Not straight. Again. And again.

[didds]

Well, let us look at the facts. The 1 YC did actually solve the NS issue. Which goes to show it was the right thing to do.

Why get into all these “What Ifs”? – the OP escalated, showed a card, and then the problem was solved. How they did it – IT WORKED. WELL DONE.

If it had not worked, then you need to consider other options. Other management. But this was text book escalation.

WADR the YC "got lucky". Inmost circumstances I think it would be fair to say that the initial thrower is "the best" available and so anybody that replaces him - in the weeds remember - is unlikely to be better as a general rule.

So generally speaking there is a very good chance the replacement would NS - so more YCs? after 3 of them are in the bin, and having painted yourself in the corner, ... what then?

that's the point.

didds

 

[DocY]

indeed.

so IF that 2nd thrower had thrown NS you would have had to YC him as well, yes?

and the 3rd?

what then?

didds

TBH, I think you'd be being very harsh to even penalise the second thrower for NS on one of his first throws. I probably get one in 5 lineouts NS normally - if he comes on (probably already nervous after seeing what happened to his mate) and his one in five crooked throw comes up first I can't see how penalising it would help the game.

 

[DocY]

If I were the hooker in this case and I just couldn't throw straight, despite the warning of a penalty or card, I'd intentionally step into the FoP, dummy, throw less than 5m... and turn the ball over without a PK. Or even, if I know I can't throw it straight, why not intentionally throw it to the opposition?

 

[didds]

If I were the hooker in this case and I just couldn't throw straight, despite the warning of a penalty or card, I'd intentionally step into the FoP, dummy, throw less than 5m... and turn the ball over without a PK. Or even, if I know I can't throw it straight, why not intentionally throw it to the opposition?

surely that's still NS but playing advantage? Does that remove the escalations? After all his NS to his own team always ends up with the oppo getting the ball generally speaking.

And again, you couldn;t repeatedly step into the FoP and then throw less than 5m under the same repeated thingy?

TBH, I think you'd be being very harsh to even penalise the second thrower for NS on one of his first throws

I'd agree but Simon had apparently warned the replacement that his fate was the same.

FWIW and WADR the YC in the OP "got lucky". The skipper seemed convinced there really was nobody else ... why would he lie after all? what possible benefit would that bring him? On another occasion potentially it didn't get so lucky - its NS and another YC. And again, after the 3rd thrower is in the bin for repeated infringements and that team are down to 12 men, 5 man scrums (probably), potentially uncontested, how have these YCs helped the game?

This isn't intended to smack anyone over the head until you all succumb to the great wisdom of Didds. Its a similar process that I take my players through when analysing what actions they took, or what new play they have dreamt up; i presume ref coaches do similar. I'm just trying to equate Simon's experience, with the laws as written, the mantra of safety - ENJOYMENT - law, with some consideration to this teams' position in the great pyramid of global rugby.

again WADR I see a referee potentially painting himself into a corner and ending up with a "solution" that may well have backfired terribly.

I in no way intend this to sound like a witch hunt

didds

 

[crossref]

I don't understand this reluctance to penalise not straight the first time it happens - do people think you get one free?

I'd say the opposite : always penalise the first one!

That way you get fewer.

 

[ChrisR]

Well, let us look at the facts. The 1 YC did actually solve the NS issue. Which goes to show it was the right thing to do.

Why get into all these “What Ifs”? – the OP escalated, showed a card, and then the problem was solved. How they did it – IT WORKED. WELL DONE.

If it had not worked, then you need to consider other options. Other management. But this was text book escalation.

Is it the referees job to "solve the problem"?

The problem has been presented to the captain of the throwing team when his side starts getting PKd. He doesn't fix it. A one-armed blind man could get it in straight half the time so I have no sympathy or patience for "He's our only thrower".

That being so, I still wouldn't YC the thrower. This isn't on TV so nobody is going to complain about an unwatchable game. In a roundabout way you have disadvantaged the non-offending team who was enjoying the stupidity of the opponent's captain.

I also follow and agree with the didds logic of "What then?". It's not too hard to whistle yourself into a corner and that's where he is coming from.

 

[Pegleg]

I don't understand this reluctance to penalise not straight the first time it happens - do people think you get one free?

I'd say the opposite : always penalise the first one!

That way you get fewer.

You don't ping the first not straight because the law says so. 19.7 (a) gives the options. We come to 19.7 (c) only if it is: i) repeated (by definition you can't call it repeated "the first time it happens" OR ii is ii) intentional. That is very difficult to call the first time it happens

 

[Pegleg]

Those who are not going to YC the thrower. How are you going to resolve the situation? And yes untimately the referee does need to resolve the solution.Otherwise the players will just see him / her as a joke and all respect is lost. Cue anarchy!

 

[ChrisR]

Those who are not going to YC the thrower. How are you going to resolve the situation? And yes untimately the referee does need to resolve the solution.Otherwise the players will just see him / her as a joke and all respect is lost. Cue anarchy!

They will see him as a joke if:

a. He gets tired of calling NS and just lets it go.

b. He oversteps his authority and insists on a thrower change.

Simon has the right, and is correct in law, to apply:

10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily
suspended.

I'm just thinking that, if I were the non-offending captain, I'd rather get the PKs.

 

[Dickie E]

10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily
suspended.

I wonder what we would do with the SH who continually knocks on at the base of the scrum remembering that "repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant"

 

[Ian_Cook]

.... and now a word from the opponents: "Please, Sir, don't card him. We're really thriving on the PKs."

