Cards after mass handbags, U17

[matty1194]

From the OP - my BOLD / BRACKETS

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 (GOOD MAN), given that I had no idea what the initial flare had been.
However, with the player coming in late, perhaps I was too tolerant (DEFINATLY). 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 (TIME LEFT IN GAME SHOULD NEVER BE A FACTOR - IF IT HAPPENED IN THE 1ST MINUTE or the 80TH MINUTE YOU SHOULD SANCTION ACCORDINLY).

Final note: same home club, same kick-off time, seniors tomorrow. Would it be right under a similar scenario? (ONLY YOU WILL KNOW
THAT - HOWEVER TREAT EACH SITUATION AS INDIVIDUAL)

-------------------------------

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 a Leicester player today for "raking" a Bath player?

Barnsey actually RC'd the replacement 9 for excessive use of the boot, in the replays you can see the ball clearly away in the hands in the background and the 9 still "rucking" away.

 

[Taff]

.... But never let yourself restart with a scrum after a mass brawl.

I know what you're saying but what if you genuinely don't know what caused the mass brawl?

Do you PK the first punch? Do you PK the retaliation? My point is that if you genuinely didn't see what happened, and both sides have offended a scrum may be the fairest way to restart.

 

[matty1194]

Taff mate, think it through logically and we get the correct outcome as you have alrready answered your own question.

I know what you're saying but what if you genuinely don't know what caused the mass brawl?

Do you PK the first punch? Do you PK the retaliation? My point is that if you genuinely didn't see what happened, and both sides have offended a scrum may be the fairest way to restart.

My bold and underlined bit - yes we as referee's may of missed what started the brawl but if you have seen the first punch then the retaliation then their is your answer.

You award the PK to the first team then reverse it for the retaliation. It is not our problem if players can not control themselves, if we allow them to take matters into their own hand's then we run the risk of being made redundant!

 

[Browner]

Taff mate, think it through logically and we get the correct outcome as you have alrready answered your own question.



My bold and underlined bit - yes we as referee's may of missed what started the brawl but if you have seen the first punch then the retaliation then their is your answer.

You award the PK to the first team then reverse it for the retaliation. It is not our problem if players can not control themselves, if we allow them to take matters into their own hand's then we run the risk of being made redundant!

The retaliation Law is a brawl prevention/disuassion law. Its only purpose being to avoid escalation of events....use ' reverse PK' as often as you can.

 

[OB..]

If you hear a noise behind you and turn round to find two players punching each other, you have no idea who threw the first punch and who retaliated. Your decision should not depend on the lottery of who you saw first (and even that may not be clear). A scrum restart is fairest.

However it is a potential flashpoint, so take your time in dealing with the miscreants, and talking to the captains. Give a stern warning to the packs that the scrum will ba a no-tolerance affair. I have seen this approach work well.

 

[Browner]

If you hear a noise behind you and turn round to find two players punching each other, you have no idea who threw the first punch and who retaliated. Your decision should not depend on the lottery of who you saw first (and even that may not be clear). A scrum restart is fairest.

However it is a potential flashpoint, so take your time in dealing with the miscreants, and talking to the captains. Give a stern warning to the packs that the scrum will ba a no-tolerance affair. I have seen this approach work well.

Not for me OB.
Following the scrap, both players are leaving the pitch for 'at least' 10. One will have started it (PK) and one will have retaliated (PK) ...given.

I'm definately giving a PK against one of them under exactly the same 'assessment' criteria ( which might incorporate king solomon judgement methodology or even best guess) that I would use to award the feed at your suggested scrum.

Neither captain can complain if the decision ( or your scrum feed) goes against them , but PK highlights how serious I take the offence, which scrum feed doesn't.

 

[Pegleg]

I'm not happy to guess who to give the PK to or to give it to the side defending etc. Two yellows (or reds is appropriate) and stern talk to the captains, with a "Go and speak to your players please" speech that should allow a calm down period and then a scrum with ZERO tolerance and ping the first offence you see.

 

[Rushforth]

Neither captain can complain if the decision ( or your scrum feed) goes against them , but PK highlights how serious I take the offence, which scrum feed doesn't.

I see your point, but if I've just sent two men off for 10 minutes each, that the offence is serious should be obvious.

 

[Browner]

I see your point, but if I've just sent two men off for 10 minutes each, that the offence is serious should be obvious.

