Quantcast

LV= CUP HOPES DASHED: Harlequins 21 -23 Bath


Tom Casson

By Alanquin
February 2 2015

A missed penalty kick from Nick Evans and a yellow card for Mark Lambert, unduly harsh or incorrect, reducing Quins to fourteen men for the last ten minutes of the game, together were the factors that allowed Bath to snatch a victory by 21 -23 and effectively terminate Quins interest in the later stages of the LV= Cup.

While both sides started at pace, an early penalty followed by a fourth minute try from Banahan left Bath, bolstered by the superiority of their forwards at scrum time, with a lead of ten points to nil. But gradually Harlequins pulled their game together. The scrum began to hold its own ball without default and the lineout was solid. A fine try from Tom Williams converted from the touchline by Evans and a penalty successfully kicked brought the scores level, while a try in the opposite corner from Charlie Walker gave Quins a lead of 15 – 10 at the interval.

Two penalties duly slotted by Evans opened the lead still further, although Bath too reduced the deficit with a successful penalty. Then with the3 game in the last quarter an uncharacteristic missed kick from Evans at a penalty lost the opportunity to widen the lead. Bath’s forwards gathered themselves and again exerted their superiority at scrum time. With the benefit of a scrum ten metres in front of the posts they gained two penalties before the referee awarded an inevitable penalty try.

A yellow card, too, was shown to Lambert who had not done anything visible to break the laws of the game except to be pushed back by the opposing pack. Ten minutes remained and reduced to fourteen men, Quins were forced to defend their one point advantage. Inevitably they conceded a penalty and the game was lost.

So Harlequins are left with only the Premiership to concentrate upon, with the twin goals of a top four position and Champions Cup qualification in the top six.

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

LV= CUP HOPES DASHED: Harlequins 21 -23 Bath
Discussion started by ComeAllWithin.co.uk , 02/02/2015 00:56
ComeAllWithin.co.uk
02/02/2015 00:56
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

poorfour
02/02/2015 12:50
Technically, a penalty try should almost always be accompanied by a yellow. The implication of the try decision is that someone has been cheating to prevent a likely try, and the referee is invited by the laws to consider a card.

Lambert's yellow was not at all unreasonable given the laws. It's other refs who don't apply them as written.

That final penalty for a deliberate knock-on, though, looked really harsh to me. It looked to me as if the Bath scrum half deliberately threw the ball to hit the Quins player

Jammy Git
02/02/2015 13:26
Yellows are about either repeat offences or cynical play. Lambert wasn't cynical, he was just being stuffed in the scrum and trying his hardest to compete. Maybe you could claim it was for repeat offences but there weren't that many scrums tbh

O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

poorfour
02/02/2015 14:03
Quote:
IRB Law 10
10.2 (a) ... 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 deciding to award a penalty try, the referee had by definition concluded that Quins (and Lambert in particular) had committed an offence that prevented a probable try. That's what a penalty try means. Given that, technically, he had no option but to send Lambert off. The fact that most refs seem to ignore that last bit doesn't make Saturday's decision incorrect.

It doesn't have to be a repeat offence; a yellow card can be awarded for a repeat offence, but that's a separate issue in the Laws. Repeat offending isn't required for the ref to be justified in awarding a penalty try; one offence in a probably scoring situation is enough.

It also doesn't have to be "cynical" (a word that isn't used anywhere in the Laws, as far as I know). The only requirements are that the action has to be a) illegal and b) prevented a try.

thomh
02/02/2015 14:13
"Foul play" is a defined term.

"Foul play is anything a player 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."

Since it must be against the letter and spirit of the Laws, I would interpret that as saying that there must be a degree of intent.

Jammy Git
02/02/2015 14:40
poorfour: There's a huge difference between the laws as written and the current interpretation of the laws. Hence refs these days pointing to a player, saying "Cynical!" and binning them! smiling smiley

O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

oakhaven
02/02/2015 15:06
Quote:
poorfour
Quote:
IRB Law 10
10.2 (a) ... 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 deciding to award a penalty try, the referee had by definition concluded that Quins (and Lambert in particular) had committed an offence that prevented a probable try. That's what a penalty try means. Given that, technically, he had no option but to send Lambert off. The fact that most refs seem to ignore that last bit doesn't make Saturday's decision incorrect.

