Law discussion - penalty, try and count

The last minute of the thrilling match between Free State and Western Province produced a penalty try which gave the Free State a two-point victory. Inenvitably it was controversial. There was also much talk about the penalty count.

Inevitably there were the complaints that “the ref cost us the game”, as if “we” made no mistakes which led to our defeat and “they” did nothing meritorious which led to their victory!

1. The penalty try.

It is always much better if the players decide who wins and who loses a match – rather than have the match’s outcome decided by a referee’s decision. In a sense this one was decided by a referee’s decision.

Does that make it bad? Not at all. A referee’s job is to make decisions.

There is only one reason to award a penalty try – if foul play stopped a try which would probably have been scored. That’s all – not what went before, not repeated infringements – just the use of foul tactics to prevent a try which would probably have been scored otherwise.

Probably. Not certainly.

Law 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY

(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a
caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent off.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
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.

In this incident, Free State have a line-out, five metres from the Western Province line. That makes a try distinctly possible but by no means probable.

Adriaan Strauss throws in. The throw-in is straight. Possibility is still on. Nico Breedt catches the ball. Possibility persists. Free State form a maul;. There is no reason to stop Free State’s effort to score a try. But it is not yet probable.

Then Free State start rumbling the cohesive maul towards the Western Province line. Now the try becomes increasingly likely. Extra backs join in with the ball at the back in the possession of Richardt Strauss (No.16) and there is no hiatus in the march towards the line. Probability increases.

You will see Nico Breedt (No.4) rise up and protest. The replay from the other angle is not all that clear but what happened there was that Breedt had his leg lifted, as the assistant referee reported to the referee. It is illegal to try to destabilise a maul by lifting the leg or legs of a player in the maul as it could cause the maul to collapse.

Law 17.2 (e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

But the Free State maul moves on, perhaps with not quite the same impetus.

The ball is still in the field of play when Peter Grant of Western Province comes in at the side – an offence – and goes to ground, trying to grab a leg in an attempt to bring the maul down.

At this stage the cohesive Free State maul fragments because on the touch-line side a Western Province player, Anton van Zyl, pulls Breedt down and two other Free Staters go down with him. Again this act is illegal.

In a bundle Richardt Strauss goes over the line with the ball and there is a battle to ground the ball. Grant then dives onto the player on the ground to stop him grounding the ball.

Law 14.2 (b) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(c) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

This law applies anywhere on the field, including in in-goal.

It would seem that there were certainly illegalities which gave reason to believe that they prevented the probable scoring of a try, thus leading to the award of a penalty try. The way Free State had the maul organised and the way they were driving it forward a try certainly seemed probable.

Why was it not awarded immediately? If Free State had got the ball down, that is where the referee would have awarded it. It is only if the try would have been scored in a better position that the penalty try is applicable.

Law 22.4 (h) Penalty try. 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.

Foul play is more than just punching and kicking.

Law 10. DEFINITIONS
Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.

We have deliberately not mentioned other incidents in the five minutes before the penalty try as a penalty try is not an accumulative effect, not for repeated infringements. In that period of five minutes Western Province were penalised three times – for holding on in a tackle, for collapsing a maul and for killing the ball at a tackle, all when Free State were attacking.

2. Penalty count

Rugby football awards sanctions of three kinds – scrums, free kicks and penalty kicks for infringements. The referee applies the appropriate sanction in a response to an infringement. (Only rarely is a scrum awarded without an infringement, e.g. when the referee gets in the way of play or when he stops play in the case of danger.)

Application of a sanction depends on what a player does. The referee reacts to what a player does. If nobody knocked on, there would be no scrums for knock-ons.

It stands to reason then that sanctions are not rewards dished out on a “one for you and one for you” basis.

In the match in Bloemfontein the penalty count was heavily in Free State’s favour – 14-1 in fact. That is unusual but not in itself a cause for suspicion. Nor do such statistics tell the full story as they do not include penalisable offences which were not penalsied because of advantage played.

One could go through the penalties and say that one was wrong and one was doubtful.

The wrong one was on 69 minutes. Dewaldt Duvenhage the Western Province scrumhalf tackles Adriaan Strauss, the free Sate hooker. Duvenhage just manages to hold onto Strauss’s right ankle. Both Strauss and Duvenhage go to ground with Duvenhage holding Strauss’s ankle. That is enough for a tackle in terms of the law. And in terms of the law Duvenhage is a tackler. He then is exempt from the requirement to play only from the Western Province side of Strauss.  Duvenhage must get to his feet to play the ball, which he does. He must play from that side before a ruck is formed, which he does.

What Duvenhage did was legal. He should not have been penalised.

The doubtful penalty was possibly the first of the match when Joe Pietersen bent to get the ball while Hennie Daniller was on the ground. It did look like a nitpick to penalise Pietersen while Daniller seemed to be preventing playing the ball.

That would mean one wrong and one dubious out of 15 penalties and four free kicks. There have probably been greater percentages of error!

Of the 15 penalties in the match 13 were at the tackle. It may just have been that this strictness at the tackle contributed to such an open, running match, possibly the best match of the 2009 Currie Cup so far.

Paul Dobson