Penalty try Hurricanes vs Blues - What the?

[The Rant]

ok so I get the laws now - but still disagree that based on the video Vinny Munro can make the statement that it was deliberate or that Savea would have scored.

I didn't know they couldn't slap it over the sidelines either? What's the difference between using hands and using feet? Hope this was one-off shocker.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

ok so I get the laws now - but still disagree that based on the video Vinny Munro can make the statement that it was deliberate or that Savea would have scored.

I didn't know they couldn't slap it over the sidelines either? What's the difference between using hands and using feet? Hope this was one-off shocker.

Imagine if every time a player was isolated he could just pitch into the crowd.
At least if he has to get it to his feet he might be charged down or mis kick it.
And if he has to run it into touch then he must release it for a quick throw.

 

[Manuel]

Hello all,
I think that "what would have happened if the offender was not there" is not as crazy as it sounds. First, we have to look at the alternative methods of assessment. If they try to evaluate whether, had the offending player taken a legal option, the try would have been prevented, is misguided. That is the question the offending player should ask himself before committing the infraction.
If the act of foul play is committed in a situation like this weekend's (i.e. in the in-goal, with a possible try opportunity), and the referees think that, had the player taken the legal option, then a try could have been avoided with reasonable probability (I'll come back to what "reasonable" should be IMO), then why did the player infringe then?
This takes us back to "reasonable probability": it is not 50%. We do not need even to know the number, and the TMO does not need to make any calculations or estimations. If the player chose to infringe, it means that he evaluated the probability of a try high enough, and that the only way of decreasing that probability significantly was an act of foul play. Therefore, penalty try and yellow card is correct.
Now, obviously, a player in such a situation will not engage in a cost-benefit analysis of the different alternatives, but foul play should not even be considered an option by players.
The only relevant question for the TMO last weekend was, then, whether the act was deliberate or not. Arguable, as pretty much any human decision.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Hello all,
I think that "what would have happened if the offender was not there" is not as crazy as it sounds. First, we have to look at the alternative methods of assessment. If they try to evaluate whether, had the offending player taken a legal option, the try would have been prevented, is misguided. That is the question the offending player should ask himself before committing the infraction.
If the act of foul play is committed in a situation like this weekend's (i.e. in the in-goal, with a possible try opportunity), and the referees think that, had the player taken the legal option, then a try could have been avoided with reasonable probability (I'll come back to what "reasonable" should be IMO), then why did the player infringe then?
This takes us back to "reasonable probability": it is not 50%. We do not need even to know the number, and the TMO does not need to make any calculations or estimations. If the player chose to infringe, it means that he evaluated the probability of a try high enough, and that the only way of decreasing that probability significantly was an act of foul play. Therefore, penalty try and yellow card is correct.
Now, obviously, a player in such a situation will not engage in a cost-benefit analysis of the different alternatives, but foul play should not even be considered an option by players.
The only relevant question for the TMO last weekend was, then, whether the act was deliberate or not. Arguable, as pretty much any human decision.

fantastic -in theory - but none of that is reflected in the law.
if that's what the authorities want they should re-write the law.
Your version would read:

If a foul is committed at a time when a try might have been scored then a penalty try is to be awarded.
"foul" means a deliberate contravention of the laws.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

fantastic -in theory - but none of that is reflected in the law.
if that's what the authorities want they should re-write the law.
Your version would read:

IS, the Laws aren't black and white and so we have many interpretations. "Probable" can mean >50% but it can also mean likely. A Savea try was a likely outcome which was prevented by Foul Play. For mine, this situation could satisify the Laws even without the "player taken away" interpretation.

When I first heard this interpretation, I thought it very dubious but the more I have thought about it over the years, I have come to accept it based on the way Manuel described it. The player thought it was probable, so he committed Foul Play to prevent it.

 

[Braveheart81]

I disagree. Probable has to maintain its normal meaning which is more likely than not likely to happen. I.e. greater than 50% chance.

Probable can not just be substituted for a possible outcome. It has to be the most likely outcome (and in a binary situation like this where the outcome is either try or no try, it has to be a greater than 50% chance of occurring).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

IS, the Laws aren't black and white and so we have many interpretations. "Probable" can mean >50% but it can also mean likely. A Savea try was a likely outcome which was prevented by Foul Play. For mine, this situation could satisify the Laws even without the "player taken away" interpretation.

When I first heard this interpretation, I thought it very dubious but the more I have thought about it over the years, I have come to accept it based on the way Manuel described it. The player thought it was probable, so he committed Foul Play to prevent it.

