Penalty Tries

After a discussion about penalty tries from scrums on another article, I got thinking about penalty tries in general. Outside of scrum time, I can't think of any recent penalty tries. Is this how it should be? All those yellow cards for professional fouls under the posts surely must mean that teams are infringing when they think it is likely the opposition will score. Surely if your opponents think you will score, then it's getting into penalty try territory. As far as I can see, the only way a penalty try would be awarded in open play would be if the attacking player was taken out just before diving on a loose ball to score a try. Any other infringement would seem to be a yellow card, but not penalty try, e.g. playing the ball on the ground inches from the line. I realise that penalty tries are supposed to be given when the try is almost certain to be scored, but how certain do you have to be? What if the player somehow knocks the ball on rather than touching it down? Surely you can never be certain. And why have I never seen a penalty try for a maul being pulled down near the line, but you can get one from a scrum?

I think that perhaps penalty tries should be given a bit more easily than at the moment. It might be worth your while to infringe if 3 points and a yellow card are on offer, but if a penalty try is to be given, you would be much less likely. If that were to happen it would certainly make the game more free flowing with more tries and fewer sin-binnings - in theory at least.

What are your thoughts?

It needs to be a probability not a possibility or likely.

But what probability? 0%?

Seriously though, when does it go from being possible to probable?

When it is a professional foul under the posts, there is always some doubt that the team in possession, no matter how good they are, could drop the ball or there could be a last ditch tackle. They can really only be given when there are no passes to be made by the attacking side.

To clarify, I understand what the current rule is: I am wondering if it is too lenient on the defending side and should be changed so that when a try is likely and a professional foul occurs a penalty try is given. Alternatively a higher value penalty might be an option.

A higher value penalty would kill the game as an entertaining entitiy even if they could only be awarded at certain times, a very bad move for the game.

Still though, there is something wrong if penalty tries have basically become a substitute for the push-over tries of old.

I feel very uneasy about penalty tries after a few penalised scrums.

In any one scrum you have four props, all either doing something illegal or trying to and being beaten to the punch, but only one gets penalised at any one time. Enough collapsed scrums seems to guarantee a penalty try.

The press is full of opinion pieces about how the scrum is a lottery and how refs don't fully understand what's going on half of the time. If this true, then it seems unfair that it can result in 7 points.

greybeard wrote:The press is full of opinion pieces about how the scrum is a lottery and how refs don't fully understand what's going on half of the time. If this true, then it seems unfair that it can result in 7 points.

Especially when referees don't seem to award penalty tries for other offenses.

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:

greybeard wrote:The press is full of opinion pieces about how the scrum is a lottery and how refs don't fully understand what's going on half of the time. If this true, then it seems unfair that it can result in 7 points.

Especially when referees don't seem to award penalty tries for other offenses.

Referees will never ever ever ever give a penalty try for things like hands in the ruck, slowing down the ball etc. However outside of scrums these are the next most common types of penalty try - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6p_zmEd6Rs

But Stag, given how difficult the scrum is to referee how can it be more justifiable to give a penalty try from one than blatant foul play on the try line? Surely if the defending team infringes in such a manner, they believe that a try is probable and by committing the offense they gain an advantage, even if it means a yellow card.

Interestingly, if you look at penalty tries on the IRB's rules website it is Ireland, they of the often criticised scrum, that are used for the penalty try from a scrum video (admittedly against Namibia).

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/6/22/220/during-the-match/ingoal/other-ways-to-score-a-try/

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:Surely if the defending team infringes in such a manner, they believe that a try is probable and by committing the offense they gain an advantage, even if it means a yellow card.

Ah your over complicating it now. If he does that give him 10 minutes and a spell on the sideline.

The penalty try is not there to punish cynical play.

Most of the time ref's will give a penalty for a collapsed scrum, scrum going up etc, the attacking side will opt for another scrum and it's usually if it happens twice on the bounce then the ref will award a penalty try...don't think i've ever seen one awarded straight off the bat. Maybe they should bring back the flying wedge. Cat's link also has a vid that show's one being awarded to Wales after the player was taken out early, now you don't see that happening too often.

Stag, you are missing my point. I understand that is not currently how it is used, but what I am saying is that its use should be expanded. You are thinking within the current rules (and in fact within an interpretation, as the laws don't explicitly say how probable a try must be) whereas I am considering the fairness of current rules and suggesting how to improve them.

red_stag wrote:The penalty try is not there to punish cynical play.

I would have said that is exactly what it is there for - taking out a man about to touch down the ball, or standing up in the scrum to avoid a push-over try is cynical.

Difference between probable and possible

Possible that can happen or be done.It means that thing could happen. We don't necessarily know how likely it is to happen; we just know that it's not impossible.
Probable means that it is more likely to happen than it is to not happen. The chance of that thing happening is more than 50%.