Spot on!

This is not as if the thrower is trying to gain some advantage; he is giving up great chunks of field position and possession every time the other side put the ball in touch. If there is an upside for his team to what he doing, I can't think what it might be!

 

[leaguerefaus]

I think a few referees here need to remember the game is about the players and not themselves. Just because a decision can be technically justified by law does not mean it should necessarily be made.

 

[didds]

This us a grew discussion, and thanks to all the commenters thus far.

I have so far asked two questions neither of which gave had any answers. Si in case they were missed here tgay are again

1) why would the thrower, his skipper, and the team in general choose to persist deliberately in a doing something that has no upside?

2) what will the ref do when three throwers are in the bin and how is this a solution?

Or are these the elephant in the room/ emporers new clothes?

Didds

 

[Pegleg]

They will see him as a joke if:

a. He gets tired of calling NS and just lets it go.

b. He oversteps his authority and insists on a thrower change.

Simon has the right, and is correct in law, to apply:

10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily
suspended.

I'm just thinking that, if I were the non-offending captain, I'd rather get the PKs.

Would you not like an extra player on the park?

No one is suggesting stopping giving the NS. Nor am I suggesting that we insist on a change of thrower. We can advise. If the team ignore then that is their call andf the consequences are theirs also.

All the post are said with the caveat that the standard of the sides are taken into account (as indeed the law book does) when assessing "repeated infringements".

 

[Pegleg]

This us a grew discussion, and thanks to all the commenters thus far.

I have so far asked two questions neither of which gave had any answers. Si in case they were missed here tgay are again

1) why would the thrower, his skipper, and the team in general choose to persist deliberately in a doing something that has no upside?

2) what will the ref do when three throwers are in the bin and how is this a solution?

Or are these the elephant in the room/ emporers new clothes?

Didds

You chose to ignore the question you've been asked! Is your answer just to have 20 / 30 or more NS PKs? Does that work?

To answer again the above:

1) Not my problem. The team choose to do what they wish I just apply fairly and equitable the laws of the game in the light of their actions. Ity is not for me to second guess the tactical choice of the teams.

2) Short term it is not a great solution, The non offenders will have more space inhich to play and will have a numerical advantage. The would benefit them. The offenders side may choose to review their, ill advised, tactic and / or practice more to improve. THEIR CALL!

 

[Pegleg]

I think a few referees here need to remember the game is about the players and not themselves. Just because a decision can be technically justified by law does not mean it should necessarily be made.

The game is about the players playing their tactical plan within the laws. WE are there to facilitate that. We are not there to write the laws to suit. WR is the law maker. They're there to make the laws.

When we invent laws, we make the game about us.

 

[Pegleg]

Spot on!

This is not as if the thrower is trying to gain some advantage; he is giving up great chunks of field position and possession every time the other side put the ball in touch. If there is an upside for his team to what he doing, I can't think what it might be!

Why doe any player deliberately offend the laws of the game?

 

[didds]

You chose to ignore the question you've been asked! Is your answer just to have 20 / 30 or more NS PKs? Does that work?

sorry - I had missed that.

If I was the ref? Not my problem. Does the oppo skipper object to have a PK at every oppo lineout? I suspect not. I would suggest therein your answer lies. The only people this affects materially is the side with the wonky throwing player. If they want to keep giving away penalties all day, that is their problem. Its not a safety issue, its not stopping the other team from playing. It IS stopping themselves from playing - that is the entire crux of the matter. Its a self inflicted, non dangerous issue. YCing a technically (physcially and mentally) incapable person doesn't solve the PROBLEM. It merely gives the problem to somebody else and doesn't stop the same player from potentially repeating when he comes back on. And paints the ref into a corner once its happened because now he is going to have to RC that player if it happens again. Which it probably will seeing as all the sanctions up to that point have failed - because of lack of skill, not wilfull breaking of a law.





didds

 

[didds]

You chose to ignore the question you've been asked! Is your answer just to have 20 / 30 or more NS PKs? Does that work?

To answer again the above:

1) Not my problem. The team choose to do what they wish I just apply fairly and equitable the laws of the game in the light of their actions. Ity is not for me to second guess the tactical choice of the teams.

2) Short term it is not a great solution, The non offenders will have more space inhich to play and will have a numerical advantage. The would benefit them. The offenders side may choose to review their, ill advised, tactic and / or practice more to improve. THEIR CALL!

thanks fro having a stab.

I would suggest it is your issue to deal with because when you have 3 in the bin and a 4th bloke is about to step up and potentially be binned the game is now becoming untenable. I appreciate you don;t see it this way. We;ll have to agree to disagree. I feel the game would be better erved keeping him on, and providing PKs onwards.

As for the alw as write - I thought law came third after safety and enjoyment. I really fail to see enjoyment for in the end all players including the oppo by ending up potentially with 15 v 11. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I very much doubt the oppo skipper was overly perturbed with a string of PKs versus a man advantage.


I wish we could ask the thrower's skipper what HE thought was going on!

didds

 

[didds]

Why doe any player deliberately offend the laws of the game?

I suggest he is not DELIBERATELY offending.

Rather he is incapable of conforming to the requirement.

A not so subtle distinction.

As fopr generally, players that deliberately break the laws, probably do so UNTIL they are caught. Then they tend to stop because on the whole its not a positive move to do so. This bloke wasn;t capable of stopping - because je wasn't capable of starting!

didds