[Law] Acceptable frustration or sending off?

[Dan_A]

https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Doc...ngpolicybookletFinaldigitalcolour_English.pdf

The RFU welcomes the taking of appropriate images of children in rugby clubs and has developed guidance for parents/carers and the children’s workforce, which is available in the Safeguarding Toolkit, to enable suitable photographs to be taken celebrating the core values of the sport. There are risks associated with the use of photographic images. RFU Guidance on photographic images and professional photography is based on common sense. Clubs are advised to ensure that everyone is fully aware of, and complies with, the guidance. The key principle is that clubs should ensure they obtain parental consent for photographs to be taken while a child is either at the club or at away fixtures.

 

[crossref]

Here is the toolkit with the actual policy

I dont see anything about ref cams though

RFU Safeguarding Toolkit
https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Doc...toolkit_fullcolour_aw_singlepages_Neutral.pdf

 

[OB..]

If the refs not seen the offence fair enough but if he has and penalises one team and not the other for the same thing, surely this is bias. It might not be intentional and I get that but it's still bias. Surely in that case it's against the spirit of the game too.

How can something considered "fair enough" be treated as bias, and against the spirit of the game?

The effect may be seen as unfair, but it is not the referee's fault, so he cannot be accused of bias (=unfair application of the laws).

 

[didds]

I read that to be "fair enough" when the ref _hasn't_ seen any offense. Arabcheif then goes on to use the B word wrt if the ref has seen it etc.

??

didds

 

[Flish]

Here is the toolkit with the actual policy

I dont see anything about ref cams though

RFU Safeguarding Toolkit
https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Doc...toolkit_fullcolour_aw_singlepages_Neutral.pdf

It does mention video though so at a minimum you would adhere to the guidance for photography, in reality video is received as being more intrusive and more of a concern than still photography (for kids).

Which reminds me of an odd 'incident' in a U13 game I reffed a few weeks back, apparently there was a safeguarding complaint from a parent in response to the photographs taken at the game (by a volunteer photographer that covers lots of games across the county), apparently a parent was unhappy at the face being pulled by one kid, it was too aggressive and said parent wanted it dealt with - all this from a still image!

 

[Arabcheif]

Yes Didds, if the ref didn't see the offence, then clearly not b**s but if he/she did see the offence but chooses to penalise 1 team but not the other in the same circumstances. This could be b**s. Like I said, it may well be unintentional but it still may be. I was watching a local match a couple of weeks ago (I wasn't a home or away supporter/club member/player/coach/etc).

I noticed that the ref was penalising one team for going in at the side but the other was perfectly free to do the same thing. I heard the Captain ask the ref (once play was dead) how had they missed it as they were looking right at the ruck. The ref just told him to go away. To me it was clear a day the player joined the ruck diagonally, put his hands in pulled the ball out and ran up the field and scored. I started cheering for the other team at this point. They lost unfortunately lol.

 

[davidlandy]

it was clear a day the player joined the ruck diagonally, put his hands in pulled the ball out and ran up the field and scored. I started cheering for the other team at this point. They lost unfortunately lol.

Couldn't this have been the No 9 picking the ball out of the ruck and running with it? If so s/he doesn't join the ruck, so there's no requirement to be behind back feet.

If not, there is the "materiality" test to consider... there's a threshold of "in-at-the-sideness" that every ref will allow, as players hardly ever join exactly from behind the last foot and alongside the last-bound player, so the question is, was it "material" ie enough of an offence to warrant a penalty? The ref should have the same standard for both teams but I'm sure at lower levels it's not that easy to do - not biased, just takes skill. And the ref only gets one look, in real time, from a position very different to yours on the touchline. It's not easy!

But I would agree that there's nothing wrong with the ref explaining it to players, either say it was the No 9 so no requirement to join (from behind), or that it was not material enough and he'd give them the same leeway going forward. As you say, it might help calm things down.

Did you see the whole game though? Was this captain giving endless stick/questions to the ref? Could be why he/she didn't want to explain (again).

