Match Thread: Leinster A V Edinburgh 19:35 TG4/BBC Alba, 15/04/16

awec

I don't think that scenario is taken into account, otherwise there would never be penalty tries. The offence happened and the offence most likely stopped a try.

Bazzo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The thing is you can't just wipe McFadden off the pitch when assessing if a try would have been scored or not. He made a tackle and it went high (My interpretation ) due to Hoyland dipping to recieve the tackle and McFadden pushing up. Putting that aside, if the tackle is deemed (or was deemed) illegal, he still has the option of going lower and still stopping Hoyland. In other words, if it was illegal, he still was in position to at least slow Hoyland for the support to finish it off.

So a penalty try doesn't seem at all likely because it would have been the way he tackled rather than the fact of the tackle being made or not.

awec wrote: »

I don't think that scenario is taken into account, otherwise there would never be penalty tries. The offence happened and the offence most likely stopped a try.

Yeah that's actually exactly what the ref is supposed to do in these situations. He's supposed to remove the offending player from the equation all together and assess whether a try would have been scored or not if he wans't on the pitch essentially. If it's probable a try would have been scored, then he can award a penalty try.

CMOTDibbler

Bazzo wrote: »

Yeah that's actually exactly what the ref is supposed to do in these situations. He's supposed to remove the offending player from the equation all together and assess whether a try would have been scored or not if he wans't on the pitch essentially. If it's probable a try would have been scored, then he can award a penalty try.

I'm open to correction (well cited of course ), but I always believed it to be removal of the offence rather than the offending player. After all, teams don't play with 14 men (obvs. if one is sent off they do) all the time.

Taking the usual penalty try scenario as an example: A team has the put in for a 5m scrum and start to rumble forward. An opposing prop pulls the scrum down to prevent a try and the ref goes under the posts. The ref doesn't hypothetically take the offending prop off the pitch before coming to his decision, he takes the offence out and asks the question: "would a try be scored if the offence hadn't occurred?". I would have thought the same in this case, i.e. if the tackle was legal would a try be scored?

Edit: here's the law:

Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts.

That appears to attempt to nullify the offence rather than remove the offender.

Moflojo

awec wrote: »

I don't think that scenario is taken into account, otherwise there would never be penalty tries. The offence happened and the offence most likely stopped a try.

This also contributes to the yellow card debate, i.e. if McFadden's foul play prevented a probable try-scoring scenario then a yellow card should have been awarded, regardless of how dangerous the referee interpreted the tackle to be.

awec

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm open to correction (well cited of course ), but I always believed it to be removal of the offence rather than the offending player. After all, teams don't play with 14 men (obvs. if one is sent off they do) all the time.

Taking the usual penalty try scenario as an example: A team has the put in for a 5m scrum and start to rumble forward. An opposing prop pulls the scrum down to prevent a try and the ref goes under the posts. The ref doesn't hypothetically take the offending prop off the pitch before coming to his decision, he takes the offence out and asks the question: "would a try be scored if the offence hadn't occurred?". I would have thought the same in this case, i.e. if the tackle was legal would a try be scored?

But your scenario is more like the referee saying that if the offending prop had scrummed legally would the scrum have still collapsed?

The referee can't just look at every offense and see what would have happened if the player had done it legally, otherwise there'd be no penalty tries.

What if a man slowing the ball down had rolled away? What if someone who deliberately knocks the ball down catches it? What if someone who pulls down a maul defends it legally?

Bazzo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm open to correction (well cited of course ), but I always believed it to be removal of the offence rather than the offending player. After all, teams don't play with 14 men (obvs. if one is sent off they do) all the time.

Taking the usual penalty try scenario as an example: A team has the put in for a 5m scrum and start to rumble forward. An opposing prop pulls the scrum down to prevent a try and the ref goes under the posts. The ref doesn't hypothetically take the offending prop off the pitch before coming to his decision, he takes the offence out and asks the question: "would a try be scored if the offence hadn't occurred?". I would have thought the same in this case, i.e. if the tackle was legal would a try be scored?