If you take the view that probable means penalty try and probable means 50%, then you would have to go back over the attacking teams scores from a similar position and see how likely there were to score. That isn't going to happen. Probable versus possible is very hard to quantify in a match situation.

poissonrouge wrote:Difference between probable and possible

Possible that can happen or be done.It means that thing could happen. We don't necessarily know how likely it is to happen; we just know that it's not impossible.
Probable means that it is more likely to happen than it is to not happen. The chance of that thing happening is more than 50%.

At the risk of being uber-pedantic, mathematically, "probable" is 20% or greater!

One of the things which annoys me about penalty tries being awarded around scrum infringements is the way the likes of Stuart Barnes keep calling for them. He was doing this yesterday during the Baa-Baas match against England and criticised Parissé (BB's captain) for not taking another scrum and getting the penalty try. On Saturday Munster were awarded a penalty try at scrum time. On that occasion they were pushing the Leinster scrum backwards from a 5m scrum and there was a real probablity of a pushover try. Leinster wheeled the scrum around and Nigel O awarded the try. This was one of the few occasions recently when I have felt that a scrum pushover try was really probable and that an infringement by the defending team nullified the scoring chance. Too often, refs gives penalty tries just because of repeat infringements by defenders even though the chances of a pushover were minimal.

KiaRose wrote:
At the risk of being uber-pedantic, mathematically, "probable" is 20% or greater!

Where exactly did you get that from?

Sorry - 20% or greater - don't accept that!

Probable - use in common english - chance of occurrence more than 50%Haven't found a clear statement yet regarding mathematics but this web reference refers to the figure of 1/2 i.e 50%.
If a figure is used - e.g. p<0.05 - then probability is defined by the figure - in the quoted case < 5%, but if no figure I would take it as read that p=0.5.
But then I am not a mathematician.
Is this statistics - I quote ? Disraeli (or maybe Lord Courtney) "There are lies, damn lies - and statistics"

I think the most meaningful statement in the case of scoring a try or not is whether a scoring a try is more or less probable than not scoring one.

I would rather vote for the removal of the penalty try. The award of a penalty (territory with possession) and the likelihood of a yellow card (granting a possible numerical advantage) ought to be enough for the attacking team to drive themselves over the line, on merit. I'd sooner advocate a more stringent policy on yellow cards, so all the while a try is scored in the traditional sense, and not by the blast of Nigel Owen's whistle. Even a penalty kick must travel through the uprights!

Certainly yellow cards could be implemented better. The biggest issue I have is that intentional infringement in your own 22 is worth doing because it is generally more advantageous to prevent the try and accept the punishment.

But if there wasn't penalty tries - then you would have the scenario of repeated scrums - the territory with possession wouldn't work less than 5m from the line - so taking the scrum down 2m from the line would get the defence 3m grace, and how many of the scrum do you yellow card before it becomes dangerous and you cant' scrum?

I'd be of the mind that position on the field should not determine the level of cynicism, e.g. illegal rucking within the 22. I would rather a somewhat-fluid threshold for infringements existed whereby crossing it would lead to the first yellow card, and consecutive cards would follow much sooner. The officials remain the eyes, but on-pitch deliberation is reduced.

I had a dream...

I understand that as long as flaws (of human nature) remain in the eyes, a subjective take on the game would seem the fairest. The transition at first to a game peppered with yellow cards could appear very ugly. And there are laws of the ruck and scrum that need clarification and revision. So it is an ideal over whatever best solution exists...and also a bit off-topic.

poissonrouge wrote:But if there wasn't penalty tries - then you would have the scenario of repeated scrums - the territory with possession wouldn't work less than 5m from the line - so taking the scrum down 2m from the line would get the defence 3m grace, and how many of the scrum do you yellow card before it becomes dangerous and you cant' scrum?

Uncontested scrums with fixed numbers would still allow for a fine opportunity for a backline (for one) to cross the whitewash, provided the yellow card was used. Realistically, the attacking side ought to score. If they are prevented by legal means, it goes without saying that they do no merit any points. However, the subsequent eight or nine minutes of a numerical advantage should also prove damning for the infringing side - again, given an opponent clinical enough.

I feel the award of points by a referee undermines the value of the try.

When you say uncontested scrums with fixed numbers, do you mean to require that the defending team has an eight man scrum to give an advantage in the backs?

Yessum.

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:

KiaRose wrote:
At the risk of being uber-pedantic, mathematically, "probable" is 20% or greater!

Where exactly did you get that from?

One of the few things I remember from my statistics course when I did a maths degree some years ago.

There was also something about Poisson Distributions - but they weren't red, si I doubt that had anything to do with PoissonRouge

I still think that you are wrong here - probable must be over 50%. I will seek further proof on this - and may even be able to calculate the probability that I am correct!!