 

[Arabcheif]

I was there from just after KO. I saw it kicking off and thought, I'm going to go watch. TBF, I thought the captain did ask a few questions, but didn't seem to be overly combative. Was asking questions to clarify his understanding of what had occurred. Once the explanation was given he nodded and moved away.

He did start to get more combative in the 2nd half as 2 red cards within 3 mins (real time) or about 30 secs playing time got him really frustrated. Hate to suggest this there seemed to be some competency issues to the impartial observer on the refs part.

 

[davidlandy]

I was there from just after KO. I saw it kicking off and thought, I'm going to go watch. TBF, I thought the captain did ask a few questions, but didn't seem to be overly combative. Was asking questions to clarify his understanding of what had occurred. Once the explanation was given he nodded and moved away.

He did start to get more combative in the 2nd half as 2 red cards within 3 mins (real time) or about 30 secs playing time got him really frustrated. Hate to suggest this there seemed to be some competency issues to the impartial observer on the refs part.

OK so you don't say whether you feel the 2 x RC were warranted, but either way the captain was making a pain of himself to the ref, and the ref (eventually) probably lost patience and sent him away without explanation - fair enough! You can't possibly keep asking the ref *every* time what it was for.

And possibly the ref should have taken some firmer action against him ie restart with a PK this time, and keep it up and I'll card you as well? "It's not soccer."

Can I ask, what level was this at? Quite possibly the ref was a bit out of his depth, as suggest, and may need more experience/training, which no doubt he will get. We're all learning, and it's pretty much an entirely amateur sport, except at the higher levels.

Have you tried reffing and see what people say about you? Like you I'm not a ref, and I bet (like parenting) it's really easy from the touchlines :biggrin:

 

[Arabcheif]

TBF I'm not a ref, at rugby. But have reffed in football (not calling it the S word lol). I don't ref anymore as I prefer playing Both Footy and Rugby. I was always happy to explain decisions and explain why I didn't see something. I wasn't shy at bringing out the cards as a warning and then showing he 2nd yellow straight. I'd show the yellow then if they kept complaining they'd get, 1 more word and you be off. Most shut up straight away. I did show the 2nd yellow twice. That tended to stop the back chat.

I think that there's a difference in asking a question for an understanding as to what happened, so the players know not to do it again. Thus avoiding cards.

The 2 RCs??? I was a distance away, 1 seemed to be for a tackle that was slightly high. I'd have said a pen, maybe YC but I'd have just warned him to keep the tackles down as it was deep into the 2nd half and he tackles uo till then had been fine. His tackle on this occasion was just slightly high by accident.

The 2nd RC. Yeah this one's probably more justified. SH jumped over the ruck in an over exaggerated manor to emphisise that they were diving over the ruck. I don't think they were dive, the other team's play just lost his footing but sealed the ball in. I think it was silly and I would've YC him for it but not a RC.

 

[crossref]

I would guess that one game in a thousand has 2xRC (any other estimate anyone? )

So you witnessed a very unusual game

I expect the referee would have a story to tell, and a different perspective from yours

 

[menace]

As much as I applaud the closing ranks to support a referee....oerhaps the reality is the referee was bias. It's certainly not out of the realms of possibility !!!!(as disappointing as it would be).

 

[Zebra1922]

As much as I applaud the closing ranks to support a referee....oerhaps the reality is the referee was bias. It's certainly not out of the realms of possibility !!!!(as disappointing as it would be).

If this is aimed the original poster (i.e. me) I take exception to that comment. Why the heck would I post something about possible abuse on an accusation of bias if I was not? (And don't go down the route of unconscious bias....).I referee games and teams on merit, I regularly referee teams on subsequent weeks who have been a real pain the arse to me previously, but each game isa new game and nothing that has gone before colours the current game.

In these cases players were not asking specific questions to clarify law, they were implying I was being biased. On occasion I am asked why a penalty count is skewed against a team, the answer is normally the penalised team are offending more (in this particular match the non penalised team generally did not complete at the ruck ergo were never penalised for hands in, going off feet, in at the side etc.).