Edit: here's the law:



That appears to attempt to nullify the offence rather than remove the offender.

You could be right but my understanding of the situation came from the debate sparked after the try awarded to Munster against Connacht. Muldoon took the man without the ball for that try to be awarded, if he wasn't totally removed from the situation I don't think it would have been anywhere near probable that a try would have been scored as TOH and Marmion were both covering across at the time.

Like most laws in rugby it's open to interpretation I suppose.

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

But your scenario is more like the referee saying that if the offending prop had scrummed legally would the scrum have still collapsed?

I'm talking about an offence. Clearly committed in order to prevent a try being scored. If he had scrummaged legally, they would have continued to give ground until the try was scored. That's the test. Or say McFadden couldn't make a tackle but instead foot tripped Hoyland, that's a clear cut penalty try unless there were other defenders capable of stopping him.

awec wrote: »

The referee can't just look at every offense and see what would have happened if the player had done it legally, otherwise there'd be no penalty tries.

What if a man slowing the ball down had rolled away? What if someone who deliberately knocks the ball down catches it? What if someone who pulls down a maul defends it legally?

You're asking the question the wrong way. If a scrum is being pushed back, the end result is that it will go past the try line and a try is scored. It's inevitable if the scrum stays up. If it collapses, he does have to look and see why it collapsed. There have been plenty of occasions where this happens and there's no penalty try because (a) the ref can't determine cause, (b) it was the attacking team went down or (c) both front rows collapsed and it's a reset.

CMOTDibbler

Bazzo wrote: »

You could be right but my understanding of the situation came from the debate sparked after the try awarded to Munster against Connacht. Muldoon took the man without the ball for that try to be awarded, if he wasn't totally removed from the situation I don't think it would have been anywhere near probable that a try would have been scored as TOH and Marmion were both covering across at the time.

Like most laws in rugby it's open to interpretation I suppose.

That's clear for me. You're not supposed to tackle a player without the ball. So the attacking player is free to take a pass and score but Muldoon prevented that by an illegal act. Therefore a clear cut penalty try. It's not taking the offender off the pitch, the question is would he have been able to tackle the player after he took the pass.

awec

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm talking about an offence. Clearly committed in order to prevent a try being scored. If he had scrummaged legally, they would have continued to give ground until the try was scored. That's the test. Or say McFadden couldn't make a tackle but instead foot tripped Hoyland, that's a clear cut penalty try unless there were other defenders capable of stopping him.


You're asking the question the wrong way. If a scrum is being pushed back, the end result is that it will go past the try line and a try is scored. It's inevitable if the scrum stays up. If it collapses, he does have to look and see why it collapsed. There have been plenty of occasions where this happens and there's no penalty try because (a) the ref can't determine cause, (b) it was the attacking team went down or (c) both front rows collapsed and it's a reset.

What?

In your scenario there would never, ever be a penalty try from a scrum. Every single time there is the referee would just say "but he could have done it legally".

And of course penalty trys aren't awarded when the referee doesn't know whose fault it was or no penalty offence was committed. But when a team does commit an offence the referee can't just turn round and say "ah sure it's grand, you could (but didn't) do it legally so I can't be giving a penalty try for that".

McFadden illegally stopped his man therefore the referee must remove McFadden from the equation. He cannot just imagine that McFadden could have done it legally, that's insane and would be open to a world of abuse. Sure coaches could just tell players to go out and take the man out no matter how you do it, the worst that can happen is a card.

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

What?

In your scenario there would never, ever be a penalty try from a scrum. Every single time there is the referee would just say "but he could have done it legally".

