Thoughts?

[Phil E]

Neither decision supported in law and the first led to the second.
Poor management that loses the referee any credibility.

Neither decision meets the Clear, Obvious and Expected criteria.

 

[VM75]

A couple of considerations

a] none of us were in the referees boots
b] no refereeing context has been offered, [temperature of match, previous warnings, ignition prevention strategies being employed by referee]
c] we're hearing the summarisation of the 'coach' of the aggrieved team only

that said, from the picture painted it does sound akin to a cheap-shot whack of big guy v little guy which isn't always nice to witness especially if little fella wasn't seeking or braced for the smash & i've seen such things ignite a fixture !

 

[OB..]

Blue player (quite a bit smaller) comes around into his path but with no real intention to tackle him.

especially if little fella wasn't seeking or braced for the smash & i've seen such things ignite a fixture !

So the little fella was just hoping his mere presence would cause the attacker to stop and ground the ball?! If the incident had taken place on the goal line with the ball carrier trying to score, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

 

[crossref]

So the little fella was just hoping his mere presence would cause the attacker to stop and ground the ball?! If the incident had taken place on the goal line with the ball carrier trying to score, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

but this incident couldn't have taken place in the FoP , could it?
the place it happened is important

let's move the incident a bit - ball is in touch and red grabs it and hurries forward along the touchline looking to take a QTI from the LoT - and a small blue player stands in his way .. and is clattered to the ground.

 

[Zebra1922]

So the little fella was just hoping his mere presence would cause the attacker to stop and ground the ball?! If the incident had taken place on the goal line with the ball carrier trying to score, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

I think this is the most interesting post in this thread. If this happened in the field of play, with blue moving into the path of attacking red, who does not change line and effectively runs over the player (Lomu/Catt is a really good example) I don't see how this is dangerous play. Even if blue is not attempting to make a tackle, they are intentionally moving into reds path and I see nothing in the description that suggests this is dangerous, or certainly not any more dangerous than 100 other collisions which occur in a game of rugby.

The relative size of the players should have no bearing on the call.

The captain YC is an interesting one. You have a player who has clearly dissented but you cannot pinpoint exactly who it was. Are you supposed to let that go unpunished? If you got a number and that person would have got a YC, I don't see why a team should get off because you did not get a number. You could guess (lots of cases of mistaken identity) but in this case I quite like the option of a YC for the captain. The team knew who made the comment, no-one owns up I see holding the captain to account as the least worst option (although I do note the points made earlier about the impact that could have on being a captain, but it is clear captains have greater responsibility than 'normal' team members, why is this any different)?

 

[Rich_NL]

Absolutely not a YC for the captain. If you don't know who committed an offence, you don't pull a card. What if there's a high tackle, a scuffle breaks out, and in the confusion you forget who made the HT - just send the captain off? Pick someone at random? No - it's your job as a referee to identify transgressors, and if you can't that's your error/learning point/problem, or just the way it is. Otherwise you're just kicking the cat because Something Must Be Done. It's not like dissent is even dangerous play - the only reason to YC someone innocent for it is peevishness.

Have a word with the captain about what happened and the consequences if it happens again, move the penalty up 10 and play on.

 

[OB..]

The captain YC is an interesting one. You have a player who has clearly dissented but you cannot pinpoint exactly who it was. Are you supposed to let that go unpunished? If you got a number and that person would have got a YC, I don't see why a team should get off because you did not get a number. You could guess (lots of cases of mistaken identity) but in this case I quite like the option of a YC for the captain. The team knew who made the comment, no-one owns up I see holding the captain to account as the least worst option (although I do note the points made earlier about the impact that could have on being a captain, but it is clear captains have greater responsibility than 'normal' team members, why is this any different)?

Responsibility for what? For every rash offence committed by one of his team?

What offence has the captain himself committed? None. The concept of punishing someone for another person's offence is contrary to all the principles of Natural Justice (aka Fair Play). I agree it is frustrating but you still cannot give the captain a card just because you are frustrated. That would in fact be the worst option.

BTW there would never be any chance of getting such a provision into the laws - at the professional level the lawyers would have a field day with it.

 

[Taff]

Responsibility for what? For every rash offence committed by one of his team? What offence has the captain himself committed? None. The concept of punishing someone for another person's offence is contrary to all the principles of Natural Justice (aka Fair Play).

Yet we are quite happy to :noyc: a player for Repeated Infringements by the team even if it's the offenders first offence - which on it's own probably wouldn't justify a :noyc:

And just to repeat, I wouldn't YC a captain now, but personally I would support a change in the law allowing us to YC a captain if the real offender couldn't be identified or didn't own up to it.

 

[SimonSmith]

Hang on.

What you're saying is that if a maul is collapsed near a goal line twice, and you can't ID the perpetrator, you're going to RC the skipper? Really?

 

[Dickie E]

You can always try the old "skipper - a word please. And bring the player who made the comments with you."

 

[damo]

Personally I wouldn't YC a player for making one dissenting comment, especially not if I'd just made a very contentious decision.

