I watched the Bath-Harlequins match thinking I’d finally get to see what all the Sam Burgess fuss was about. Well, there wasn’t much of Burgess. He played the last 15 minutes or so, had a couple of carries, a forward pass that wasn’t called and not much else.

However, there was some interesting applications of the laws in this game. Wayne Barnes sin-binned 3 Harlequins players, all of them in the bin for an overlapping stretch. First it was the tighthead for not contesting the scrum, then a second-row for collapsing a maul and then the replacement tighthead for not contesting.

With no tightheads left, Barnes told the Bath captain there would be uncontested scrums. No chance for Bath to choose a scrum for their attacking penalty 5-meters out, or at least no benefit from the choice. They went for the lineout, which ended up in a knock-on and a scrum, uncontested, anyway.

The interesting thing to me is that after all the penalties against Harlequins at the scrum, Barnes continued to penalize them and issue yellow cards. Wouldn’t it have been fairer, and more in the spirit of the game, to just give a penalty try for that second penalty at the 5-meter?

Ejecting the reserve tighthead, I think his name was Collier, hurt both teams. Bath lost their potent scrum weapon, and Harlequins went another man down (3 total at the time). According to the laws, a penalty try may be awarded if, except for the penalty, a try would “probably” have been scored.

Certainly, with the Harlequins pack skating backwards, there would have been a try if Barnes hadn’t blown the whistle. Maybe it was a safety thing.

Regardless, I think the penalty try would have been a more reasonable choice. The game could have kept some of its integrity with scrums continuing. Personally, I’d rather give up a few points than a front rower, even if he’s struggling.

The referees have long taken the stance that they apply the laws to enhance the game. Why not in this case?

What say you?