I don't see how it follows that he technically had no option but to send Lambert off. Foul play generally implies intent, and getting mullered at the scrum doesn't mean that the offence was intentional. In fact, I would argue that it's very rare for technical offences at the scrum (with Neil Back-sized exceptions) to be intentional, given the stresses involved and the fact that, if you're under pressure at scrum time, you're generally more likely to commit a technical offence.

Angostura
02/02/2015 15:30
Over reflink you could hear that Lambert being told off for going to ground on more than 1 occasion, so I wasn't remotely surprised at the penalty try and the yellow.

I too thought that the deliberate knock on was a more controversial decision. I agree it was a knock on, but deliberate is a hard one to judge.

RESPECT THE REF - NO REF, NO GAME!

oakhaven
02/02/2015 15:38
More than happy for it to have been a penalty try - a yellow just seems a bit counter-intuitive in my opinion.

Never In Doubt
02/02/2015 16:16
I started this debate on our (Bath) site as I think the debate has only emerged because of Sanderson's rant about the referee which in my mind was unacceptable.

If a ref thinks the try has been prevented intentionally (foul play) he has to card the player according to the laws, if he thinks it is a repeat infringement then he warns the team and then if it re-occurs he has to card the player again according to the laws.

My only gripe, if had been against Bath, would have been that I did not hear a team warning. Its hard to judge but I think he should either have warned Quins earlier or reset the scrum one more time and warned Quins then. It is hard to tell what might have happened if he had done this.

On the last penalty decision, I think he gave it for offside against the player picking up the ball after the knock on. It was a tough call but if he judged to be a knock on then it is a penalty.

I thought the overall rugby was a credit to the competition with both teams putting out development squads.

I think in tight games, fans are always going to bemoan a decision or two ... had we lost then there was definitely a question about the lack of knock for the Quins second try.

raedarius
02/02/2015 17:19
Quote:
Never In Doubt
I started this debate on our (Bath) site as I think the debate has only emerged because of Sanderson's rant about the referee which in my mind was unacceptable.
If a ref thinks the try has been prevented intentionally (foul play) he has to card the player according to the laws, if he thinks it is a repeat infringement then he warns the team and then if it re-occurs he has to card the player again according to the laws.

My only gripe, if had been against Bath, would have been that I did not hear a team warning. Its hard to judge but I think he should either have warned Quins earlier or reset the scrum one more time and warned Quins then. It is hard to tell what might have happened if he had done this.

On the last penalty decision, I think he gave it for offside against the player picking up the ball after the knock on. It was a tough call but if he judged to be a knock on then it is a penalty.

I thought the overall rugby was a credit to the competition with both teams putting out development squads.

I think in tight games, fans are always going to bemoan a decision or two ... had we lost then there was definitely a question about the lack of knock for the Quins second try.

You're right about the ref's reason for the penalty but I struggle with the idea that Sloan knocked on when he tackled the Bath player from behind, creating momentum towards our try line rather than away.

Unfortunately, Chisholm blocks the previous two frames from the tv footage, but this frame does not suggest a knock on by Sloan:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q61/raedarius23/20150202_1643060_zpsf9h8bqpl.jpg

johnlid
02/02/2015 17:56
Quote:
poorfour
Quote:
IRB Law 10
10.2 (a) ... 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 deciding to award a penalty try, the referee had by definition concluded that Quins (and Lambert in particular) had committed an offence that prevented a probable try. That's what a penalty try means. Given that, technically, he had no option but to send Lambert off. The fact that most refs seem to ignore that last bit doesn't make Saturday's decision incorrect.

It doesn't have to be a repeat offence; a yellow card can be awarded for a repeat offence, but that's a separate issue in the Laws. Repeat offending isn't required for the ref to be justified in awarding a penalty try; one offence in a probably scoring situation is enough.