From Wikipedia - if it can be trusted -

In statistics, the probable error of a quantity is a value describing the probability distribution of that quantity. It defines the half-range of an interval about a cental point for the distribution, such that half of the values from the distribution will lie within the interval and half outside

also test on probability

Going somewhat off topic - i.e. no longer on rugby but sticking with probability:
I had an interesting discussion last year with an oncologist on probabilities of any woman getting breast cancer. The national (UK) rate is about 9%, but he agreed that if there were factors which pushed an individual's risk above 20% then she would be deemed to be high risk! One could say in this scenario, Poissonrouge, that above 50% represented "certainty" rather than "probably".

If you toss a fair coin, both outcomes are equally probable, but neither is certain. If you toss the coin twice, you are fairly certain that you will get heads at least once (75% chance), but there is still a probability that you will get tails twice (25%).

As I said originally, the rule of thumb given in maths was that above 20% represented a probable outcome, any outcome with a chance below 20% was deemed to be improbable.

Is a fair coin used in fair trade?

Mint, anyone?

KiaRose wrote:Going somewhat off topic - i.e. no longer on rugby but sticking with probability:
I had an interesting discussion last year with an oncologist on probabilities of any woman getting breast cancer. The national (UK) rate is about 9%, but he agreed that if there were factors which pushed an individual's risk above 20% then she would be deemed to be high risk! One could say in this scenario, Poissonrouge, that above 50% represented "certainty" rather than "probably".

If you toss a fair coin, both outcomes are equally probable, but neither is certain. If you toss the coin twice, you are fairly certain that you will get heads at least once (75% chance), but there is still a probability that you will get tails twice (25%).

As I said originally, the rule of thumb given in maths was that above 20% represented a probable outcome, any outcome with a chance below 20% was deemed to be improbable.

Ok, that is a different use of "probable". The way you are using the word is comparative, which is not the dictionary or standard use. Something that is probable is more likely to happen than not, so with two outcomes, that will be greater than 50% is probable, but even that isn't really a good definition. if you say that ordinarily the rate is 9%, but an individual has a 20% they are deemed high risk because it is more likely, or more probable that the person will develop cancer. It is still more probable that they won't develop cancer. Above 50% is most definitely not certainty. The 20% mark is a colloquial use which certainly does not correspond to the standard use of probable as a word. Given you read maths, I am sure you are aware that when dealing with probability you must be very careful in how you phrase things as in reality using words doesn't really work well. I am sure you also know that statistics is not the same as maths, as statisticians are not always as careful in defining things as might be desired.

To be honest, pure probability is not sufficient here. Game theory is what is needed to describe the payoffs for infringing or not, etc.

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:Game theory is what is needed to describe the payoffs for infringing or not, etc.

What other applications of game theory are there in rugby?

If no one picks Gavin Henson, everyone wins?

Hydroxymoron wrote:

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:Game theory is what is needed to describe the payoffs for infringing or not, etc.

What other applications of game theory are there in rugby?

If no one picks Gavin Henson, everyone wins?

Deciding whether to kick a penalty or go for a try, deciding whether you throw a risky pass, etc.

Tongue front-and-centre, do you reckon game theory has been utilised often and/or accurately by the boss men? And are there many (notable) fallacies that are commonplace in the game? For example, I think you referenced the unnecessary concession of the penalty try on another thread.

Absolutely. As I said on that other thread, why give away a penalty try when a try is coming anyway as you remove any chance of making a mistake and make the conversion easier. I don't think game theory is used in sport much. It can be difficult enough to get right when things are less complicated, but with all the factors you have to consider in rugby, especially as many are hard to quantify would be tough.

I agree; the payoff could very likely be negligible given the nature of sport.

But on such margins where luck is the deciding factor...

Back to that article! An educated risk isn't quite the same as luck.

It is fascinating though thinking about these things. I suppose you could try to analyse a team's record in various situations and use that to make decisions in future - a type of experience based game theory.

Hydroxymoron wrote:If no one picks Gavin Henson, everyone wins?

Except lovers of dance.

Hydroxymoron wrote:What other applications of game theory are there in rugby?

If everyone in the ML lost, on purpose, to Aironi and Glasgow this year, then the 3rd and 4th placed teams would have a better chance of winning the competition.

Verily! I do wonder how many conceived 'educated risks' management do try and instill in their players, and whether they do so willfully (i.e. scouring every frame of film) or on a muse. I'd love to buy a pint for a team's video analyst - better yet, the opposition's.

greybeard wrote:
If everyone in the ML lost, on purpose, to Aironi and Glasgow this year, then the 3rd and 4th placed teams would have a better chance of winning the competition.

Elegant.

Hydroxymoron wrote:

greybeard wrote:
If everyone in the ML lost, on purpose, to Aironi and Glasgow this year, then the 3rd and 4th placed teams would have a better chance of winning the competition.

Elegant.

That might get them into trouble. It would definitely give rise to the possibility of a team not following orders near the end of the season to make the play-off. It could be wonderfully devious.