Blues' penalty try

Hi there refs - I'd like clarification on the penalty try law.

On Saturday, the ref was playing advantage to the Blues. They had a two man overlap, and a Leinster defended stopped a cast iron try by deliberately knocking the pass forward.

The ref went back to the previous infringement, even though I - and the TV commentators - thought it had to be a penalty try and a yellow card.

Is there anything in the laws which PREVENTED the ref from awarding a penalty try? Or was it at his discretion - in which case, it was a deadful decision IMO?

If this sort of decision IS at the ref's discretion, I think the powers that be should issue clarification - IMO, that should state that refs should ALWAYS interpret the laws to give a maximum benefit to the non-offending team.

From the TV angle, & the Commentators view (TV) it was very easy to summise that the knock on was deliberate. From the Ref's angle which was partially obscured, the Referee has to be sure that the player DID NOT Attempt to catch the ball for an interception try. Had the Leinster centre been closer to either the passer / receiver, I would imagine the "Interception" possibility would not have entered his mind.

It is again down to the interpretation of the Referee. If he blows for a knock on, then knock on it is. If he blows, & asks for the Assistant Referee's thoughts, then he can act on or against the advice.

To sum up, then - you all seem to think that it SHOULD have been a penalty try.

The 'excuse' for not giving it was that the ref and assistant ref didn't get a clear view - is that right?
But there is nothing in the laws which forces the ref to go back to the earlier offence?

The reason I ask is that this sort of thing happens quite often, and as far as I can see ther is no consistency - which is why I'd like the law-makers to issue clarification.

Another example - which I assume is no different in law (???) - occurred in the Munster vs Dragons game. Munster knocked on a few yards from the line - the ball rolled over the line and a Dragons player touched down. I thought it would be a drop-out, but the ref went for a scrum to Dragons 5 yards from their line. I am pretty sure, given a choice, they would have taken a drop out! Again - is there anything IN THE LAWS to prevent a ref giving a drop out - or the choice - to the defending team?

One last example - though maybe there is (sometimes) an expalanation for this - we often see players knock on, and the ball is then played by one of their own team in front. Some refs give a scrum for a knock on, whereas others give a kick for offside. The only reason I can think of is that the ref is not always sure if the ball was DELIBERATELY played - though I am pretty certain I have seen cases where it was obviously deliberate, but the ref still gave a scrum. Any thoughts?

scarletman wrote: [QUOTE=aber-fan] Another example - which I assume is no different in law (???) - occurred in the Munster vs Dragons game. Munster knocked on a few yards from the line - the ball rolled over the line and a Dragons player touched down. I thought it would be a drop-out, but the ref went for a scrum to Dragons 5 yards from their line. I am pretty sure, given a choice, they would have taken a drop out! Again - is there anything IN THE LAWS to prevent a ref giving a drop out - or the choice - to the defending team?

aber-fan wrote: scarletman wrote: [QUOTE=aber-fan] Another example - which I assume is no different in law (???) - occurred in the Munster vs Dragons game. Munster knocked on a few yards from the line - the ball rolled over the line and a Dragons player touched down. I thought it would be a drop-out, but the ref went for a scrum to Dragons 5 yards from their line. I am pretty sure, given a choice, they would have taken a drop out! Again - is there anything IN THE LAWS to prevent a ref giving a drop out - or the choice - to the defending team?   A - 1st infringement counts. Grounding the ball yourself in goal is considered a defensive move, therefore no advantage, so it goes back to the breakdown point. I assume you are a qualified ref, and so also assume your answer is correct. If so, this is a poor law, IMO. Surely, the non-offending team captain is the best judge of what would be an 'advantage' to his team? He should therefore - IMO - be given the choice of a scrum or a drop-out by the ref. (as is - or used to be? - the case for a crooked lineout - where the captain can (or could) opt for a scrum or a new line.