• Welcome to the new forums. Please can you take a few minutes to visit The Rugbyrefs.com Forum near the bottom and vote of the colour scheme to be used for new joiners many thanks Admin Team

2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
482
Post Likes
68
What grade referee are you currently?
Level 2
Complete and utter bollocks Dickie, and you know it!

An action can be both reckless and intentional, or careless and intentional, and you can still be PK/YC/RC for an action that is reckless and/or careless if it is not intentional.

Ian - I think you are wrong there. The definition of recklessness requires that a person is aware or understands that their actions carry an unjustifiable risk and they undertake it regardless. I can't see how a player could be unintentionally reckless unless the judiciary operate under a different definition.

Any top flight player would understand that charging into a ruck, not making a reasonable attempt at a bind onto a player to effect a legal clean-out and making contact with a prone players head/upper neck is not an acceptable action within the law set or their general interpretation. By choosing to make that movement the player has shown reckless intent.

"Unintentional recklessness" or "careless recklessness" would be better called negligence as I understand the definition. I suspect that the IRB don't use the word negligence in many circumstances as it may open the door for legal action against players, unions and associations where an event was defined or called negligent.
 
Last edited:

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,468
Post Likes
406
Keeping in mind the we are talking in a thread about professional, elite level rugby, are you seeing any improvement in consistency now, because of the high contact framework? Be honest now.

I honestly think that it's more consistent, and more understandable for the public. At least, barring SANZAAR's latest capers.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,633
Post Likes
1,702
What grade referee are you currently?
Level 2
Ian - I think you are wrong there. The definition of recklessness requires that a person is aware or understands that their actions carry an unjustifiable risk and they undertake it regardless. I can't see how a player could be unintentionally reckless unless the judiciary operate under a different definition.

Any top flight player would understand that charging into a ruck, not making a reasonable attempt at a bind onto a player to effect a legal clean-out and making contact with a prone players head/upper neck is not an acceptable action within the law set or their general interpretation. By choosing to make that movement the player has shown reckless intent.

"Unintentional recklessness" or "careless recklessness" would be better called negligence as I understand the definition. I suspect that the IRB don't use the word negligence in many circumstances as it may open the door for legal action against players, unions and associations where an event was defined or called negligent.

This is how I define the differences

Intentional
Means "with the intent to". The player's goal was to cause the end result or engage in that conduct. They knew what they were doing, and wanted to achieve the result they did. Examples: Punching, kicking, biting, eye gouging, bag snatching etc, their opponent.


Reckless
Means the player knows there is a substantial risk to the opponent, but they consciously disregard it. Examples: Flying shoulder first into a ruck or breakdown area, a very late tackle, or early tackle.


Careless
Means not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm. Examples: Misjudging the contact point in a tackle (too high but the opponent ducked). Mistiming the tackle of an opponent jumping for a kicked. ball.
 
Last edited:
Top