Sam Harrison's yellow card v Harlequins

[Masood]

PT means Penalty Try

Cheers.

[Johnnyg]

There is a lot of misunderstanding around penalty tries. Law 10.2 (a) The test is not whether a try was sure to be scored, or certain, both of which imply that there must be little if any doubt. The law is that a PT should be awarded if the offence prevented a probable try, so more likely than not. 51% is a great deal less than "certain" or "sure" to be scored. I think that a try was more likely than not, so I think a PT would have been a reasonable decision. But it is all subjective isn't it!

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

The maul had not collapsed when Harrison came in from the side to rip the ball out. If it had the referee would have not pinged him for it. The covering defenders were covering the ball being passed out from the maul. They were not going to prevent the drive. The ref bottled it, pure and simple.

If the defenders were covering the ball form being passed then surely they were also covering the ball from being grounded? Thus a try would not have been scored

[ourla]

The maul had not collapsed when Harrison came in from the side to rip the ball out. If it had the referee would have not pinged him for it. The covering defenders were covering the ball being passed out from the maul. They were not going to prevent the drive. The ref bottled it, pure and simple.

If the defenders were covering the ball form being passed then surely they were also covering the ball from being grounded? Thus a try would not have been scored

If you want to stop it being grounded you have to stop the rolling maul. In other words they must stop defending the pass down the back line. You can't cover both. That is the whole point of doing it.

[ourla]

There is a lot of misunderstanding around penalty tries. Law 10.2 (a) The test is not whether a try was sure to be scored, or certain, both of which imply that there must be little if any doubt. The law is that a PT should be awarded if the offence prevented a probable try, so more likely than not. 51% is a great deal less than "certain" or "sure" to be scored. I think that a try was more likely than not, so I think a PT would have been a reasonable decision. But it is all subjective isn't it!

It's the equivalent of preventing a goal scoring opportunity in football isn't it. In rugby parlance the guy might slip before he reaches the line or screw up the grounding but the more likely scenario is that he scores a try.

[Bill W (2)]

whether a try was certain be be scored. probable to be scored, or would in all probability have been scored (note subtle difference in meaning between the latter two) is irrelevant. The referee , who is the sole arbiter of fact, did not award a Penalty try. End of story, despite Mr. O'Shea's sour grapes.

[Cagey Tiger]

whether a try was certain be be scored. probable to be scored, or would in all probability have been scored (note subtle difference in meaning between the latter two) is irrelevant. The referee , who is the sole arbiter of fact, did not award a Penalty try. End of story, despite Mr. O'Shea's sour grapes.

True, but history is always being rewritten, just ask World Rugby

[Norfolk & Goode]

You can't cover both.

You certainly can when the ball is at the front. After McAffrey did an excellent job of hitting the maul subsequently splitting it, Wallace (ball carrier) then found himself at the front before tripping over his own player (16), all at 7-8 metres out. No probability of a try.

And as Bill W says, 'end of story'.

[Bill W (2)]

whether a try was certain be be scored. probable to be scored, or would in all probability have been scored (note subtle difference in meaning between the latter two) is irrelevant. The referee , who is the sole arbiter of fact, did not award a Penalty try. End of story, despite Mr. O'Shea's sour grapes.

True, but history is always being rewritten, just ask World Rugby

I/ve checked the records. Despite WR stupid pronouncement the score and match result stands!

[loretta]

Just got round to watching the highlights, and couldn't help but notice that, at the moment that Sam went in at the side, there were no other Tigers players involved as the maul had splintered. Immediately afterwards, Goneva joined in at the front, but when Sam went for the ball there were only Quins, therefore shouldn't it have been no maul, no offence, no yellow card?

I know that this is old news now, but that's what we do on here isn't it?

[ourla]

Just got round to watching the highlights, and couldn't help but notice that, at the moment that Sam went in at the side, there were no other Tigers players involved as the maul had splintered. Immediately afterwards, Goneva joined in at the front, but when Sam went for the ball there were only Quins, therefore no maul, no offence, no yellow card.

Had the ref called "maul over"?

Do you think Sam had seen that no Tigers were attached to the maul?

[loretta]

Had the ref called "maul over"?

Do you think Sam had seen that no Tigers were attached to the maul?

Don't know and yes.

If you feel like it, have a look at the aviva premiership website, the highlights are 5 minutes but you can skip through to the last minute or so to see it.

http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/Team/LeicesterTigers

[ourla]

Had the ref called "maul over"?

Do you think Sam had seen that no Tigers were attached to the maul?

Don't know and yes.

If you feel like it, have a look at the aviva premiership website, the highlights are 5 minutes but you can skip through to the last minute or so to see it.

http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/Team/LeicesterTigers

Already did that last week. Harrison took one for the team IMHO.