Super Rugby Semi-Final: Waratahs vs Highlanders

[smartcooky]

My understanding is a penalty try is not a punishment for foul play, that's why they give the yellow

Exactly. That is why it is written into the Law that way

[TEXTAREA]LAW 22.17 (b) Foul play by the defending team. The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.
The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.
A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts. The defending team may charge the conversion kick after a penalty try.
A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/TEXTAREA]

Have a listen to the video here from about 6:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HrCkVINik8

This the Penalty try awarded against Ireland in 2008. Referee Mark Lawrence gives the best description of this PT v YC distinction I have heard in a match. Ignore the d¡ckhead Irish commentator rabbiting on about the foul play not being in-goal. He doesn't know the Law. The in-goal TMO restriction only ever applied to grounding, not to touch or foul play (think Mark Cueto in the RWC final 2007)

 

[austingtir]

NFL are currently facing a crisis, a MASSIVE lawsuit is in the offing, and I mean MASSIVE. We are talking billions of dollars. But the NFL is worth multi-billions and they could probably afford it. Our game cannot, and burying your head in the sand and pretending that everything will be just honky dory will not cut the mustard when the showdown comes, and come it will!

Rugby Union has to not only do everything it can, but it has to be SEEN to be doing everything it can, to minimise the risk of concussion. If that means turning rugby from a collision sport back into a contact sport then that is what they will have to do. It smacks of un-ringing the bell, and I am not even sure that it will be possible.

To even begin to compare anything here to USA is just ridiculous that country has lost all sense of normality and is going to go down the gurgler real fast! (The only issue for us is we rely on them to much, and follow their retarded example).

Its pretty simple stuff the players agree to play the game they get payed accordingly and take the risks associated with it just like racing car drivers, boxers, or many other contact sports etc etc. Now im not saying not to wear headgear here but how many players still dont wear headgear? ITS THEIR OWN OPTION TO WEAR HEADGEAR!!!!

The players these days get payed plenty enough to make their own decisions and to take their own safety into account they have their own doctors and advisors to clue them up on all of these things!

THIS MELYCODDLING BULL**** HAS TO STOP!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, we need to get over the "he'll be right" attitude we have, especially in NZ. I get where you're coming from austin, but be reasonable, regular concussions have a lot of effect on the human brain, look at boxers. McCaw I think has had 8+. Their later life will be effected.

Yet how often do you see Mccaw wear headgear!? He's not an idiot and im sure gets quality medical advice ffs....

 

[smartcooky]

Now im not saying not to wear headgear here but how many players still dont wear headgear? ITS THEIR OWN OPTION TO WEAR HEADGEAR!!!!!

Rugby headgear offers protection from cuts and scratches, but ZERO protection from concussion. In fact, headgear can make things worse, a lot worse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...cussion-problem-not-solve-it-says-doctor.html

Its the reason why Amatuer Boxers no longer wear headgear

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-boxing-wu-idUSKCN0IW0N620141112

 

[Kiwi_]

Yet how often do you see Mccaw wear headgear!? He's not an idiot and im sure gets quality medical advice ffs....

It's the "he'll be right" attitude a lot of players have. No he's not an idiot and I'm sure the doctors have told him, but he probably can't stand wearing head gear. But there's nothing wrong in taking measures to limit the hits in the head. Keeping the sport safer and risk free of serious injury is common sense. Professional Rugby is still young and the hits are a lot harder and bigger than they were 15-20 years ago because the players are. So the real fallout of a lot of these injuries is still yet to be seen, but there's real cause for concern for players later in life. They're already at risk from the games natural concussions, let alone illegal ones.

 

[austingtir]

It's the "he'll be right" attitude a lot of players have. No he's not an idiot and I'm sure the doctors have told him, but he probably can't stand wearing head gear. But there's nothing wrong in taking measures to limit the hits in the head. Keeping the sport safer and risk free of serious injury is common sense. Professional Rugby is still young and the hits are a lot harder and bigger than they were 15-20 years ago because the players are. So the real fallout of a lot of these injuries is still yet to be seen, but there's real cause for concern for players later in life. They're already at risk from the games natural concussions, let alone illegal ones.

Look at that BMX chic on the TV tonight ex world champ or whatever full helmet all the gears on broke 6 bones and got knocked the F out majorly took months to recover from the head knock with a full motorcross style helmet on!!! Just because your wearing safty gear doesnt mean its going to save all injuries.
You dont see all the old players complaining bitterly over how the sports treated them when their hobbling down the street with busted up knees and brain damage! And they didnt even get payd jack!!

Im sorry but I loathe this type of attitude thats becoming pervasive across all society not just about this topic! I really couldnt care less about all the he said she said bullcrap the games been played for 100+ years now man!

I talked to a player the other day and he mentioned the physicality now, most people just dont understand how brutal and physical it is. And it increases year on year but still we've got hundreds of thousands of people willing to do it. Funny that huh?

- - - Updated - - -

Rugby headgear offers protection from cuts and scratches, but ZERO protection from concussion. In fact, headgear can make things worse, a lot worse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...cussion-problem-not-solve-it-says-doctor.html

Its the reason why Amatuer Boxers no longer wear headgear

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-boxing-wu-idUSKCN0IW0N620141112

RUBBISH!!! if you had bothered to read the article it clearly states that he thinks the players are more likely to put their head in bad position not so much that the head gear offers no actual protection!.... Well hello David Pocock is the prime example he does that in every game BECAUSE HE HAS TO! And I suspect he's more likely to receive a knee to the temple than many! Of course its not going to do jack in a major whiplash head high tackle (or knee hit) but those are illegal arent they? And im not sure I totally buy his BS about the NFL in some instances it might be safer without their "weaponised helmet" **** whatever that means but common those guys are doing cannon balls at each others head and ****...... Id sure as **** be wearing one and id challenge that friggin doctor to go out on the field without one!

