mol2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 5:02 pm
The penalty try, to be given relies on the interpretation as to whether, had Cowan-Dickie not deliberately and illegally slapped the ball out, the Scotland winger would have certainly scored a try.
For me the ref completely overlooked one key thing. Cowan-Dickie could have caught the ball. As such there can be no certainty that a try would have been scored. Why he didn't try is bewildering. He got to it with both hands so a catch is a possibility and that wasn't considered.
But the rule states that as soon as the illegal play as happened, that player is essentially in invisible and out the game. So would the Scottish winger probably have caught the ball and scored a try if LCD wasn't there, absolutely.
The fact he got both hands to it makes it even stranger that he didn't try to catch it.
mol2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 5:02 pm
The penalty try, to be given relies on the interpretation as to whether, had Cowan-Dickie not deliberately and illegally slapped the ball out, the Scotland winger would have certainly scored a try.
For me the ref completely overlooked one key thing. Cowan-Dickie could have caught the ball. As such there can be no certainty that a try would have been scored. Why he didn't try is bewildering. He got to it with both hands so a catch is a possibility and that wasn't considered.
It's not a certain try, it's a probably try.
Law 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.
Did LCD commit foul play? Yes, deliberate knock on.
Did that foul play prevent a probable try from being scored? Yes, the deliberate knock on took the ball away from the Scottish player's hands which were in perfect position to catch it. He probably would have caught it and, after catching it, would probably have scored.
The fact that LCD could have chosen to do something different to prevent the try is irrelevant. He didn't choose to catch the ball to prevent the try, he chose to commit foul play to prevent the try.
mol2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 5:02 pm
The penalty try, to be given relies on the interpretation as to whether, had Cowan-Dickie not deliberately and illegally slapped the ball out, the Scotland winger would have certainly scored a try.
For me the ref completely overlooked one key thing. Cowan-Dickie could have caught the ball. As such there can be no certainty that a try would have been scored. Why he didn't try is bewildering. He got to it with both hands so a catch is a possibility and that wasn't considered.
But the rule states that as soon as the illegal play as happened, that player is essentially in invisible and out the game. So would the Scottish winger probably have caught the ball and scored a try if LCD wasn't there, absolutely.
The fact he got both hands to it makes it even stranger that he didn't try to catch it.
Exactly, if the last man for example were to trip a player up rather than tackle him, it would be a penalty try, it doesn't matter IF he was capable of making the tackle, as soon as he chose an illegal action he can't be considered part of the covering play.
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
I don’t profess to know the letter of the law re penalty tries, but having read the definition provided above I have two observations (driven by the bitterness/anger/disappointment/frustration of losing to the Scots)….
1) Whilst it certainly looked like a deliberate knock on and into touch, I also note that the Scottish player had his hands on LCD’s face during the act of him knocking the ball on. At the time LCD was in the air and fell quite awkwardly. If, as I believed at the time, this had been looked at as foul play on behalf of the Scottish player, then where does that leave us?
2) I’m not convinced the Scottish player would have definitely or even probably caught the ball and scored a try. I agree he possibly would have caught the ball and scored a try were it not for the infringement, but not probably. Semantics I know and completely pointless argument now the game is already lost (sob, )
RichieB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 6:45 pm
I don’t profess to know the letter of the law re penalty tries, but having read the definition provided above I have two observations (driven by the bitterness/anger/disappointment/frustration of losing to the Scots)….
1) Whilst it certainly looked like a deliberate knock on and into touch, I also note that the Scottish player had his hands on LCD’s face during the act of him knocking the ball on. At the time LCD was in the air and fell quite awkwardly. If, as I believed at the time, this had been looked at as foul play on behalf of the Scottish player, then where does that leave us?
2) I’m not convinced the Scottish player would have definitely or even probably caught the ball and scored a try. I agree he possibly would have caught the ball and scored a try were it not for the infringement, but not probably. Semantics I know and completely pointless argument now the game is already lost (sob, )
All the more reason to be very disappointed at LCD; if he tries to make that catch he's probably going to win at least a penalty, possibly even get a card for Graham Darcy, who was not in a viable position to compete for the ball, who then played the man in the air, who landed in an arguably unsafe manner.
Yeah yeah yeah, win and lose as a team but it's not the first time I've watched LCD do something very, face meltingly, stupid on a rugby field, I remember him trying to bend someone's knees backwards at a ruck not so long ago but as he was wearing an Exeter shirt that day he got away with it.
Last edited by Crofty on Mon Feb 07, 2022 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No, not that one!
Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...
I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?
