A bad day at the office for CJ?

[thepercy]

A number of parties, including NZ, even with procedures in place to prevent this type of thing from happening, failed to differentiate between 7 and 8 players on the pitch, I still call that a counting error. And I consider it convenient because the error was not discovered until too late, they scored the game winner on the error, and the error was to have too many players and not too few. At the time, WR were investigating if there was nefarious intentions, so to suggest that is one possible outcome is not totally off base either.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

When was the last time NZ, or any other team for that matter, "accidentally", ended up with to six players on the pitch due to a counting error?

Genuine question. If the "error" is always made in one direction it hints at one cause rather then another.

 

[Ian_Cook]

A number of parties, including NZ, even with procedures in place to prevent this type of thing from happening, failed to differentiate between 7 and 8 players on the pitch, I still call that a counting error. And I consider it convenient because the error was not discovered until too late, they scored the game winner on the error, and the error was to have too many players and not too few. At the time, WR were investigating if there was nefarious intentions, so to suggest that is one possible outcome is not totally off base either.

Regardless of the above waffle, presenting a question as having having only two possible answers (which is exactly what you did) is presenting a False Dichotomy. You were implying that cheating or numerical illiteracy were the only possible reasons and NO other reason was possible. You may not have meant that, but you certainly did imply that.

When was the last time NZ, or any other team for that matter, "accidentally", ended up with to six players on the pitch due to a counting error?

I don't watch enough sevens to know, but I have seen 14 players on the pitch a few times in 15s matches. A couple of years back, I recall seeing Canterbury have only 14 players when the sub-on got caught short and had to to visit the boys room as he was about join the game. The sub-off had already left the field.
Quite a few years ago it was not uncommon to see teams playing one short for a short time because replacements were only allowed for injuries, and a player could only be replaced after the match doctor had approved.

Genuine question. If the "error" is always made in one direction it hints at one cause rather then another.

It is obviously more likely to happen with the extra player because the sub-on is usually standing next to the sideline official, waiting to come on, while the sub off doesn't always know its about to happen. Throw in both teams making multiple subs at the same time, and its not hard for any reasonable person to understand how honest mistakes can be made.

 

[OB..]

Why might a side cheat like this? Current law says that the score will stand even if an error is discovered. Perhaps that needs changing?

Since having too many players is a penalty offence, cheating for defensive purposes is likely to give away 3 points.

 

[DocY]

Current law says that the score will stand even if an error is discovered. Perhaps that needs changing?

What would you suggest?

 

[OB..]

What would you suggest?

Not easy. The aim would be to discount any score that had been made possible by the presence of the extra player. Perhaps it would be fair enough to take away any score made while he was on the pitch?

The main practical problem at lower levels would be establishing when the player came on. I remember an Overs v Unders intra-club match many years ago when it was only discovered at a scrum that there were two hookers on one of the teams.

 

[DocY]

'Tis a tricky one.

I can only see some sort of penalty along the lines of losing a fixed number of points or any points scored within the last [insert time interval here] being at all refereeable (in the absence of cameras). I don't like the idea of a side being docked points though.

Perhaps if a referee deems the 16th man has taken part in the game (to cover the case of a sub coming on slightly early, overstepping the touchline and so forth) that a PT be awarded. It would certainly encourage teams not to infringe!

P.S. An extra hooker? Surely if you're going to do this you wouldn't pick an extra front row! I have a picture in my head of them each asking the other what he's doing there.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its not tricky at all... its simply an infringement of the Laws of the Game. Why must it be treated any differently to any other breach of the Laws of the Game?

In the elite game, when there is a TMO or video review is available, if a head high tackle, a knock on, dangerous play or any other infringement is discovered any score made immediately subsequent to the infringement (within the limits imposed by the TMO Protocols) is wiped out and the game comes back to the point of the infringement for a PK. However, if the infringement from which a score was made, is not discovered until after the game, we don't go back and change the score or deduct competition points. Why should it be different for this Law? We don't even go back and make post match changes if we discover later that one of the props wasn't STE (also an infringement of Law 3; the player wasn't supposed to be taking part in scrums)

IMO, we treat this like any other Law of the game... fix it and penalise it at the time.

 

[OB..]

IMO, we treat this like any other Law of the game... fix it and penalise it at the time.

Current law says the score at the time stands. Is that what you are advocating?

Otherwise, the tricky bit is deciding if the presence of the extra player materially facilitated a score. If it did, I think the score should in fairness be disallowed. That raises factual problems such as when did the player come on..

Awarding a penalty for the offence is no problem, though deciding where is non-trivial.

 

[OB..]

P.S. An extra hooker? Surely if you're going to do this you wouldn't pick an extra front row! I have a picture in my head of them each asking the other what he's doing there.

Precisely. It was an unofficial game so we allowed subs. One hooker had been told he could play the second half, and the other didn't know he was supposed to come off. The first scrum of the half revealed the problem.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Current law says the score at the time stands. Is that what you are advocating?