I have more confidence in my ability to manage a game than to go straight from zero to YC. That said, I don't know if the ref had spoken to the team earlier or if there had been other occasions of dissent previous.

 

[TigerCraig]

Personally I wouldn't YC a player for making one dissenting comment, especially not if I'd just made a very contentious decision.

I have more confidence in my ability to manage a game than to go straight from zero to YC. That said, I don't know if the ref had spoken to the team earlier or if there had been other occasions of dissent previous.

The game had actually been played in very good spirits - which continued into blues clubhouse after the game. Blue were the better side and would have won the game in any case - and if anything we (red) had had the rub of the green in ref decisions up until this incident, including 2 quick whistles where advantage (one a knock on by red, the other a not straight line out throw by red which went over the top, and was caught by the blue tailgunner who set off down field) would have seen blue if not score get pretty close with good momentum.

Interestingly blue had a few comments of BS or similar on the not straight one which weren't punished or even commented on.

I hope also in my tone I haven't been seen as bagging or blaming a fellow ref. He is a guy I've known for a few years and we actually had a very civil chat after the game and he explained his reasoning on both decisions in a reasonable way - just that I didn't agree with his view on either so I thought I'd throw it out here for comment. His view on the captain one was not that he was punishing the captain for an offence by a player, but that by not assisting in identifying the culprit the captain had committed a new dissent offence of his own. Long bow in my opinion.

 

[OB..]

Yet we are quite happy to :noyc: a player for Repeated Infringements by the team even if it's the offenders first offence - which on it's own probably wouldn't justify a :noyc:

But he certainly had committed an offence and, like any basketball player, would be aware of the law on team offences.

 

[DocY]

My tuppence worth:

*From what you've described*, that's two dumpings of BS!

The only time I can think I'd have penalised a BC for anything like this is if I'd thought he'd intentionally smashed a player who clearly wasn't expecting it (i.e. has his back turned) trying to injure him. Even then, I'd have to be very very sure.

If a player is in a position to make a tackle (or 'tackle' in in goal), even if the BC changes his angle to perform a maori side step, nothing wrong with that.

As to asking the captain to nominate a player... Just no!

Have a word, yes. Maybe with a "next time I hear a peep out of anyone, he's in the bin", but anything else is just wrong.

 

[didds]

So the alternative is that a YC offence goes unpunished. If you're not happy with that, then what do you suggest?

I have no other suggestion. Sh1t happens. Dismissing a player that didn't do it in some wierd concept of "somebody must walk" is just a pants idea.

Somebody gets punched at the bottom of a ruck, unseen by the ref. Nobody is admitting to it. The oppo are pointing fingers at several potential culprits - it can;t be all of them (well, aside form some sort of Murder on the Orient Express style attack!)

So you dismiss the captain who is the full back who was 30 metres away? Who now has a red card disciplinary hearing ten days later or whatever to face the music over something he can't have done?

Or is this captain dismissal only a YC thing and never for a RC?

What if this scenario happens twice in a game - that's now a RC ? Or isn;pt it for the 2nd ? What if the captain in that same passage of play got concussed and is on the ground and is not to be removed for a concussion call etc? you now YC the vice skipper? what if the VC is already in the bin? do you YC in the bin to a RC - or start picking players at random?

didds

 

[didds]

Hang on.

What you're saying is that if a maul is collapsed near a goal line twice, and you can't ID the perpetrator, you're going to RC the skipper? Really?

... who could be the winger standing 50m away.

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yet we are quite happy to :noyc: a player for Repeated Infringements by the team even if it's the offenders first offence - which on it's own probably wouldn't justify a :noyc:

And just to repeat, I wouldn't YC a captain now, but personally I would support a change in the law allowing us to YC a captain if the real offender couldn't be identified or didn't own up to it.

On your first point:
Team offence repeated infringements are in law. So it is covered. I hver no problem with them
Secondly the player HAS committed an offence He SHOULD be aware of the law! If he is not then tough on him his problem not mine.

If the law was to change to make the captain defacto guilty of any unidentifiable offence, I would ignore it (and I'd leave it to the WRU to take whatever action they want to against me). It is against all rational thoughts on fair play.

 

[Taff]

Hang on. What you're saying is that if a maul is collapsed near a goal line twice, and you can't ID the perpetrator, you're going to RC the skipper? Really?

Not really.

What I am saying is if a maul is collapsed near a goal line, and I couldn't ID the perpetrator, I would like the law changed so that I had the option of YC the captain. I wouldn't do it now, because the law book doesn't allow me to.

I realise I am fighting a losing battle with this one.

 

[SimonSmith]

Not really.

What I am saying is if a maul is collapsed near a goal line, and I couldn't ID the perpetrator, I would like the law changed so that I had the option of YC the captain. I wouldn't do it now, because the law book doesn't allow me to.

I realise I am fighting a losing battle with this one.

If you get your law change, then my scenario becomes viable. Is that scenario really what you want?

 

[OB..]

I realise I am fighting a losing battle with this one.

I really hope so, but as I said previously, I don't think it is remotely possible to make the change you would like.