You can't be serious. We had Cronin get a YC for a clear pull down on Finlay Bealham only the other day. If he had done that on the 5m line, it was a penalty try all day long. No warnings, no second chances, ref under the posts with his arm up.

awec wrote: »

And of course penalty trys aren't awarded when the referee doesn't know whose fault it was or no penalty offence was committed. But when a team does commit an offence the referee can't just turn round and say "ah sure it's grand, you could (but didn't) do it legally so I can't be giving a penalty try for that".

I have never seen a penalty try for a tackle that was done illegally unless (and this is very important) only the illegality itself stopped the player, i.e. a foot trip or a tackle around the neck or head, where no other tackle was possible. In fact this is the only one I ever remember that comes even remotely close.

awec

But the referee cannot consider every single possible outcome.

What if McFadden had missed entirely?

What if the Edinburgh player bounced him?

What if the Edinburgh player dropped the ball?

What if the Edinburgh player tripped and allowed Kearney to catch up with him?

What if McFadden had made a successful legal tackle?


There are too many variables. The referee must remove the foul play entirely, not substitute it with something else. McFadden lost the right to be considered as a covering player when he made an illegal tackle, therefore the referee must look at it as if he wasn't there to cover.

awec

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You can't be serious. We had Cronin get a YC for a clear pull down on Finlay Bealham only the other day. If he had done that on the 5m line, it was a penalty try all day long. No warnings, no second chances, ref under the posts with his arm up.


I have never seen a penalty try for a tackle that was done illegally unless (and this is very important) only the illegality itself stopped the player, i.e. a foot trip or a tackle around the neck or head, where no other tackle was possible. In fact this is the only one I ever remember that comes even remotely close.

But to go by your logic the referee has to consider if a try would have been scored if Cronin had legally scrummaged (and if it was on the 5m line).

Why is a player illegally dropping a scrum on the 5m line a clear penalty try but the last man illegally tackling not? Why must the referee consider if McFadden would have made a legal tackle but not consider what would have happened if Cronin had stayed on his feet?

FrannoFan

Yellow card and player taken out of equation

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-PPCCE

sydthebeat

its my understanding that in order to assess a penalty try, the referee has to eliminate the offending player completely and assess whether or not a try would have probably been scored.

awec

FrannoFan wrote: »

Yellow card and player taken out of equation

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-PPCCE

Great example that.

awec

If you go to 2:30 in that video the ref actually explains it clearly to AWJ.

"I want to give you a really clear explanation of what happens with the law here. When there is an illegal act like that we actually take the defender out of the picture, as if he's not there."

CMOTDibbler

FrannoFan wrote: »

Yellow card and player taken out of equation

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-PPCCE

Nope. Illegal act taken out of the equation and no other legal possibility of the try being prevented. If that had been ten metres out, I would suggest it was no penalty try. The Potgieter 'tackle' that I linked to above is exactly the same as this.

The law is clear. It says foul play, not offending player.

awec

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Nope. Illegal act taken out of the equation and no other legal possibility of the try being prevented. If that had been ten metres out, I would suggest it was no penalty try. The Potgieter 'tackle' that I linked to above is exactly the same as this.

The law is clear. It says foul play, not offending player.

Watch the video and listen to Steve Walsh.

As for "no other legal possibility", well Williams could have tackled him legally, or could have got underneath him to hold it up, or could have knocked the ball out of his hands, etc etc...

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

If you go to 2:30 in that video the ref actually explains it clearly to AWJ.

"I want to give you a really clear explanation of what happens with the law here. When there is an illegal act like that we actually take the defender out of the picture, as if he's not there."

Steve Walsh

Sorry, I'm being a bit facetious but it's such a novelty for you to be citing refs as the last word on the laws of the game. Everyone should bookmark this for future reference.

pickarooney

awec wrote: »

But to go by your logic the referee has to consider if a try would have been scored if Cronin had legally scrummaged (and if it was on the 5m line).

Why is a player illegally dropping a scrum on the 5m line a clear penalty try but the last man illegally tackling not? Why must the referee consider if McFadden would have made a legal tackle but not consider what would have happened if Cronin had stayed on his feet?

