Penalty advantage inconsistency

Risking no one remembering this but in the England game Tom Wood cleared a player from a maul when we had penalty advantage, the ref overturned the penalty and gave a penalty advantage to Fiji, in the NZ game an Argentine player went off his feet, Barnes played advantage until an Argentina player intercepted and then got tackled high around the neck, Barnes accepted it was high and even talked to McCaw, he then went back to the original penalty!

Neither wood or the NZ player was carded so why go back for one and why reverse the other??? Noticed it a few times this weekend to be honest

Tom Wood cleared a player from a maul by the neck*

Different refs will always have different style. Barnes tries to keep the game going, Peyper is more pernickety

I was suprised Barnes didn't reverse it and have no real explanation. One of them must be wrong. Thats not just a difference of styles. I think the reversal was probably wrong but not sure

Barnes was right. He gets stick but always knows the laws.

Law 8.5.

Barnes explained it himself, the severity of the subsequent offence wasn't enough to overturn the original penalty advantage.

As an aside I thought Barnes very good today. took time to calm things down when it got heated, both cards correct, no obvious errors, kept both captains informed

Trying my best to not be biased but I don't think the original penalty should be over turned even if the subsequent offence is worthy of a yellow or even red as it's happened during advantage

"
(b)
If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player."

so Barnes was right and Peyper not

I can find nothing in the laws about reversing a penalty

Hang on
"If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence." so if the second infringement is for foul play then thats the penalty awarded?  So both right if Peyper thought the second was fould play and worthy of a penalty and barnes did not?

Was the england one ( the high tackle) before the Fiji infringement?  thus its going back to the first infringment?

I have not got totally confused honest

Didn't the Fijian get penalty advantage when it emerged he lost the ball in grounding for the try? I think so, and couldn't work out how in getting to the try line he hadn't had the advantage.

I thought both were correct. Wood's offence was a penalty, Coles' (was it him?) wasn't a high tackle, looked shoulder/chest.

TJ wrote:"
(b)
If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player."

so Barnes was right and Peyper not

I can find nothing in the laws about reversing a penalty

TJ, surely the key phrase is the one I have underlined. So, as the first offence is not for foul play but the second is, the referee must apply the sanction for the second offence, that is a penalty against Fiji. It is clear from the wording that the sanction referred to must be the penalty because the yellow or red card are additional to the sanction as indicated by the words "may also".

There is nothing in the wording to indicate that the foul play must be serious. The foul play offence however minor always trumps a technical offence.

Just to make it more confusing although I think Fiji got done for offside at the maul which isn't foul play any intentional breaking of any law is foul play!

10.2 (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.

So...I've lost the will to live.

I think TJ and Exiled have it right. If the second infringement is foul play (or deemed to be) then the penalty is reversed. Peyper obviously felt Wood's actions were "foul play" so reversed the penalty. Nothing wrong with that. The NZ high tackle (which started high but slipped down) wasn't foul play, so the original penalty stood.

Scottrf. Nope, play was re-started with an England scrum five meters from their own tryline, which they promptly lost. Fiji then scored from a cross-field kick. All correct refereeing.

Cheers.

Ta folks - so we have got to the bottom of this and both decisions seem right?

Depends if you think Fiji deliberately went round the side.