Thanks, but did you consider it an illegal act and at least a penalty?
Abs v France - Penalty Try?
- Thread starter BikingBud
- Start date
Rich_NL
Well-known member
As a theoretical, you can only award penalty tries for acts of foul play. It's conceivable a player could commit a penalty-worthy offence that wasn't judged as cynical/intentional.
The ball is in the field of play so it's still a ruck - but per 15.4 the offside line is the goal line rather than the hindmost foot.
Watching the footage, white #5 stands up and returns to the goal line, and joins the ruck *along* the goal line (and hence along the offside line).
He doesn't get completely behind the goal line, and as he joins his toes are in front of the goal line.
He joins the ruck alongside the shoulders of white #6, the hindmost player.
Ref is mostly unsighted from his feet, on the opposite side of the ruck.
So I think that technically he joins the ruck illegally - but only by a couple of centimetres, not egregiously so.
How the ref and TMO ought to call this I leave to others to debate.
That's far clearer than originally described. Thanks.
And that was my query. What would forum members do? Is that not the whole point of the forum? To query the events that have occurred and try to understand decisions that might have been made so we can improve our own refereeing?
I could have described it in terms similar to @jeremy , in fact the words are not that different but hey! Rather than relying on my description which was factually the same as Jeremy's, I was hoping that observance of the incident by forum members and making your mind up would lead to a reasoned discussion. I didn't want to get embroiled in a discussion about how I had described it as that might be construed as "leading the witness". But we seem to have been there anyway!
So now we have "clarity" on the event, what are people's thoughts and perhaps @Decorily you could engage and answer how you differentiate between penalties that might be worthy of penalty tries vice those that are not.
Law 9 Foul Play - provides:
9.2 - An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play. Sanction: Penalty.
Law 8 Scoring - provides:
Penalty try
8.3 - A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and shown a yellow card or sent off. No conversion is attempted
And on the basis that international rugby players do not tend to do things by accident I would offer that 9.2 is met, egregiously or otherwise and the outcome should be a PT. Whilst others might differ in their opinion, I would welcome those thoughts as deliberate transgressions are becoming increasingly prolific and is part of our role not to ensure the contest remains fair. So adding real jeopardy to defenders that transgress may sway that.Some might say that by awarding PTs refs are being pernickety and ruining the game but in the same manner that directives about high and dangerous tackle only reiterated what was already in Law we have the ability to effect deliberately negative play.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
I haven't seen the clip.
From the stills here, his foot is just over the line (heel on the white), you could give the penalty. To say it's a deliberately cynical act to overstep by 10cm and thereby gain an advantage that prevents the try and therefore award a PT and YC... I'm not seeing it, personally. He was illegal and prevented the try, but I don't think we can be certain he was illegal *in order to* prevent the try.
But again, there could be context in the game and the film that I'm missing.
From the stills here, his foot is just over the line (heel on the white), you could give the penalty. To say it's a deliberately cynical act to overstep by 10cm and thereby gain an advantage that prevents the try and therefore award a PT and YC... I'm not seeing it, personally. He was illegal and prevented the try, but I don't think we can be certain he was illegal *in order to* prevent the try.
But again, there could be context in the game and the film that I'm missing.
On field decision being "held up" then.
That offside line is for the defending team -the attacking team's offside line is still their hindmost foot
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
"...if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored...," does not equal "on the basis that international rugby players do not tend to do things by accident I would offer that 9.2 is met, egregiously or otherwise and the outcome should be a PT. " The foul play has to " prevent a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position.
Is that your judgment or a a question?
Yes on field they referee judged it was held up.
Did you watch it? Or are you commenting blind?
Did you watch it? Or are you commenting blind?
What a benevolent group we are, few have seen it yet many are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender, some even admitting his transgression but not really wanting to sanction appropriately.
By taking that stance we do a massive disservice to attacking teams and continue to reward cheating and foul play. Is that a reasonable perspective to hold?
By taking that stance we do a massive disservice to attacking teams and continue to reward cheating and foul play. Is that a reasonable perspective to hold?
Well the match officials were being consistent. There was a very similar incident at 25.30 on the game clock.
I think this incident was a very marginal call. The referee was not on the right side to make a call (he was on 25.30 but chose to ignore it) and it was not a call for an AR. The TMO and ref did not check for offside even though the NZ captain asked the question and AG said it was a “good question”.