Your kidding yourself if you think that headgear wont atleast help a tad to protect areas like the temple which is obviously a really nasty area to get hit and seems to be very common with head collisions.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Exactly. That is why it is written into the Law that way

[TEXTAREA]LAW 22.17 (b) Foul play by the defending team. The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.
The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.
A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts. The defending team may charge the conversion kick after a penalty try.
A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/TEXTAREA]

Have a listen to the video here from about 6:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HrCkVINik8

This the Penalty try awarded against Ireland in 2008. Referee Mark Lawrence gives the best description of this PT v YC distinction I have heard in a match. Ignore the d¡ckhead Irish commentator rabbiting on about the foul play not being in-goal. He doesn't know the Law. The in-goal TMO restriction only ever applied to grounding, not to touch or foul play (think Mark Cueto in the RWC final 2007)

You seem to think I don't understand, i do, I just don't think the foul play stopped the try...so he should be punished as if the foul play had happened anywhere else on the pitch, bin him and give a penalty

 

[Regan]

You seem to think I don't understand, i do, I just don't think the foul play stopped the try...so he should be punished as if the foul play had happened anywhere else on the pitch, bin him and give a penalty

You try planting a ball after copping one to the face.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You try planting the ball with someone holding your arm back.

I also don't think it was probable that a try would have been scored.

 

[Kiwi_]

But he was going forward and Jacques influence clearly stopped some momentum forward and it was likely he was going to score had Jacques not interfered.

The point is he illegally infringed on a probable try, so it's a fair decision.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I disagree.

Momentum had almost entirely halted and his arm was held in such a way as to prevent him reaching for the line without fumbling.

A try was possible, not probable IMO.

 

[Kiwi_]

I disagree.

Momentum had almost entirely halted and his arm was held in such a way as to prevent him reaching for the line without fumbling.

A try was possible, not probable IMO.

Illegal infringement on a try scoring opportunity is a penalty try. Either way he illegally infringed on him going towards the line, it's the correct decision.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Only if it's probable, surely? Otherwise it's not a try scoring opportunity - which is what we're disagreeing about.

 

[chippieolamus]

Illegal infringement on a try scoring opportunity is a penalty try. Either way he illegally infringed on him going towards the line, it's the correct decision.

Wrong. The law states 'The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored'. Not just any opportunity (just playing devil's advocate, I agree with the decision).

 

[Kiwi_]

It's certainly a probable try scoring opportunity. He had momentum forward and was very close to the line and Jacques has stopped some momentum forward with an illegal infringement after a number of penalties prior to this infringement.

It's a yellow card and penalty try. Really struggling to see any other view here and surprised at other peoples view of it.



0:53

You can clearly see Jacques stopped some forward momentum and it's probable Osbourne would have scored. Jacques whole presence is illegal, Osbourne more than likely would have scored if he was not there.

 

[smartcooky]

Your kidding yourself if you think that headgear wont atleast help a tad to protect areas like the temple which is obviously a really nasty area to get hit and seems to be very common with head collisions.

You quite obviously have no idea what actually causes concussion. Its caused by your brain slamming against the inside of your skull. A rugby skull cap WILL NOT protect you from this. It really wont!

 

[ZeroTwo]

You quite obviously have no idea what actually causes concussion. Its caused by your brain slamming against the inside of your skull. A rugby skull cap WILL NOT protect you from this. It really wont!

Just coming in to say not quite. An MBTI CAN be caused by neurocranial impact or by mere jarring and shock to the brain itself. But none the less skull caps don't do much. They reduce the shock by creating an "impact layer" per se but really if a knee is going in, it'd be like having tissue paper on the front of your car.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You can clearly see Jacques stopped some forward momentum and it's probable Osbourne would have scored. Jacques whole presence is illegal, Osbourne more than likely would have scored if he was not there.

I disagree - we're at an impasse.

You quite obviously have no idea what actually causes concussion. Its caused by your brain slamming against the inside of your skull. A rugby skull cap WILL NOT protect you from this. It really wont!

I still don't understand why we have this situation - you still see journalists suggest things like "may we see enforced scrum cap use in 10 years time" whilst they chide people for their apparent ignorance/denial of concussion.
It's remarkable.

 

[Kiwi_]

I disagree - we're at an impasse.

Joubert was convinced after much deliberation and viewing, as the was the TMO.

Other view: It's a definite yellow card and a penalty, we take the 3 points and likely go on the win anyway.

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree.

Momentum had almost entirely halted and his arm was held in such a way as to prevent him reaching for the line without fumbling.

A try was possible, not probable IMO.

Part of the halting of Osborne's forward momentum was killed by Potgeiter's swinging arm. The protocol for assessing Foul Play for a Penalty Try, is that you remove the infringing player from the scene i.e. you assess what would have happened if the infringing player had not been there at all. Osborne was literally millimetres short. Remove Potgeiter from the scene completely and I have absolutely no doubt Osborne would score.

This video is of the Liam Williams shoulder charge that led to a penalty try against Wales. Listen to referee Steve Walsh as he talks through the protocol with the Welsh captain.

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

Now, you may not agree with the protocol, that's fine. But referees are expected to apply it, and when it is applied to this situation (Potgeiter/Osborne), a try is not only probable, is a near gold-plated certainty.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I understand - I simply disagree.

As I say... an impasse.