It also doesn't have to be "cynical" (a word that isn't used anywhere in the Laws, as far as I know). The only requirements are that the action has to be a) illegal and b) prevented a try.

Halleluja. Someone commenting on a ref's decision and actually quoting the relevant law.

Never In Doubt
02/02/2015 18:52
Quote:
johnlid
Quote:
poorfour
Quote:
IRB Law 10
10.2 (a) ... 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 deciding to award a penalty try, the referee had by definition concluded that Quins (and Lambert in particular) had committed an offence that prevented a probable try. That's what a penalty try means. Given that, technically, he had no option but to send Lambert off. The fact that most refs seem to ignore that last bit doesn't make Saturday's decision incorrect.

It doesn't have to be a repeat offence; a yellow card can be awarded for a repeat offence, but that's a separate issue in the Laws. Repeat offending isn't required for the ref to be justified in awarding a penalty try; one offence in a probably scoring situation is enough.

It also doesn't have to be "cynical" (a word that isn't used anywhere in the Laws, as far as I know). The only requirements are that the action has to be a) illegal and b) prevented a try.

Halleluja. Someone commenting on a ref's decision and actually quoting the relevant law.

Illegal, intentional and prevents a try.

DOK.
02/02/2015 19:35
I appreciate a good starting point is the relevant law, but aren't there some kind of ref's bulletins/updates which supersede/override the law as written?

Jammy Git
02/02/2015 19:56
How on earth do you prove it was intentional? Lambert got turned in - he didn't just drop to the floor. That's a case of being outscrummaged and his body not being able to cope with the forces on him. He didn't bail out of the contest.

DOK: Yes, there's a million guidelines, memos, and general suggestions to refs. The game is not reffed to the letter of the law - not even close. A cursory glance at the ruck laws proves that.

The knock-on call at the end was a disastrous lack of critical thinking. It neither looked like a knock-on and nor would Sloan's actions have been able to cause one, seeing as all his momentum was heading towards his own tryline.

O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

poorfour
02/02/2015 21:39
The point about Lambert's yellow is that in deciding to award the penalty try, the ref has already decided that foul play has been committed. End of. You can't award a penalty try for being a bit@#$%&in the scrum; if there was no offence, the ref just has to let play continue.

You can argue the toss about whether Lambert was collapsing the scrum or not, but once a penalty try has been awarded, 10.2(a) is unambiguous: a card should be issued. The fact that some refs don't is because they aren't applying the laws properly.

QuickerQuin
03/02/2015 05:43
Quote:
Angostura
Over reflink you could hear

I didn't realise that RefLink was working!

How did you manage to pick it up, may I ask?

rdc
03/02/2015 11:23
Having rewatched it, I wondered why he didn't just let them have the advantage they had one and score the inevitable try.

I can't see a knock on from Sloane, and totally don't get this critical call. I don't claim to be an expert, but what is offside at a knock on, and if it wasn't a knock on just a tackle, how would this change the call?

Stooperman
03/02/2015 11:34
Quote:
rdc
Having rewatched it, I wondered why he didn't just let them have the advantage they had one and score the inevitable try.
I can't see a knock on from Sloane, and totally don't get this critical call. I don't claim to be an expert, but what is offside at a knock on, and if it wasn't a knock on just a tackle, how would this change the call?

John Kingston was quite unequivocal in saying that it was not a penalty because Harlequins were never in possession of the ball.

rdc
03/02/2015 12:10
Yeah I heard him... Makes you wonder (and little bit cross)

Bedfordshire Boy
03/02/2015 12:30
Quote:
rdc
Yeah I heard him... Makes you wonder (and little bit cross)

... a lot cross.

Angostura
03/02/2015 17:22
Quote:
Duncan Beaumont
Quote:
Angostura
Over reflink you could hear

I didn't realise that RefLink was working!

How did you manage to pick it up, may I ask?

Sport radio. FM2, around frequency 60 I think. Been working again for a while now.

RESPECT THE REF - NO REF, NO GAME!

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net