2 Comments

1. 

   Andy

    /  19 November, 2007

   Did you mean this one

   Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.
   The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading ‘Intentionally
   Offending’.
   Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be
   either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.
   Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
   · a collapsed scrum
   · a collapsed maul
   · a defending player intentionally offside
   · a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.
   If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable
   to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

   If so can be found here

   Click to access LawRulings2004.pdf

   Reply
2. 

   Martyn Holloway (Deeps)

    /  24 November, 2007

   Ref,

   I remember the uproar this caused by apparently removing the discretion of the referee in dealing with offences leading to a PT. I also remember (but cannot quote) an interpretation from an international referee (?) stating that the original purpose was to discourage referees from thinking that a PT or a YC were sufficient sanctions by themselves and to provide reassurance that both could and should normally be appropriate.

   It was further explained that an offence that met the criteria for the award of a PT which, if it had occurred elsewhere in the field of play but not so as to justify a PT but would have been sanctioned by a YC sanction, should be treated the same after the award of the PT.

   If you would have awarded a YC for that offence anywhere else then do so again after you have awarded the PT.

   Reply