Scott1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:13 pm
And while I’m at it I’m sick of this “painting the right picture” nonsense which has become the new buzz phrase and taken over “which way the hands were facing”. Painting the right picture? It’s not a Picasso! If it’s a penalty it’s a penalty! Even if you can argue the case for the rest ,the penultimate scrum before we took the ball out was a blatant one. Marching forward and the Scottish front row couldn’t handle the pressure and popped up. Its happening all the time still,talking about officiating errors that have spoiled games.Rant over,I’m back in the room
It's just another in a long line of clichés to be used when you want to praise a team for cheating without directly saying that you're praising them for being good at cheating, similar to "dark arts", "streetwise" and "canny operator"
No, not that one!
Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...
I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?
Exactly, if the last man for example were to trip a player up rather than tackle him, it would be a penalty try, it doesn't matter IF he was capable of making the tackle, as soon as he chose an illegal action he can't be considered part of the covering play.
That must be an interpretation not a law. It doesn’t seem to be in either Law 8 (means a of scoring) or the foul play Law either.
Grimlish wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:34 pm
TigersFeetSteve wrote:
Exactly, if the last man for example were to trip a player up rather than tackle him, it would be a penalty try, it doesn't matter IF he was capable of making the tackle, as soon as he chose an illegal action he can't be considered part of the covering play.
That must be an interpretation not a law. It doesn’t seem to be in either Law 8 (means a of scoring) or the foul play Law either.
Correct, it's not part of the law, but it is the way that referees have been instructed to apply the law - as I understand it. It's the same way that it would be interpreted if it was an actual law (i.e. not rugby) so it makes sense.
Grimlish wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:34 pm
TigersFeetSteve wrote:
Exactly, if the last man for example were to trip a player up rather than tackle him, it would be a penalty try, it doesn't matter IF he was capable of making the tackle, as soon as he chose an illegal action he can't be considered part of the covering play.
That must be an interpretation not a law. It doesn’t seem to be in either Law 8 (means a of scoring) or the foul play Law either.
Tripping has always been foul play and up until relatively recently was a red card, though it has probably been down graded now. Whether a technical offence, I.e deliberately volleyball the ball into touch, or foul play, if it’s a penalty offence which stops a try from probably being scored it’s a penalty try
Sure RugbyGramps but the issue in question was that since LCD was there providing cover wasn’t it impossible to say that a try would probably have been
scored (which is a necessary condition for a penalty try). It was suggested that since in the opinion of the officials LCD engaged in foul play he could no
longer be regarded as being present for the purpose of providing cover. I don’t see that in the laws as written.
Grimlish wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:51 pm
Sure RugbyGramps but the issue in question was that since LCD was there providing cover wasn’t it impossible to say that a try would probably have been
scored (which is a necessary condition for a penalty try). It was suggested that since in the opinion of the officials LCD engaged in foul play he could no
longer be regarded as being present for the purpose of providing cover. I don’t see that in the laws as written.
Once LCD volleyballed committed a penalty offence in the law of the game he’s not there, so no he wasn’t there to cover he had been penalised, not another English player in sight and I could have caught that ball
This is not personal but I really don’t get the controversy, penalty offence stops probable try 5 meters out with no covering defenders, penalty try only option, it may not be written verbatim but that is the way it is officiated.
Look at it slightly differently Scottish winger is catching the ball and just has to place it down to score when LCD snots him before he has caught it. What is the decision then
Last edited by Rugbygramps on Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Grimlish wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:51 pm
Sure RugbyGramps but the issue in question was that since LCD was there providing cover wasn’t it impossible to say that a try would probably have been
scored (which is a necessary condition for a penalty try). It was suggested that since in the opinion of the officials LCD engaged in foul play he could no
longer be regarded as being present for the purpose of providing cover. I don’t see that in the laws as written.
Once LCD volleyballed committed a penalty offence in the law of the game he’s not there, so no he wasn’t there to cover he had been penalised, not another English player in sight and I could have caught that ball
This is not personal but I really don’t get the controversy, penalty offence stops probable try 5 meters out with no covering defenders, penalty try only option
Agreed Sir got the decision spot on. As an England fan I have no compliant.
The referee interpreted the laws in the way that he has been instructed to, and the way they should be interpreted. It's exactly the same way that causation is assessed in non-rugby laws too.
The elements of a basic penalty try:
1) There was foul play
2) This foul play prevented a probable try
So, was there foul play? yes
Did that foul play prevent a probable try? yes - sure, he could have chosen to do something within the laws to prevent the try, but he didn't.
Clearly LCD can't be considered in the "was there cover?" equation because he can't be covering when he's too busy intentionally knocking the ball forwards and out of play.
)