Otherwise, the tricky bit is deciding if the presence of the extra player materially facilitated a score. If it did, I think the score should in fairness be disallowed. That raises factual problems such as when did the player come on..

Awarding a penalty for the offence is no problem, though deciding where is non-trivial.

I think if the extra player has a material effect in a try being scored, then I don't have a problem with ruling out a score. I'll put a couple of scenarios to you...

A: a player scores a try, which you award, then the AR brings to your attention, a head high tackle by an attacking player. You consult the TMO and he agrees.

B: a player scores a try, which you award, then the AR brings to your attention, a an extra player on the field for the attacking team. You consult the TMO and he agrees.

Now for A, I think you would disallow the try and go back to the point where the tackle was made (the mark) deal with the offender as appropriate, and award a PK at the mark. If so, then why would you not do the same for B?

As for the mark, I think the mark could either be

a. a place that is representative of where the extra player came into the playing area which AIUI is officially the intersection of the half way line and the touchline on the technical area side of the field. So the mark could be 15m in from that touch on the half way line, or at the centre of the halfway way line

or

b. the place where the ball would next have come into play. With the disallowed try scenario, that would be the centre of the defending team's 22m. In a non-try scoring scenario, it could simply be wherever the play was when the extra player was brought to the referee's attention.

 

[OB..]

I think if the extra player has a material effect in a try being scored, then I don't have a problem with ruling out a score. I'll put a couple of scenarios to you...

A: a player scores a try, which you award, then the AR brings to your attention, a head high tackle by an attacking player. You consult the TMO and he agrees.

B: a player scores a try, which you award, then the AR brings to your attention, a an extra player on the field for the attacking team. You consult the TMO and he agrees.

Now for A, I think you would disallow the try and go back to the point where the tackle was made (the mark) deal with the offender as appropriate, and award a PK at the mark. If so, then why would you not do the same for B?

As for the mark, I think the mark could either be

a. a place that is representative of where the extra player came into the playing area which AIUI is officially the intersection of the half way line and the touchline on the technical area side of the field. So the mark could be 15m in from that touch on the half way line, or at the centre of the halfway way line

or

b. the place where the ball would next have come into play. With the disallowed try scenario, that would be the centre of the defending team's 22m. In a non-try scoring scenario, it could simply be wherever the play was when the extra player was brought to the referee's attention.

ARs? TMOs? At that level there will also be an official (maybe two) in charge of subs.

Any law will apply to the grassroots as well, where you may be lucky to get the coach's young son running touch.

Try is scored by Red. Blue kicks off, and at the next scrum it is discovered that Red have 16 men on the pitch. Is the try disallowed? Surely that depends on when the extra player came on?

 

[Ian_Cook]

ARs? TMOs? At that level there will also be an official (maybe two) in charge of subs.

Well, we are talking about the elite level game, since that game was international Sevens... and despite the officials being in charge of subs, NZ still ended up with an extra player

Any law will apply to the grassroots as well, where you may be lucky to get the coach's young son running touch.

Try is scored by Red. Blue kicks off, and at the next scrum it is discovered that Red have 16 men on the pitch. Is the try disallowed? Surely that depends on when the extra player came on?

I agree, much more difficult to implement at grassroots, as are many of the things we take for granted in the elite game.

At grassroots, I think you just get the player off and get on with the game i.a.w Law 3.2


"Sanction: Penalty at the place where the match would restart."

 

[OB..]

Ian - I was asked about suggesting a change to laws, which also cover lower levels, hence my caution.

 

[Dickie E]

In Aussie Rules, if you're caught with an extra player you lose ALL of your score. Helps to focus attention.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian - I was asked about suggesting a change to laws, which also cover lower levels, hence my caution.

Well, I don't think a change to the Laws is needed. The difficulty for me (as I think it is for you) is that, if you want to do anything other than what Law 3.2 says (fix it and PK at the place the ball next comes into play) then at grass roots level, you are going to expect the referee to rule on things that he might not be able to know (was the extra player material to, or did he take part in, a score or scores? When did he come on (or the subbed off player fail to leave?) An extra player can be the result of a simple mistake at any level (as it clearly was here) made by moire than just players or coaches.

The ability to "sort out what happened" increases as the level increases. Add ARs and you have two extra pairs of eyes. Add a sideline official and you have someone running the subs. Adding a TMO gives you the ability to go back and find where the mistake was made (as long as its allowed in the protocol).

Because of all this, IMO, its the sort of thing that individual competition regulations are better as controlling and its not unprecedented. For example, some levels of adult rugby in some NZ provinces (especially "social" grades), use U19 regulations for scrummaging, a policy set by their competitions committees.

 

[crossref]

In Aussie Rules, if you're caught with an extra player you lose ALL of your score. Helps to focus attention.

this isn't a bad alternative - just like the Law in rugby it's clear and straightforward, it's all also easy to implement at any level of the game from grass roots upwards.

Sure, it's a lot harsher than our equivalent, too harsh for many tastes I guess --- but I'd bet a pound to a penny that, because of this harshness, many, many fewer mistakes are made..