I cannot improve on Braveheart81 's response.
We should as a code strive to avoid laws that invite grey areas.
I know that we will never achieve that in fact, completely. If that were the guiding principle behind the choice of words and concepts it would be a good thing.
If it is intended that something less than ">50%" should be the test then words like "possible", or even "not unlikely", should be used so that the law recognises that the outcome being tested need not be "more likely than not".

 

[Scott Allen]

I find it extremely frustrating if what E&E says is the way that referees are interpreting the Laws.

The Laws are black and white - when unions have a query about interpretation they ask the IRB for a ruling and that ruling is published for all to see.

By reading the Laws and the rulings you can form a reasonable view on how the game will be refereed, even if there are some grey areas but if the referees are agreeing interpretations outside this process, surely they have to be documented and published or confusion (and angst) will continue to exist.

No issue with the referees coming up with interpretations but tell us about them when they are made!

 

[yourmatesam]

Scott Allen, Eyes and Ears, Inside Shoulder, The Rant, Manuel

http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/LawsRegs/0/070110LGLAW10red_667.pdf from the IRB Laws, 10.2 (a) Foul Play.

The key phrase in this one is: "would probably otherwise have been scored".

If the player who intentionally knocked the ball dead did not do that, it is reasonable to assume that a try would probably otherwise have been scored.

The killer is that the player chose to offend in order to stop the try being scored. If he had knocked the ball down or tried to ground the ball, it may have been a different outcome, however his first action was to knock the ball dead intentionally. This is foul play and if not for this action, the try "would probably otherwise have been scored".

I agree with Eyes and Ears , yes it's a big call, but the defending player chose to offend to prevent a probable try being scored.

I think Vinny Munro's justification of "if the offending player wasn't there" has been mis-interpreted and could have been better worded, but I agree with the intention that the defending player committed an act of foul play to prevent a probable try being scored.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=xOjjGvLjgfI&desktop_uri=/watch?v=xOjjGvLjgfI

Not sure if the link will work, but this was not the first incident of the action leading to a penalty try

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Scott Allen, Eyes and Ears, Inside Shoulder, The Rant, Manuel

If the player who intentionally knocked the ball dead did not do that, it is reasonable to assume that a try would probably otherwise have been scored.

I think Vinny Munro's justification of "if the offending player wasn't there" has been mis-interpreted and could have been better worded, but I agree with the intention that the defending player committed an act of foul play to prevent a probable try being scored.

There is no misinterpretation - what he said is not what the law says.
if you want that "intention" draft the law so that's what it says.
The last thing the game needs is confusion arising from burdens of proof, assumptions and presumptions: there are enough unavoidable grey areas at the breakdown to sink 2 codes.

 

[Scott Allen]

I think Vinny Munro's justification of "if the offending player wasn't there" has been mis-interpreted and could have been better worded, but I agree with the intention that the defending player committed an act of foul play to prevent a probable try being scored.[/quote]

YMS, Eyes & Ears says he is a referee and that the interpretation of "if the offending player wasn't there" used by Vinny Munro isn't a misunderstanding and is something that he has heard confirmed at referee education seminars to be the way the law should be interpreted.

Are you a referee and if so are you aware that this interpretation has been adopted?

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Hello all, long time no chat.. enjoy this thread and the simliar one on TSF as it's fascinating how people can be so polar opposite on something which should be clear cut.

FWIW, I think Munro made the correct call. Halai dove too early for him to be able to force it. His only option was to push it away from Savea & ultimately push it dead. If he had taken that extra step to get further forward, would Savea then been able to dive himself and score the try? I don't know, but Halai took that option away from him & thus, in my opinion, committed a professional foul which is certainly a yellow card & penalty. Given the location, penalty try was a fair enough call.

 

[Scoey]

I disagree. Probable has to maintain its normal meaning which is more likely than not likely to happen. I.e. greater than 50% chance.

Probable can not just be substituted for a possible outcome. It has to be the most likely outcome (and in a binary situation like this where the outcome is either try or no try, it has to be a greater than 50% chance of occurring).

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, it could be argued that the situation was not binary. If there's 4 possible outcomes (and I'm sure we could come up with more) Canes try, Canes knock on, Blues ground ball, Blues intentional foul. Then it could be that the probable outcome of these could be less than a 50% likelihood. Not saying I subscribe to this theory, just putting an alternate view out there.

 

[Braveheart81]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, it could be argued that the situation was not binary. If there's 4 possible outcomes (and I'm sure we could come up with more) Canes try, Canes knock on, Blues ground ball, Blues intentional foul. Then it could be that the probable outcome of these could be less than a 50% likelihood. Not saying I subscribe to this theory, just putting an alternate view out there.

I realise multiple outcomes might have eventuated but the decision for the referee is a binary one. Out of those four situations, three of them are no try. Only one is try.

