Cards after mass handbags, U17

[Rushforth]

The coaches were happy, but I'm not 100% on the decision.

Orange v Yellow, half time score 5-5. Halfway through the second half the visitors had scored a penalty and two (unconverted) tries. With temperaure well above 20C and humidity above 80%, one player at around this time (unrelated to incident) apparently was replaced because he was feeling sick from the heat.

No prior 10.4-style aggression, but two players started fighting (more handbags) at the other side of the ruck, went to ground where they continued it, and unfortunately other players from nearby got involved despite my best efforts. I identified the initial two, as well as one who came in and delivered a stamp to the back of the opponent involved on the ground.

I was happy with giving the initial two both yellow cards, given that I had no idea what the initial flare had been.

However, with the player coming in late, perhaps I was too tolerant. I counted back from red and informed him that he was only getting yellow, since there were only a little more than 10 minutes remaining in the game. I should perhaps add that the side with the two YCs were the losing home side.

Since this player shook my hand in the tunnel, I would like to think that he has learned his lesson. Given that he was the last player in (i.e. easiest to remember), I also feel a RC would be unfair, considering that other players from both sides may well have done worse.

There was no further incident in the final minutes, and the home side even scored after full time from a quickly taken penalty after the visitors had first come offside around a ruck and then deliberately threw the ball forwards and into touch, with teams restored to 15v15.

Final result two tries to five. Was it right?

Final note: same home club, same kick-off time, seniors tomorrow. Would it be right under a similar scenario?

 

[crossref]

Stamping on a defenceless player on the ground seems quite red to me...

 

[Dixie]

Given that he was the last player in (i.e. easiest to remember), I also feel a RC would be unfair, considering that other players from both sides may well have done worse.

This is exactly the wrong way round. The two original guys had reasons for getting involved with each other. They may not be great reasons for having a dust-up on a rugby pitch, but they exist. The last man in - he just thought "nothing to do with me, but what the heck - I want some of that!"

You say you worked back from Red. I see absolutely no mitigating factors, and only aggravating ones.

 

[Pegleg]

First two :noyc: and a cool down. The last one. WHAT WAS HE DOING? :rc:

 

[didds]

Stamping on a defenceless player on the ground seems quite red to me...

Totally.

It seems a fair tempered game on the whole from what you say, but if 1 minute later somebody else had stamped someone in the head how on earth are you going to give THEM a RC?

Stamping is as foul play as you can get. Deffo RC.


didds

 

[Rushforth]

This is exactly the wrong way round. The two original guys had reasons for getting involved with each other. They may not be great reasons for having a dust-up on a rugby pitch, but they exist. The last man in - he just thought "nothing to do with me, but what the heck - I want some of that!"

You say you worked back from Red. I see absolutely no mitigating factors, and only aggravating ones.

I fully understand what you (and others) are saying, which is why I asked the question.

My problem is that I felt I shoulda/coulda have issued half a dozen YCs on each side, and obviously for what was mostly "handbags". But no way to deal with that many. There had been "last men" just before him, from both sides.

You (all) have confirmed that I am too easy/kind. The stamp wasn't particularly nasty, and although this was the only flare-up in the entire match, unless someone argues - convincingly - that the circumstances as I have roughly described them above are mitigating, I won't be so easy "the next time".

Does anybody have a good way to phrase that (late) retaliation is unacceptable for a short pre-match briefing?

 

[Pegleg]

Just keep it to "retaliation" is unacceptable, and leave it there.

 

[Taff]

.... Stamping is as foul play as you can get. Deffo RC.

I would argue that it depends on what was stamped on - some are more "deffo" than others.

Eg I would suggest that a stamp on the head or neck or joints eg knees, ankles etc was more serious than a stamp on a flabby arse.

Come to think of it, didn't Wayne Barnes :noyc: a Leicester player today for "raking" a Bath player?

 

[Browner]

Does anybody have a good way to phrase that (late) retaliation is unacceptable for a short pre-match briefing?

I never mention this in a PMB. Nor will i start.

If i interprete correctly, youre oozing too a tad too much empathy, yellow+almost match ending+ losing already ....... !!

 

[OB..]

The description is of a RC offence: joining a scrap, and stamping on a player.

If you feel guilty about others getting away without cards, then deal with them. It is not a reason to be kind to the stamper.

 

[FightOrFlight]

I identified the initial two, as well as one who came in and delivered a stamp to the back of the opponent involved on the ground.


Since this player shook my hand in the tunnel, I would like to think that he has learned his lesson. Given that he was the last player in (i.e .easiest to remember), I also feel a RC would be unfair, considering that other players from both sides may well have done worse.

Stamp to a player on the ground away from the ball is RC all day. I would sanction careless boot work around the ball too.

The issue here is that if that kid didn't learn his lesson he could do it again and next time he does what if he injures the other guys spine? I would be more likely to RC a youth player for dangerous play than I would a Senior. You RC a youth and it scares them a bit...they remember and wont do it again and so when the knocks get bigger then know what they should not do.
I think that this kid would run in and Michael Flatley another player again as he was only YCed and the other guy may not be so lucky as to walk away unhurt

 

[menace]

In ARU land, our U19 variations have zero tolerance for punching/stamping.

