apparently not as bad as it looked.

[chbg]

i agree with the santion but does it matter whether he was driven into the ground or not? There is no reference to driven in the law. I had a discussion with a referee coach about this a couple of weeks ago, I gave a yellow (landed on back) partly on the grounds he was driven in to the ground, the coach pointed out this was not part of the law, and I should maybe have considered not giving a yellow as he was only lifted, topped and dropped onto his back and it was a friendly (!)

But as a specific point, does driving matter? I know it makes the consequences more serious, but should there be a different sanction for dropping vs driving? My current view is no, although the potential impact is worse there is no extra sanction for driving into the ground. Thoughts?

For the benefit of some, be reassured that the Law does still include 'driving into the ground':

[LAWS]10.4(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play. Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Agreed that there is no explicit additional penalty for driving as opposed to dropping, but it should be a factor taken into account when determining the sanction. It defines a more deliberate infringement, in my mind. Just as you might consider a different sanction for an extremely late tackle versus a marginally late one.

 

[DocY]

Of course lack of citing does not stop his headmaster deciding that he has brought the school into disrepute and suspending him from the school rugby team. However, there is no mention of the incident in the match report - so I do not hold out hope for this happening.

I was suspended from playing for school for being sent off - not such a bad incident (I would say that, though), I quite accidentally tackled someone around their forehead - and nothing in the match report, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

 

[Dickie E]

Aorere College

if you name your school after the bit around a nipple, you deserve no sympathy

 

[Pegleg]

i agree with the santion but does it matter whether he was driven into the ground or not? There is no reference to driven in the law. I had a discussion with a referee coach about this a couple of weeks ago, I gave a yellow (landed on back) partly on the grounds he was driven in to the ground, the coach pointed out this was not part of the law..?

Law book disagrees:

10.4(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground.

 

[DocY]

Law book disagrees:

10.4(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground.

I think Paule's point was the law doesn't distinguish between dropping or driving.

 

[Pegleg]

Certainly not how I read it. The point he made whas the ref coach said driving is not covered so there should not have been a card.

I quore from his post: "There is no reference to driven in the law." Well sorry but there is!

 

[SimonSmith]

Are you sure about that? Also, he saw the kick but did he see the tip (which the kicker assisted)?

Yes. 17.11.1.ai:

17.11.1 For Matches where, in accordance with Regulation 17.8.3 or 17.8.6, it isnot reasonably practicable for a Citing Commissioner to be appointed, thefollowing shall applya) Each team participating in a Match, or any of its authorised officials,or its Union, may citei) a Player(s) for an act(s) of alleged Foul Play committed duringthat Match provided that such act(s) have not been detected bythe Match Officials;

 

[Paule23]

Certainly not how I read it. The point he made whas the ref coach said driving is not covered so there should not have been a card.

I quore from his post: "There is no reference to driven in the law." Well sorry but there is!

Well, you're both right! I did say the law does not reference driving, and you have correctly pointed out it does (there's a reason I'm still a level 7 ref.....). But it also does not differentiate the punishment or seriousness between dropping and driving, which I suppose is really the point I was trying to make.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think Paule's point was the law doesn't distinguish between dropping or driving.

All that means is that it doesn't matter whether the player is dropped or driven, if he lands such that his "head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground" its RC

 

[Pegleg]

Well, you're both right! I did say the law does not reference driving, and you have correctly pointed out it does (there's a reason I'm still a level 7 ref.....). But it also does not differentiate the punishment or seriousness between dropping and driving, which I suppose is really the point I was trying to make.

It's not the point that his adviser / coach was making. That is the critical issue. If a referee coach is saying driving into the ground is not referenced in law we have a problem!

 

[DocY]

It's not the point that his adviser / coach was making. That is the critical issue. If a referee coach is saying driving into the ground is not referenced in law we have a problem!

I didn't read that properly - thought he just said "a coach" and thought such a comment was par for the course (no offence, didds).

Yeah, a referee coach a) questioning the sanction because the BC was driven rather than dropped then b) trying to use a non-existent technicality to justify it is a bit concerning.

(I hope I've not further misunderstood and misrepresented someone's competence)

 

[crossref]

at our society training session on Sunday we discussed how to assess tip tackles, and collisions in the air
when assessing sanction we did not distinguish dropped and driven

the decision tree was

- is the tackle legal or illegal? If legal play on, if not legal then

- he lands completely safely (eg on his feet, or lowered gently to ground) - PK only
- he lands on back or side - YC
- he lands on neck or head (or save himself from neck/head by use of arms) - RC

I am sure other people on the board were there - have it got it right?

 

[DocY]

- is the tackle legal or illegal? If legal play on, if not legal then

- he lands completely safely (eg on his feet, or lowered gently to ground) - PK only

If he comes down on his feet or is lowered, doesn't that mean the tackle was legal? It's only illegal if the player is tipped and not brought down safely.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I think the conversation was more specifically for aerial challenges, but a similar logic can follow for dangerous tackles. I think Crossref has it broadly right too. There may be a discussion about what a "fair challenge" is, but what was very clear was once you've decided it was "not a fair challenge":

Lands on feet/safely - card not necessary, but PK (and I would suggest have a quick word to ensure people stay aware of safety responsibilities)
Lands on back - YC
Lands on head/shoulders/hands which prevents landing on h&s - RC