 

[menace]

If this is aimed the original poster (i.e. me) I take exception to that comment. Why the heck would I post something about possible abuse on an accusation of bias if I was not? (And don't go down the route of unconscious bias....).I referee games and teams on merit, I regularly referee teams on subsequent weeks who have been a real pain the arse to me previously, but each game isa new game and nothing that has gone before colours the current game.

In these cases players were not asking specific questions to clarify law, they were implying I was being biased. On occasion I am asked why a penalty count is skewed against a team, the answer is normally the penalised team are offending more (in this particular match the non penalised team generally did not complete at the ruck ergo were never penalised for hands in, going off feet, in at the side etc.).

Keep your kilt on... your post has moved in 2 other directions since a week ago. I wasnt having a crack at you or making any accusations about you.. Pick up the conversation at post #40 where subject is currently heading.

 

[crossref]

As much as I applaud the closing ranks to support a referee....oerhaps the reality is the referee was bias. It's certainly not out of the realms of possibility !!!!(as disappointing as it would be).

On the one hand it's possible this ref was so biased he issued two undeserved RC

On the other hand it's possible that he was having a bad day, in a difficult game, lost the players confidence and the whole game ended up running away from him.

We have all been there, right ? Although prohably not to the extent of ending up with 2 RC

 

[Rich_NL]

2 RC is not a 1-in-1000 event, but there's usually a fight involved. 2 separately sounds like an inexperienced/unskilled ref losing his calm, or a biased club ref. I've played matches reffed by both...

 

[crossref]

In our region of London Society we must cover well over 1000 games per season , I was trying to guess how many double RC games we would have .. two separate incidents .. in a season ... One seemed about right. But I wonder what the actual answer is...

Then I was thinking : of those incidents how often would conclude that it was because the ref was biased ....

 

[Arabcheif]

Hey CR, I don't know. I felt there was maybe a case of anti-bias, as I heard one of the away team's players (on the way back to the changing rooms after full time) saying to the home team's captain that they had a complaint upheld with the SRU previously and were told that they wouldn't be reffed by that ref again (unless there was no-one else available).

I think with the red cards, I heard the 2nd recipient say, I've been given a red cause I'm a ref and I should know better. That may suggest the offence wasn't really a red but the ref judged that as he's a ref too he should be being as silly and escalated the sanction based on the 9 being a ref too. Now I didn't hear that part of the conversation. I'd have suggested that the 2 offences were probs yellow cards at worse, with the high tackle being just being spoken to and a warning to keep them down or be carded.

@ Rich_NL I think the ref may have been either inexperienced/unskilled. I you could tell the coach and captain (of the home team), were bemused. At one point I heard the coach saying to a spectator that he was considering pulling the team off with safety concerns. I have to admit there was lots of charging at the ruck the away team were doing and at least 6 or 7 very high tackles that the ref missed on the home team too. I get that it's easy to miss things and mistakes do happen but this just seemed to me to be incompetent.

 

[DocY]

In our region of London Society we must cover well over 1000 games per season , I was trying to guess how many double RC games we would have .. two separate incidents .. in a season ... One seemed about right. But I wonder what the actual answer is...

Then I was thinking : of those incidents how often would conclude that it was because the ref was biased ....

IME, *exactly* two cards at separate incidents is exceedingly rare. If you give out RCs for separate incidents it's usually because both teams just want to fight and you'll end up giving out three or four before abandoning the game.

Regarding bias, though. In my time involved with rugby, I've come across two referees I'd say hand on heart were biased (school games below 6th form, refereed by one team's coach) and, granted it was a small sample size, but there weren't any red cards there - just very different applications of advantage.

 

[Arabcheif]

@DocY - I think the Red cards were due to the ref being unskilled (maybe inexperienced). I think the anti bias was in the rest of the game in general play. I think the ref didn't want another complaint and as such seemed to miss a lot more than normally they would've seen and pinged from the away team. I've heard (from my own club) that since that match, the ref has reffed the same away team and they won in controversial fashion again, involving a (from reading the match report from the losing team), unjustified Red Card.