10.5 (c) Players who punch or stamp other players must be sent-off (red card).

Therefore your 2 initial fighters and the stamping 3rd man in would have earnt themselves RCs.

 

[The Fat]

In ARU land, our U19 variations have zero tolerance for punching/stamping.

10.5 (c) Players who punch or stamp other players must be sent-off (red card).

Therefore your 2 initial fighters and the stamping 3rd man in would have earnt themselves RCs.

Yep, that's the way we roll down under. Is this not the same up north in U19s and below?

As for mentioning it in the PMB, I really don't see the need.

The stamper would have gotten a RC from me in seniors as well

 

[FightOrFlight]

Yep, that's the way we roll down under. Is this not the same up north in U19s and below?

Sadly you still have "ye olde rugby playres" in some parts of the North who value and good bit of shoeplay at the breakdown. At the start of my referee career I had an U13s coach tell me that if the "man" is going to lie on the wrong side he will get the treatment he deserves:wtf:......he was 12 and started crying afterwards.

It's a dying art but like all arts it has it's appreciators here and there.

Punching will get you a red at youth level In Ireland most days of the week....that's why there is only on average handbags at dawn or your run of the mill ballroom dancing routine after a ruck etc. Grow up boys!

 

[Browner]

In ARU land, our U19 variations have zero tolerance for punching/stamping.

10.5 (c) Players who punch or stamp other players must be sent-off (red card).

Isn't this a player development plan in SA?

 

[Dixie]

My problem is that I felt I shoulda/coulda have issued half a dozen YCs on each side, and obviously for what was mostly "handbags". But no way to deal with that many.

It's a difficult scenario - mass brawl, one of you, worse if there are no numbers on the players - how do you keep track?

If the ref had a photographic memory, I'd expect him to yellow card (at least) everyone who ran in from a distance to join the fray adn threw a punch regardless of whether it was effective). If there are simply too many to keep track of, you card the ones you are sure of - others may have been lucky, but that's not to argue that it's unfair on the ones you caught. Think of it like a line of speeding cars - players rushing in convoy to a game, for which they are late. Every one is exceeding the speed limit, so can't moan about being fined. If they subsequently discover that one of the party was not fined, it's not a reason to avoid their own sanction.

Sometimes, the brawl is simply too big. In such cases, particularly near the end of the game, think about stopping the game. Lots of players have lots of grievances with other people who have hit them - the risk of carrying on can sometimes be excessive.

 

[Rushforth]

Sometimes, the brawl is simply too big. In such cases, particularly near the end of the game, think about stopping the game. Lots of players have lots of grievances with other people who have hit them - the risk of carrying on can sometimes be excessive.

Absolutely. However, there had been no prior niggle in this particular case, and there was non in the final 13 minutes either.

Today I was told by an older player from the same club who is also a U19 international that the initial miscreant from his side was "not a surprise". I didn't ask for details about "who did what first", obviously.

I don't mind being stricter - had I given a red card the only thing I would have minded is filing the report - and individuals coming in late only have themselves to blame if they cop a "team red" for being last man to join. That said, I don't want to stop the game for the rest of the players, the majority of whom didn't take part at all, or were trying to placate.

In the absence of a To3 officials - let alone television evidence - it isn't easy to ping the right people. Lesson learned: ping big-time for taking the law into their own hands!

 

[Dixie]

In the absence of a To3 officials - let alone television evidence - it isn't easy to ping the right people.

Spot on. But never let yourself restart with a scrum after a mass brawl. I had one several years ago at U.16, in which the home team was unnumbered. I got the initial miscreants, and was just retreating to open the field of view when I saw a large, dark-haired guy rush in and throw a haymaker - struck a glancing blow and fell to ground under his own momentum, far side of the melee. A dark head reappeared and I kept sight of him, gave him a RC to universal hoots of derision. Offered him the opportunity to point out the true culprit - he declined and took his punishment for the team. Accepted in the write-up that I probably carded the wrong player, and the club banned the correct guy.

Had I bottled the card, the game would unfairly have continued 15 v 15 and in the absence of a RC report for the discipline committee to consider, it's unlikely that the true culprit would have been banned. Not an approach I recommend, but in extremis be prepared to go out on a limb sometimes in the interests of overall equity.

 

[beckett50]

Agree with all that has gone before.

As has oft been said, you know a :rc: when you see it. In OP it was stated "I worked down from Red...". As referees we don't have the luxury of knowing the past discipline record of any player on the park, so we can't take the angelic looks and pleads as gospel. Give what you see and go with your gut in terms of cards.

 

[ChrisR]

I don't like to see RCs for scrapping coz what we usually see is the retaliation. As much as I preach "Don't retaliate" sometimes you just gotta and take your medicine.

However, coming in late with the boot isn't excusable and RC is a no-brainer.