Advantage?

[SimonSmith]

:clap:

 

[David J.]

What is this, selective reading day? You'd be less frustrated if you actually read my post with care.

Maybe all caps will make it clearer?

I AGREE. YOU CANNOT BIN A CAPTAIN!!!!!! !

I thought I'd covered that bit when I said "Bryan...Your recommendations for managing the situation are spot on". But I guess I wasn't shouting loud enough?

I was addressing a distinction between what I can do as a referee and what I think would be fair. I think it would be fair to bin a captain in certain situations (and I've been captain of a DII side!). You don't have to agree on that bit, I don't really care because it's hypothetical. The important bit, the REFEREEING bit, we agree on.

I don't think I will try to explain myself further in this thread, as I feel I am being neglectfully misunderstood.

 

[jboulet4648]

I think it would be fair to bin a captain in certain situations (and I've been captain of a DII side!).

I do to....If it was the captains boot or action which deserved binning, off he goes. If it is someone else on his/her team......read the capitals previously

 

[OB..]

I AGREE. YOU CANNOT BIN A CAPTAIN!!!!!!

I only quoted that to show you how this board enables you to refer back unequivocally to an earlier post. Use the Quote button, and then edit out the bits you do not want to quote. Click on the arrow and it takes you to the quoted post.

 

[mkottke]

I only quoted that you refer unequivocally to an earlier post and edit the bits you want.

Selective quoting... that is similar to creative journalism.

 

[Dickie E]

Postulate: "hey guys, I've had an idea, its a bit left field, but I thought I throw it in anyway ..."

Responses: "Bullsh!t" "Why are you wasting our time ..." "Red herring ..." "Listen to me, I know better ..." "ARGHH !!!!!!!" "Cut the crap ..." "End of discussion ..."

No wonder the First World is in decline :nono:

 

[Dixie]

Chaps, this has possibly been the most ill-tempered and spiky thread I can recall. I sincerely hope we can all get back to the standard that has pertained here since its inception - thoughtful, considerate responses that don't seek to alienate or denigrate a contributor. We all bring different experiences and degrees of expertise to the forum - and its major strength is enabling a newly qualified referee to test his or her assumptions against the accumulated wisdom of more experienced contributors. We won't be able to maintain that tradition if contributors - experienced or otherwise - get howled down.:swet:

 

[Bryan]

David J,
I wasn't sure you had made a clear point to differentiate between what you WOULD do and what you FEEL is right (you've since explained yourself) . I still disagree with the latter, only b\c I think it would open up a can of worms, particularly in Simon's case where the captain 'intentionally' brings you the wrong player (you didn't see who did it, but you know a few players that DIDN'T do it). I don't think it's fair to blame the captain for one of his team-mates seeing the red-mist. No amount of leadership can stop all actions of players, so I don't feel that justice would prevail.

Robert,
At first, the comments were geared at finding in the Lawbook (as opposed to actual Law) where this would apply (we're still out to lunch to that question). Then the whole thing got crazy and drifted into the Twilight Zone, with talk of comparison between the rugby field and the government / business. While you've quoted a few off-the-cuff remarks, the management part by FlipFlop and I seems to be the general consensus around these parts. Shooting down the idea is not meant to be a personal jibe, and if you post something again I won't treat it with less respect (and i would expect the same in return).

As I've learned, better to get shot down on this forum than try pulling it on the pitch.

 

[OB..]

Selective quoting... that is similar to creative journalism.

I use it to make sure people know what point I am replying to. I quote the whole point, but not necessarily the whole message. The reference system enables people to check easily if the quote is out of context.

 

[FlipFlop]

I use it to give the illusion that people know what point I am disagreeing with. I misquote the part of the point most relevant, but not necessarily the whole (uneditted) message, as that would give the game away. The reference system is never used, and therefore people never check if the quote is out of context.

I'm wiht you on that one OB

 

[OB..]

Oh dear.

 

[Rich Wartner]

My question was answered. Thanks. As was mentioned rather have it a bit testy here than later on the field. You guys are sooooo much fun I'll try to think up a few more....

BTW its beautiful in Utah during the summer. Not too hot and we have several gorgeous pitches with thick grass and snow capped mts in the background. We have a 7s series that goes on several consecutive Sats at different venues ending up 4th July in Park City which is a famous ski town (3 resorts). 4th always draws a big crowd with tourists in town. Lots of fun (beer truck). Can always use another referee.

 

[Dickie E]

David J,
I wasn't sure you had made a clear point to differentiate between what you WOULD do and what you FEEL is right (you've since explained yourself) . I still disagree with the latter, only b\c I think it would open up a can of worms, particularly in Simon's case where the captain 'intentionally' brings you the wrong player (you didn't see who did it, but you know a few players that DIDN'T do it). I don't think it's fair to blame the captain for one of his team-mates seeing the red-mist. No amount of leadership can stop all actions of players, so I don't feel that justice would prevail.

Robert,
At first, the comments were geared at finding in the Lawbook (as opposed to actual Law) where this would apply (we're still out to lunch to that question). Then the whole thing got crazy and drifted into the Twilight Zone, with talk of comparison between the rugby field and the government / business. While you've quoted a few off-the-cuff remarks, the management part by FlipFlop and I seems to be the general consensus around these parts. Shooting down the idea is not meant to be a personal jibe, and if you post something again I won't treat it with less respect (and i would expect the same in return).

As I've learned, better to get shot down on this forum than try pulling it on the pitch.

It only got crazy 'cos I was asked to, and accepted the challenge of, looking for ethical, moral or legal parallels.

And. after all, isn't rugby a metaphor for life?

 

[SimonSmith]

Ah.
When I saw examples in law, I mean The Law Book (as issued by the IRB) and not civil law...

Given the spread of nationalities on here, that would be a big ask!