events ie scoring and offending even further it might be useful....

What I mean is if a try is scored and 30 seconds later a punch is throw by the scoring side would you still consider that the try should not stand?

[Tady Walsh]

That’s a fair point, I never considered it like that. I just saw POMs action as being “part of the act of scoring” but I take your point. Ok, thanks for clarifying!

[Marc Wakeham]

in the act of "ensuring" the grounding, O'Mahony carelessly fell on the players on the ground, elbowing a Scarlets player in the head.

I take it that the bold bit you your own technowlogy.

The TMO said:

"Try was scored before the foul play so the try stands"

"...not be sure where POM's elbow made contact so it was is a YC." Had he seen contact with the head, he said that it would have been a RC. Of course being POM's second cheap shot it was a case of YC + YC = RC anyway.

I only saw highlights and the TMOs post game comments. Did they restart with a PK to Scarlets? That would be correct.

[Marc Wakeham]

Oddly it was deemed as RC sufficient at the hearing. If we are serious about eliminating such foul play from the game that needs to change.

[Tady Walsh]

They did yes. I only saw highlights myself but my phone blew up with the decision, so I couldn’t say for myself. I also didn’t hear the TMO’s feedback. Yeah I added that phrase, couldn’t think of a politer way of saying “charged in like a gowl!”

[Tady Walsh]

I think that judgement was poorly communicated. I think what they meant was, the issuing of the second yellow, hence red, was sufficient punishment. If they felt it was red card sufficient in the hearing, they would have increased the decision and he'd have had a lengthy ban. Even at the light end of a red card ban, he'd miss 4 - 6 weeks, so there's no way they'd have let him walk out with no suspension if they felt he commited an actual red card offence.

[Marc Wakeham]

The judgement was for the red card. Not the one yellow. It was the two yellow cards together that were judged as they, together, created the red. Not just the second one.