In the scrum example it's a conscious decision to use foul play as a last resort to prevent a try. You can't remove a prop from a scrum, even theoretically, as that flouts a safety law.
If McFadden had made a legal tackle, he would have stopped the player. If Cronin had stayed on his feet the scrum would have been driven back over the line.

That's a significant difference IMO but not having seen the Leinster match I don't know if FMF was in a position to take the player out legally. You often see penalty tries given for an illegal tackle in the last metre. Uruguay v Fiji in the WC for example.

Bazzo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's clear for me. You're not supposed to tackle a player without the ball. So the attacking player is free to take a pass and score but Muldoon prevented that by an illegal act. Therefore a clear cut penalty try. It's not taking the offender off the pitch, the question is would he have been able to tackle the player after he took the pass.

I mean, I see where you're coming from but I still don't agree. Just taking these 2 situations(because they're the two I'm most familiar with, literally no other reason) you're saying the ref can assume he knows Muldoon's motives for doing what he did: specifically that he didn't have the pace to have any effect, and so it's fair to remove him from the situation, but that we're giving McFadden the benefit of the doubt and thinking that it was a complete accident?

Muldoon could have just mistimed his tackle or any number of things, consistency is key and if you're removing the offending player or assuming motives for 1 situation you have to do it for the other too.

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

Watch the video and listen to Steve Walsh.

As for "no other legal possibility", well Williams could have tackled him legally, or could have got underneath him to hold it up, or could have knocked the ball out of his hands, etc etc...

Those possibilities are minute really. Williams shoulder charged him to prevent a try. Anything else was a long shot and the probability (note that the law says 'probably') of him preventing a try by any other means was slim to none.

Moflojo

So, if we're accepting Steve Walsh is correct (:eek:), then should Edinburgh have been awarded a penalty try for McFadden's tackle?

I say it's too big a decision in any game for a referee to give it (Ben Whitehouse aside), but it should at least have been considered and discussed by the referees at the time.

Bazzo

Moflojo wrote: »

So, if we're accepting Steve Walsh is correct (:eek:), then should Edinburgh have been awarded a penalty try for McFadden's tackle?

I say it's too big a decision in any game for a referee to give it (Ben Whitehouse aside), but it should at least have been considered and discussed by the referees at the time.

I'm actually just playing devil's advocate at the moment. I think a penalty try was a possibility to the letter of the law but mostly I just think Fergus deserved a card for the tackle, I said at the time I'd be unsurprised to see him pick up a ban for it so we'll see how the citing goes.

CMOTDibbler

Bazzo wrote: »

I mean, I see where you're coming from but I still don't agree. Just taking these 2 situations(because they're the two I'm most familiar with, literally no other reason) you're saying the ref can assume he knows Muldoon's motives for doing what he did: specifically that he didn't have the pace to have any effect, and so it's fair to remove him from the situation, but that we're giving McFadden the benefit of the doubt and thinking that it was a complete accident?

No. Not at all. McFadden was in a good position to tackle Hoyland. He was in a good position to be a speed bump even. The question is would a try be probable in that situation. He doesn't need to examine motive, just look at the action and assess the probability of a try being scored if (for example) Muldoon had waited for him to get the ball first. In most cases it's relatively easy to work it out. I remember a Leinster game some time ago where a player was tackled off the ball just outside the 22 and the ref looked a long time to see if there was a probability of a try being scored. He decided not, because there was cover coming and the player who'd tackled could still have slowed the attacker enough for the cover to be effective.

Bazzo wrote: »

Muldoon could have just mistimed his tackle or any number of things, consistency is key and if you're removing the offending player or assuming motives for 1 situation you have to do it for the other too.

It doesn't matter what the cause of the foul play is. Once it's established that it's foul play, the ref should just look at the probability of a try being scored without the foul play.