It is, so dont undermine/reduce the seriousness by restarting with a 'minor infringement restart' event ??

 

[Browner]

I'm not happy to guess who to give the PK to or to give it to the side defending etc. Two yellows (or reds is appropriate) and stern talk to the captains, with a "Go and speak to your players please" speech that should allow a calm down period and then a scrum with ZERO tolerance and ping the first offence you see.

Who are you happy to give the feed to? Why?

 

[Pegleg]

Law 20.4 (d).

 

[OB..]

It is, so dont undermine/reduce the seriousness by restarting with a 'minor infringement restart' event ??

If you send the right message via the captains, the seriousneas of it is not undermined.

Like others, I am more uncomfortable with the idea of using invalid criteria in awarding a PK.

 

[Browner]

Law 20.4 (d).

.

Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

But ALL foul play punching IS covered by Law 10.4 , so you don't use this unless you classify 'not being sure' of the catalyst action , as an "irregularity"

I might try this next time...........

"I'm minded to RC both if I don't get told who started that " check for king solomonesk reactions!

Or....

"OK captains - I'm unsure who started that , but they are both off.
Foul play.
"You now get 1st chance to agree who started it so i can award the PK , if you can't agree then I'll decide , based solely on my judgement of fact when I first caught sight of them brawling"

"Ok, my player started it sir"
Thank you Red capt, do you agree Blue capt?
" yes sir they did start it sir"

" thank you captains , always easier when we agree, PK to Blue ( punch signal to hand followed by punch signal to other hand) , reversed for retaliation PK to Red !

Honestly always pays !
(Wink)

 

[Pegleg]

But ALL foul play punching IS covered by Law 10.4 , so you don't use this unless you classify 'not being sure' of the catalyst action , as an "irregularity"

I might try this next time...........

"I'm minded to RC both if I don't get told who started that " check for king solomonesk reactions!

Or....

"OK captains - I'm unsure who started that , but they are both off.
Foul play.
"You now get 1st chance to agree who started it so i can award the PK , if you can't agree then I'll decide , based solely on my judgement of fact when I first caught sight of them brawling"

"Ok, my player started it sir"
Thank you Red capt, do you agree Blue capt?
" yes sir they did start it sir"

" thank you captains , always easier when we agree, PK to Blue ( punch signal to hand followed by punch signal to other hand) , reversed for retaliation PK to Red !

Honestly always pays !
(Wink)

The irregularity is that you do not know who the "guilty party" is. So you're guessing - rarely pays. I'll stick with a scrum and justify it with the law as quoted.

 

[Taff]

If you hear a noise behind you and turn round to find two players punching each other, you have no idea who threw the first punch and who retaliated. Your decision should not depend on the lottery of who you saw first (and even that may not be clear). A scrum restart is fairest.

However it is a potential flashpoint, so take your time in dealing with the miscreants, and talking to the captains. Give a stern warning to the packs that the scrum will ba a no-tolerance affair. I have seen this approach work well.

Exactly as I see it. Possibly a tactical cool down water break may be called for as well. :biggrin:

Who are you happy to give the feed to? Why?

Personally? Scrum to the side in possession. Failing that the side last in possession and failing even that, the attacking side.

This was after the 2 boxers had been given either a :noyc: or a :norc:

 

[Chris_j]

Surely each retaliation results in a turnover penalty. The final 10.4(l) offence dictates who it is awarded to. Who started it is irrelevant in determining the PK recipient. You only need to see the final act for that. Who gets the cards is a different matter.

 

[Rushforth]

Surely each retaliation results in a turnover penalty. The final 10.4(l) offence dictates who it is awarded to. Who started it is irrelevant in determining the PK recipient. You only need to see the final act for that. Who gets the cards is a different matter.

Yes, absolutely, but the discussion has moved on to what to do when a couple of players are fighting with the referee having no idea who started it, the rest of the players having continued to play rather than join the brawl or handbags.

In my case, I identified the two initial miscreants, but not which of them started it and which retaliated. I also identified the last twit in, so at least there was no doubt as to who should get the penalty.

I can live with my decision to be lenient and give only three yellow cards; I counted back from red for the last one. I believe there is concensus on the final 10.4(l) - which is what I wrote down as opposed to the physical offence of (b).

That said, I would appreciate guidelines - or rather consistency - on what to do in this other case. I can live with a scrum, and although I've not restarted with a scrum after a yellow card myself yet am interested in the side-discussion.