Having watched the video and replays frame by frame it is not possible to determine whether the F5 had not just got back on side when the NZ1 had his hands on the ball. The F5 had definitely got one foot in the goal area all the time. Did he step on the line before he stepped forward? Can’t be seen on the video but there is a suggestion that he did. If this was the case then was he onside briefly? The line is deemed in goal.
The middle still probably does show that F5 had a foot in front of the try line when F5 made contact at the side but the NZ1 had got his hands on the ball just before this and was holding it up off the ground. The video frames before this may ir may not have shown that the F5 was just onside briefly before this by having his foot on the try line.
The optics didn’t look good so I can see why there has been a discussion/debate about the incident but I couldn’t make a definitive call on it after numerous frame by frame replays. Though I will admit that my initial feelings were that he was offside because of the way it looked live and at full speed.
I think this incident was a very marginal call. The referee was not on the right side to make a call (he was on 25.30 but chose to ignore it) and it was not a call for an AR. The TMO and ref did not check for offside even though the NZ captain asked the question and AG said it was a “good question”.
Having watched the video and replays frame by frame it is not possible to determine whether the F5 had not just got back on side when the NZ1 had his hands on the ball. The F5 had definitely got one foot in the goal area all the time. Did he step on the line before he stepped forward? Can’t be seen on the video but there is a suggestion that he did. If this was the case then was he onside briefly? The line is deemed in goal.
The middle still probably does show that F5 had a foot in front of the try line when F5 made contact at the side but the NZ1 had got his hands on the ball just before this and was holding it up off the ground. The video frames before this may ir may not have shown that the F5 was just onside briefly before this by having his foot on the try line.
The optics didn’t look good so I can see why there has been a discussion/debate about the incident but I couldn’t make a definitive call on it after numerous frame by frame replays. Though I will admit that my initial feelings were that he was offside because of the way it looked live and at full speed.
Thanks.
When AG responded that it was a good question then you might be forgiven for thinking he might actually ask that question.
I do wonder if having prompted the TMO with that question, reviews of other angles might have provided a differing and perhaps more informative perspective.
When AG responded that it was a good question then you might be forgiven for thinking he might actually ask that question.
I do wonder if having prompted the TMO with that question, reviews of other angles might have provided a differing and perhaps more informative perspective.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
This reads as self-righteous. I explained why I wouldn't give a PT, so it wouldn't be an appropriate sanction, and it's not then a massive disservice to the attacking team.
Was the point in starting a thread with a question merely so you could lambast people who don't agree with the answer you've already decided on before posting?
Really!
I am sorry that you feel that way but I asked a question that people responded to having not seen the footage and then get upset when I consider their interpretation of what they think has happened as benevolent. Yes of course I had decided it was a penalty try. I wanted to explore if others shared the same thoughts. In doing so I am trying to focus on the evidence and am quite happy when people that use that same evidence come up with a different interpretation, I have thanked @Balones and gave you a thumbs up for your contributions. But when people have not reviewed the evidence find that no foul play has occurred I find that difficult to support.
The tag line for the site is "Better Officials, Better Game" if we don't query the evidence, engage in discussion around the decisions made on the field and push against perceived interpretation and perceived application are we not missing the point of the site? If I wanted to talk trash about team selection and complain about biased refereeing I would go to one of the many other sites. I was hoping for open, informed and honest discussion because repeated penalties on the goal line seldom lead to PTs, and I get entirely that repetition does not lead to PT but the behaviour being shown is that of acting with impunity. I have previously queried PTs not awarded because a try was scored but the decision doesn't appear to address the second element "or scored in a more advantageous position". If we don't understand ourselves or challenge that understanding we sort of follow what we see on telly rather than applying the Laws as we are empowered.
If you find all that self righteous then ......
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
I am discussing law.
your comment "...on the basis that international rugby players do not tend to do things by accident I would offer that 9.2 is met, egregiously or otherwise and the outcome should be a PT", does not apply if a probable try was not prevented. ( or a try in a better position) if you feel that a probably try was there. However deliberate the offence was.
IF the offence prevented a probably try then such an offnce should lead to a PT
IF the offence DID NOT prevent a probably try then is is just a PT however deliberate the action might be. That "PROBABLE" bit issignificant and of vital importance.
Sorry if that offends.
Last edited:
self righteous, me ?