With the McFadden tackle, we're looking at something that happened 20m or so from the try line. There's a lot of probability to be examined to turn that situation into a certain try. I'm not saying that there wasn't that probability, just that it's what they have to look at. Mitrea didn't even consider it because there was such a lot of ground to cover and apart from McFadden, a lot of players converging on Hoyland also.

CMOTDibbler

pickarooney wrote: »

That's a significant difference IMO but not having seen the Leinster match I don't know if FMF was in a position to take the player out legally. You often see penalty tries given for an illegal tackle in the last metre. Uruguay v Fiji in the WC for example.

This might give you some idea. He pretty much had him covered. Since he made a tackle that was judged illegal for no arms (others say it was high as well), it was definitely ilegal, but a lower trajectory would have made it legal and would have been possible. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

https://vine.co/v/itpa0X0LOPT

Bazzo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

No. Not at all. McFadden was in a good position to tackle Hoyland. He was in a good position to be a speed bump even. The question is would a try be probable in that situation. He doesn't need to examine motive, just look at the action and assess the probability of a try being scored if (for example) Muldoon had waited for him to get the ball first. In most cases it's relatively easy to work it out. I remember a Leinster game some time ago where a player was tackled off the ball just outside the 22 and the ref looked a long time to see if there was a probability of a try being scored. He decided not, because there was cover coming and the player who'd tackled could still have slowed the attacker enough for the cover to be effective.

It doesn't matter what the cause of the foul play is. Once it's established that it's foul play, the ref should just look at the probability of a try being scored without the foul play.

With the McFadden tackle, we're looking at something that happened 20m or so from the try line. There's a lot of probability to be examined to turn that situation into a certain try. I'm not saying that there wasn't that probability, just that it's what they have to look at. Mitrea didn't even consider it because there was such a lot of ground to cover and apart from McFadden, a lot of players converging on Hoyland also.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Steve Walsh's clear explanation of the process confirms what I had thought before hand, specifically that the offending PLAYER is removed from the equation, so you're not going to change my mind on this one I don't think :P

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Reddan was never catching him and he had already burned Kearney. Without McFadden a try was highly likely IMO.

Then it shouldn't have been a penalty try. That's only there when the try is a certainty.

At the end of the day it was a high tackle. Ferg started off around the shoulders but slid up making it high. He attempted to wrap but didn't succeed. That to me is a yellow card. The citing makes sense because the Pro12 need to be sure that they know exactly what happened and need to be seen to be dealing with things like this.

As for the other 79 minutes and 55 seconds, including the eye gouge accusation that seems to have been forgotten by everyone (and which to me is worse as it's a deliberate act of dangerous play).....

awec

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This might give you some idea. He pretty much had him covered. Since he made a tackle that was judged illegal for no arms (others say it was high as well), it was definitely ilegal, but a lower trajectory would have made it legal and would have been possible. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

https://vine.co/v/itpa0X0LOPT

Yea but it wasn't a lower trajectory and it wasn't legal.

What is to stop players doing this all the time? Just take the man out illegally to guarantee that you stop him and (at worst) take a card for the team?

The thing that is supposed to stop it is that a penalty try will be awarded if illegal play prevents a probable try.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Then it shouldn't have been a penalty try. That's only there when the try is a certainty.

At the end of the day it was a high tackle. Ferg started off around the shoulders but slid up making it high. He attempted to wrap but didn't succeed. That to me is a yellow card. The citing makes sense because the Pro12 need to be sure that they know exactly what happened and need to be seen to be dealing with things like this.

As for the other 79 minutes and 55 seconds, including the eye gouge accusation that seems to have been forgotten by everyone (and which to me is worse as it's a deliberate act of dangerous play).....

No the actual word in the laws is "probable try".

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team."

I personally didn't see the alleged gouge. When I first saw the McFadden hit I thought it was a good tackle because it was at the far end from me and happened so fast, but on the replays I wouldn't have been surprised to see him sent off.