Penalty Tries

The wales game yesterday brought on a query of mine about penalty tries. It seems recently that referees seem to now have the mentality that at a set piece or set play like a maul or scrum the referees are now waiting for an offence to be committed 3 times before a penalty try is awarded. For scrums I can understand this unless the scrum is literally about to go over the line. But yesterday wales maul was dominating the fijians and had one penalty try awarded due to it being collapsed 3 times, however another time wales were surging over the line and a Fijian player came in at the side to tackle lydiate who was about go over for a try, yet the referee only awarded a penalty.

I am just querying it as over the summer, SA had a penalty try awarded due to the illegal tackle of liam Williams (don't debate this, separate issue) and the referee reason for the penalty was taking the player who made the offence out of the equation, surely then this is the definitive definition for awarding a penalty try outside of a set play?

here is a link with the incident, its about 2 minutes 30 in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30067566
Cheers for any info/views you can give me?

welshy824 (new) wrote:The wales game yesterday brought on a query of mine about penalty tries. It seems recently that referees seem to now have the mentality that at a set piece or set play like a maul or scrum the referees are now waiting for an offence to be committed 3 times before a penalty try is awarded. For scrums I can understand this unless the scrum is literally about to go over the line. But yesterday wales maul was dominating the fijians and had one penalty try awarded due to it being collapsed 3 times, however another time wales were surging over the line and a Fijian player came in at the side to tackle lydiate who was about go over for a try, yet the referee only awarded a penalty.

I am just querying it as over the summer, SA had a penalty try awarded due to the illegal tackle of liam Williams (don't debate this, separate issue) and the referee reason for the penalty was taking the player who made the offence out of the equation, surely then this is the definitive definition for awarding a penalty try outside of a set play?

Cheers for any info/views you can give me?

Bit of a grey area where that is concerned . A maul try is already congested enough as theres more than enough bodies on the ground so you cant actually guarantee a try is scored . Usually it is but theres also a fair chance to be held up , hence removing the tackler from the equation doesn't necessarily remove all doubt since half of his team were within a metre of the "try-Scorer"

yes, I understand it is a grey area (although aren't most areas in rugby nowadays!!!) But in this incident, Lydiate was at the back of the maul, and was about to go over the line, a Fijian player then blatantly went in at the side and tackled lydiate and held him up, it is frustrating as all us as rugby fans would like is consistent reffing -.-

Yes, totally agree Lydiates rolling maul should have been a penalty try - would he probably have scored if the offence had not been committed ? YES. Just like in liam Williams v south africa, and he got yellow too I seem to remember.

So it should've been a penalty try - and a yellow card. There's real inconsistency between refs in this area. I thought yesterdays Wales ref looked ponderous and uncertain.

Yep agreed, Barnes chose to give a PT to the Argies last weekend against Scotland after one collapsed scrum. It's random, like a lot of stuff ref's do.

Its not random at all. Scotland infringed as the scrum was being driven over. Without the infringement the ref believes a try would have been scored thus penalty try. Scrums where you have control at the back a try is more likely than a maul where you can be held up

TJ I don't disagree with you regarding that try , however I've seen refs choose not to give similar ones frequently. Back to the old consistency thing I guess?

A penalty try should only be awarded if a try would probably have been scored - this could be the first occasion or the 99th. Repeat offences is a completely wrong reason to award one.

For repeat offences refs have the YC - however I do wish they would start to use these earlier. You hear " that is the 3rd time your team have deliberatley collapsed the maul. Once more and I may have to use a card". Love sacks the first time was deliberate, cynical cheating. Give the YC - if you have to give 3 do so. Teams will stop it if they are losing because of it.


Rant over