A bad day at the office for CJ?

[Pegleg]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/s...land-using-eight-players-20160206-gmnke8.html

 

[winchesterref]

Wouldn't say it's CJs fault, he's only got 5 players in front of him!

You'd assume those in charge of the sidelines would have a grip on who's coming on and off.

 

[Dickie E]

a good outcome. Meant we met a depleted England in the QFs.

 

[Pegleg]

Wouldn't say it's CJs fault, he's only got 5 players in front of him!

You'd assume those in charge of the sidelines would have a grip on who's coming on and off.

Who's in charge? The buck stops with the ref!

 

[L'irlandais]

Two things that suggest it was NOT the ref's fault :
[laws]Law 3.4 (e)
Substitutions may only be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.[/laws]
The additional player was not entitled to be on the field of play without permission from the match referee. New Zealand's fault in that case.
[laws]3.2 Team with more than the permitted number of players
Objection: at any time before or during a match a team may make an objection to the referee about the number of players in their opponents’ team. As soon as the referee knows that a team has too many players, the referee must order the captain of that team to reduce the number appropriately. The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered.
Sanction: Penalty at the place where the match would restart.[/laws]it is down to the opposition to bring the breach to the ref's attention. Australia's fault for not doing so.

Take your pick as to who was to blame. Black or Gold? Objections may only be brought (before or) during the game. Even then the score stands.

 

[Pegleg]

Oh dear!

Any offence is the fault of the offender. So using 3.4 (e) is hardly the point.

Basic management is for the referee (To3. So hanging a defence on 3.2 is stretching it.

Come off it, if you noticed in a game that one team had an extra player on the park would you ignore it unless the other side objected? I really hope not.

In 7s, let's be fair you've only got 14 players to worry about.

No matter which one of them made the basic error, the To3 got it wrong. It was poor.

 

[Camquin]

You could compare this to cases where a side fails to follow the man off rule.
In England regulations put the onus for this onto the team.
In Nat 3 Tonbridge were deemed not to have removed a man and were deducted 5 match points - but the result stood.

 

[Rushforth]

No matter which one of them made the basic error, the To3 got it wrong. It was poor.

Sevens has a To5.

Each substitution must be submitted to the match commissioner in writing.

 

[Pegleg]

I stand corrected. However, your point in no way invalidated two basic principles.


1; CJ had an easy job to count that number of players. (If he could not how on earth did he cope at the proper game?)

2; Ultimately the buck stops with the referee. He is the "manager" of his Team of "X".

 

[OB..]

I stand corrected. However, your point in no way invalidated two basic principles.


1; CJ had an easy job to count that number of players.

How often should he do that? Do you?

2; Ultimately the buck stops with the referee. He is the "manager" of his Team of "X".

Does that mean he is automatically responsible for whatever happens behind his back?

Referees delegate many duties at that level. Are the referees to blame for any mistakes those officials make?

 

[crossref]

refs miss many things, they can't look in every direction at once.

In open play I would have thought that any one of the To3 or the To5 is going to be in far, far better position to notice an extra player on the field than the ref is.

 

[SimonSmith]

At the championship events at which I attend, we have a No4, who tracks all that stuff. Player on, player off, entry only when permitted by AR.

If a team bypasses any of the processes in place - which is my bet as to what happened - then it's difficult to park on the ref

 

[Phil E]

[LAWS]3.2 Team with more than the permitted number of players
Objection: at any time before or during a match a team may make an objection to the referee about the number of players in their opponents’ team. As soon as the referee knows that a team has too many players, the referee must order the captain of that team to reduce the number appropriately. The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered.
Sanction: Penalty at the place where the match would restart.[/LAWS]

The wording of the law suggests that it's the teams/players responsibility. It only becomes the referees responsibility once the extra numbers have been brought to his attention.

 

[JSAK]

I agree with Phil's analysis. I don't ref 7's or closely follow 7's, but I imagine this is not the first time this has happened? What is a likely post-game sanction and under what authority would it be issued?

 

[Ian_Cook]

You could compare this to cases where a side fails to follow the man off rule.
In England regulations put the onus for this onto the team.
In Nat 3 Tonbridge were deemed not to have removed a man and were deducted 5 match points - but the result stood.

That would only apply if it was a Competition specific Rule/Regulation. Its not a Law of the Game

Unless the HSBC Series Competition Rules state that points could be deducted or results overturned for breaches of Law 3, then the organisers have no standing to do that. Its no different than a player throwing a forward pass that is not picked up in the lead up to a winning try at the end of a game. If its not picked up at the time, there is no way to go back and fix it after the game.

 

[thepercy]

So are NZ 7s cheaters or can they simply just not count?

 

[Ian_Cook]

So are NZ 7s cheaters or can they simply just not count?

That is a False Dichotomy. It could also be just a mistake

Its not the first time this has happened and they are not the only team that has made this mistake. Its just being made a big deal of because its NZ and because they scored a match drawing try while the extra player was on the field. Had this been Russia v Portugal in the 2nd minute of the second half, it would not even make the news.

 

[Dickie E]

If it was an honest mistake I expect Gordon Tietjens will admit as such and make an apology. Let's all keep an eye out for that one.

 

[thepercy]

That is a False Dichotomy. It could also be just a mistake

Its not the first time this has happened and they are not the only team that has made this mistake. Its just being made a big deal of because its NZ and because they scored a match drawing try while the extra player was on the field. Had this been Russia v Portugal in the 2nd minute of the second half, it would not even make the news.

Ok, so was it cheating, or a convenient failure to count?

 

[OB..]

Ok, so was it cheating, or a convenient failure to count?

Or just a mistake by a player eager to get on? Do you really think a player will count how many are on already?

What were the circumstances? Were there multiple changes being made?