That is the basis by which the referee needs to make their decision of whether it was probable that a try would be scored. If you said that each of those four situations was equally likely to happen (I don't think that's the case but let's just assume that hypothetically) then there was only a 25% chance that a try is scored which does not make it probable.

 

[yourmatesam]

Are you a referee and if so are you aware that this interpretation has been adopted?

Yes, I'm a Level II Referee, Level I AR and a Level II Coach, I have not heard of this interpretation of the player not being there before but I can understand the intention behind it.

I may have slipped myself up previously by saying that Vinny Munro has been mis-interpreted. Vinny said what he said rightly or wrongly, I believe that Vinny should have said something along the lines of:
"The ball has been deliberately knocked dead by Blue #14. If not for the actions of the offending player, I believe a try would probably otherwise have been scored" This, to the laws of the game, satisfies the requirements for a penalty try. I believe he simplified the above mouthful and that the focus on the player not being there is irrelevant.

The issue around a penalty try shouldn't be a "player not being there" (I'm paraphrasing here IS) but that the following occurred:
1 - an act of foul play. Check - Halai deliberately knocked the ball dead
2 - if not for the act of foul play, a try would probably otherwise have been scored. Check - IF Halai hadn't deliberately knocked the ball dead, a try would PROBABLY otherwise have been scored by Savea
3 - Award the penalty try and then a Yellow Card as a minimum.

It comes down to the intention of the offending player, he chose to offend to prevent a probable try from being scored. The percentage of probability doesn't matter, there was an act of foul play committed and if not for that act of foul play, a try would probably otherwise have been scored.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yes, I'm a Level II Referee, Level I AR and a Level II Coach, I have not heard of this interpretation of the player not being there before but I can understand the intention behind it.

I may have slipped myself up previously by saying that Vinny Munro has been mis-interpreted. Vinny said what he said rightly or wrongly, I believe that Vinny should have said something along the lines of:
"The ball has been deliberately knocked dead by Blue #14. If not for the actions of the offending player, I believe a try would probably otherwise have been scored" This, to the laws of the game, satisfies the requirements for a penalty try. I believe he simplified the above mouthful and that the focus on the player not being there is irrelevant.

The issue around a penalty try shouldn't be a "player not being there" (I'm paraphrasing here IS) but that the following occurred:
1 - an act of foul play. Check - Halai deliberately knocked the ball dead
2 - if not for the act of foul play, a try would probably otherwise have been scored. Check - IF Halai hadn't deliberately knocked the ball dead, a try would PROBABLY otherwise have been scored by Savea
3 - Award the penalty try and then a Yellow Card as a minimum.

It comes down to the intention of the offending player, he chose to offend to prevent a probable try from being scored. The percentage or probability doesn't matter, there was an act of foul play committed and if not for that act of foul play, a try would probably otherwise have been scored.

We are in furious agreement.
As I said in another thread - if Mr Munro had said nothing it would have been better.
What it has brought to light is another approach that is being taken by refs which the players/coaches dont know about.

 

[yourmatesam]

We are in furious agreement.
As I said in another thread - if Mr Munro had said nothing it would have been better.
What it has brought to light is another approach that is being taken by refs which the players/coaches dont know about.

And that's the last thing referees need - something else to explain!

 

[Scott Allen]

Yes, I'm a Level II Referee, Level I AR and a Level II Coach, I have not heard of this interpretation of the player not being there before but I can understand the intention behind it.

Thanks - my only concern with this was interpretations that the players/coaches hadn't been told about.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Scott, I guess what makes this difficult is that this is not a new interpretation and the situation occurs very rarely. I think there was a very similar incident in a NZ test against a NH nation in the June window in the last 5 years and I can definitely remember going to a RWC qualifier in Canberra in 1998 between 2 PI teams where a penalty try was awarded for this scenario. So I would argue that it has been publicly available but you would have to look very closely to notice it. I guess it would be interesting to know if John Kirwan was aware of it.
The "player not there" interpretation can be used in dangerous tackle scenarios as well where there is the same debate as to what result would have occurred had the tackle been completed legally.

I could draw a parallel to the touch law. What the law says about the ball in touch and what the flowchart says about many different scenarios that can occur with respect to starting position, ball position, body position and whether it is held or touched are very different in their level of detail provided by the Law and flowchart. I doubt that most people / players / coaches are aware of all these scenarios but the information is available if you want it.
I suspect that you are seeing inconsistent responses between YMS and myself because referee education can be hard to deliver to the broad referee population (ie from elite to Div 6 Subbies to Juniors). The penalty try is a particular difficult area as it involves a judgment call, so education on it is probably more tailored to the level you are refereeing. I suspect IS and/or Scott won't like this either as it will appear inconsistent but all along I have just been trying to provide some insight into the penalty try decision making process and why I have come to agree with this interpretation.