Double jeopardy - penalty try and sin binning

[Latecomer]

I'm tired of the double jeopardy that sometimes surrounds penalty tries, Telusa Veaniu's sin binning after it on Saturday being a case in point. So an offence has been committed that prevented a try, by all means give the penalty try, but surely at that point the team has been penalised sufficiently and the sin binning is unnecessary. How many times does a front row player from the defending team go to the bin after a penalty try awarded from collapsed five metre scrums for example? Can't remember a single one.

[Christophelp]

The wording of Law 10.2(a) Unfair Play - Intentionally Offending is:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

So it will continue until the Law is changed (if it ever is) and the point for players to learn is don't give away a penalty try.
As you allude to, the main issue around this law is when the last man makes an attempted interception that doesn't succeed and it becomes a deliberate knock on and therefore an intentional offence, yellow card and penalty try.

[h's dad]

Without getting technical in any way, presumably the 7 points is restitution for what would otherwise have been and the card is penalising the infringement. If there was no card there would be enormous temptation to illegally prevent otherwise certain tries in the knowledge that any punishment will be no more severe than what is about to be received anyway and the player/team night even get away with it.

[voice of the crumbie]

Maybe the pragmatic view would be to not attempt the intercept but force the final player as close to the corner as possible to make the conversion more difficult. Yielding 5 or 7 points but keeping a full compliment of players on the field is surely preferable to what has rightly been described as a double sanction.

I too share your frustration, Latecomer, when front rows are allowed to get away with scrum offences because a penalty try is awarded and that is seen as punishment enough by referees.

As h's dad rightly points out

If there was no card there would be enormous temptation to illegally prevent otherwise certain tries in the knowledge that any punishment will be no more severe than what is about to be received anyway and the player/team night even get away with it.

Unfortunately in the case of front rows the double sanction seems not to be applied. That is precisely why front rows continue to infringe as they do. Yet another example of inconsistent application of the laws of Rugby by referees!

[Tiglon]

The wording of Law 10.2(a) Unfair Play - Intentionally Offending is:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

You could argue that if a penalty try has been given, then the player's actions have not "prevented a try being scored". In fact, it would be true to say that the player's actions have actually caused a try to be scored, which is quite the opposite. Therefore, according to the law, no yellow card (assuming that the above quote is correct).

[Christophelp]

The wording of Law 10.2(a) Unfair Play - Intentionally Offending is:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

You could argue that if a penalty try has been given, then the player's actions have not "prevented a try being scored". In fact, it would be true to say that the player's actions have actually caused a try to be scored, which is quite the opposite. Therefore, according to the law, no yellow card (assuming that the above quote is correct).

You could argue that but you'd be wrong!
The difference is subtle but significant, between a try being 'scored' and a penalty try 'awarded'.
And with the removal of the requirement to kick a conversion for a penalty try, the two are also different in terms of points scored/awarded and also the time taken to restart the game.

[Stephen18]

My only issue with this topic is if the shoe was on the other foot, we would have been calling for a card, and with only the penalty try in a clear try score chance the only addition punishment is the 2 point which worst case is 50/50 they get it so there has to be further punishment to stop it happening every time there's a 2 on 1.

[L Smith]

My only issue with this topic is if the shoe was on the other foot, we would have been calling for a card, and with only the penalty try in a clear try score chance the only addition punishment is the 2 point which worst case is 50/50 they get it so there has to be further punishment to stop it happening every time there's a 2 on 1.

Agreed: all you can ask for is consistency

[LE18]

Just a fun question, if the PT does not need to be converted, why did the announcer say "PT converted by Steenson" and does this phantom kick count into his Statistics, if anyone takes any notice of statistics?

[Tiglon]

The wording of Law 10.2(a) Unfair Play - Intentionally Offending is:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

You could argue that if a penalty try has been given, then the player's actions have not "prevented a try being scored". In fact, it would be true to say that the player's actions have actually caused a try to be scored, which is quite the opposite. Therefore, according to the law, no yellow card (assuming that the above quote is correct).

You could argue that but you'd be wrong!
The difference is subtle but significant, between a try being 'scored' and a penalty try 'awarded'.
And with the removal of the requirement to kick a conversion for a penalty try, the two are also different in terms of points scored/awarded and also the time taken to restart the game.

Law 22.4 Other ways to score a try
(h) Penalty try

Therefore, a penalty try is still a try "scored".

[Christophelp]

You could argue that if a penalty try has been given, then the player's actions have not "prevented a try being scored". In fact, it would be true to say that the player's actions have actually caused a try to be scored, which is quite the opposite. Therefore, according to the law, no yellow card (assuming that the above quote is correct).

You could argue that but you'd be wrong!
The difference is subtle but significant, between a try being 'scored' and a penalty try 'awarded'.
And with the removal of the requirement to kick a conversion for a penalty try, the two are also different in terms of points scored/awarded and also the time taken to restart the game.

Law 22.4 Other ways to score a try
(h) Penalty try

Therefore, a penalty try is still a try "scored".

Good "try" - but why omit the rest of Law 22.4(h)?:

"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.

Noted that Law 22.4 talks generally about "Other ways to score a try"; whilst 22.4(h) specifically talks about the awarding of a penalty try and distinguishes between that and the scoring of a try.

[Tiglon]

You could argue that but you'd be wrong!
The difference is subtle but significant, between a try being 'scored' and a penalty try 'awarded'.
And with the removal of the requirement to kick a conversion for a penalty try, the two are also different in terms of points scored/awarded and also the time taken to restart the game.

Law 22.4 Other ways to score a try
(h) Penalty try

Therefore, a penalty try is still a try "scored".

Good "try" - but why omit the rest of Law 22.4(h)?:

"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.

Noted that Law 22.4 talks generally about "Other ways to score a try"; whilst 22.4(h) specifically talks about the awarding of a penalty try and distinguishes between that and the scoring of a try.

The same reason I omitted all the other sections of the same law - the part I quoted was sufficient, as it clearly states that a penalty try is a way to score a try. It is your inference of the law, rather than the law itself, which creates a distinction.

The flaw in my overall argument is that the penalty try that is scored is a different try to the one that would have been scored but was prevented by the foul play - not that a penalty try does not fulfil the definition of scoring a try. One try has been prevented, and an entirely different one has been scored, therefore a yellow card is demanded by the law. Furthermore, you could argue that the player who committed the act of foul play did not cause the penalty try to be scored, as the referee's decision to award the score interupts the chain of causation.

Personally, regardless of the semantics of the law which we could debate forever, I'm happy for a penalty try and yellow card to be given.

[Scott11]

Penalty try, yellow,let's move on. Good job it didn't cost us the game jeez!

[ourla]

I have to say I've seen quite a few occasions (scrums, driving maul) where there have been repeated infringements and a try is almost inevitable and someone commits another infringement and I am left scratching my head. Conceding a try out wide is one thing but giving the two and having yourself off the field for 10 seems dumb to me. Give up the 5, make the conversion as hard as possible and put it behind you.

Mind you, it's easy in the stands!!

[Roly]

I have to say I've seen quite a few occasions (scrums, driving maul) where there have been repeated infringements and a try is almost inevitable and someone commits another infringement and I am left scratching my head. Conceding a try out wide is one thing but giving the two and having yourself off the field for 10 seems dumb to me. Give up the 5, make the conversion as hard as possible and put it behind you.

Mind you, it's easy in the stands!!

Not on the Crumbie, which smell so strongly of ammonia, that rational thought isn't possible.