[Law] Clarification 1 "021

[crossref]

You are right didds. I was going to tell the story about a YC four years ago which lasted 20 mins and 17 seconds. This arose because eleven minutes had gone but the referee refused to let the YC back on (non-offending) at a penalty and insisted waiting until the lineout. They missed touch and a combination of continuous play and other penalties led to the 20 mins+. He was only allowed back on when a scrum was opted for. Even then the opposition objected!

yes - you need to balance the non-offending team's right to go quickly, with the YC player's right to come back on.


scenario
- blue have a player in the bin, 11 mins gone
- you award PK to Red
- there is a pause while red collect the ball / confer about what to do. ie they have NOT tapped and gone
- the blue YC player is standing on the the touchline
- you can just wave him on to the field. Why not? he's done his time.

Red have the right to tap and go, but if they don't do that, I don't think red have the right to keep him off the field....

 

[Balones]

Thepercy -
What you outline, and suggested by others, is what I believe the procedure should be and what I have advised referees since the 2-2007 clarification. On this forum we seem to have a considerable amount of consensus but you’d be surprised by what I have observed in matches over the years. The most common inconsistency is the refusal to let a player on at the request of the non-offending side at a penalty. A lot refuse until the ball has been kicked into touch. Some do and some don’t. Some don’t even allow players on until a kick at goal has been completed. (Either at 22M or centre restart.). Most will allow players on if there is a scrum option, but not always; it seems to depend at times whether it would result in non-contested scrums. Several times I have observed sides ask for a player to come on and been told ‘it depends what you are going to do’. If the side says ‘run with it’, my experience is that referees tend to say no. Here I am talking about the refs I observe (levels 2-4) but I have no doubt it happens lower down.
The above is the reason why I can’t see why WR couldn’t clarify things along the procedure we seem to have consensus on rather than make the rather vague statement that ‘it’s up to the ref’. I believe that refs would welcome some procedural clarity. I know the refs in our society were grateful when it was presented to them.
I have been dealing with this topic for quite a few years and that is probably why I feel so strongly about it. Or maybe because whenever there had been some inconsistency it is the PR/assessor that cops an earful from the coaches during and after the match. I’m not looking forward to telling coaches that whatever the referee decides it’s simply “because it’s up to him”. Applying written down laws and regulations offer a great deal of protection to the referee. Look at how oftern RFU regs 13 get mentioned.

 

[crossref]

the WR clarification is not even useful at elite level because - AIUI - players come on and off the field supervised by the officials, not by the ref. The ref is just told.

 

[Balones]

the WR clarification is not even useful at elite level because - AIUI - players come on and off the field supervised by the officials, not by the ref. The ref is just told.

That’s what I said earlier in the thread about the situation observed in the 6 Nations and surmised that it was the reason behind the request for clarification from the French.

We have grids for man-off/subs etc, why can’t we have one for when things can happen?

 

[thepercy]

Thepercy -
What you outline, and suggested by others, is what I believe the procedure should be and what I have advised referees since the 2-2007 clarification. On this forum we seem to have a considerable amount of consensus but you’d be surprised by what I have observed in matches over the years. The most common inconsistency is the refusal to let a player on at the request of the non-offending side at a penalty. A lot refuse until the ball has been kicked into touch. Some do and some don’t. Some don’t even allow players on until a kick at goal has been completed. (Either at 22M or centre restart.). Most will allow players on if there is a scrum option, but not always; it seems to depend at times whether it would result in non-contested scrums. Several times I have observed sides ask for a player to come on and been told ‘it depends what you are going to do’. If the side says ‘run with it’, my experience is that referees tend to say no. Here I am talking about the refs I observe (levels 2-4) but I have no doubt it happens lower down.
The above is the reason why I can’t see why WR couldn’t clarify things along the procedure we seem to have consensus on rather than make the rather vague statement that ‘it’s up to the ref’. I believe that refs would welcome some procedural clarity. I know the refs in our society were grateful when it was presented to them.
I have been dealing with this topic for quite a few years and that is probably why I feel so strongly about it. Or maybe because whenever there had been some inconsistency it is the PR/assessor that cops an earful from the coaches during and after the match. I’m not looking forward to telling coaches that whatever the referee decides it’s simply “because it’s up to him”. Applying written down laws and regulations offer a great deal of protection to the referee. Look at how oftern RFU regs 13 get mentioned.

Seemingly this would be easy to put in a handy chart in the Law Application Guidelines, or as part of each Unions (the ones that have them) Game Management Guidelines.

 

[Dickie E]

yes - you need to balance the non-offending team's right to go quickly, with the YC player's right to come back on.


scenario
- blue have a player in the bin, 11 mins gone
- you award PK to Red
- there is a pause while red collect the ball / confer about what to do. ie they have NOT tapped and gone
- the blue YC player is standing on the the touchline
- you can just wave him on to the field. Why not? he's done his time.

Red have the right to tap and go, but if they don't do that, I don't think red have the right to keep him off the field....

I agree. And this is what the clarification is trying to tell us to do. Technically, the ref can blow time off but just waving player on is OK.

 

[Dickie E]

I’m not looking forward to telling coaches that whatever the referee decides it’s simply “because it’s up to him”.

Well, you shouldn't do that then. What you should say is "yes, your team were awarded a penalty and chose not to take a QT. Their YC'd player had served his time, so the ref sensibly brought him back on at a break in play".

If a coach asked you why today's ref marched them 10, but last week's ref hadn't, at an identical situation ... what would you say?

 

[Balones]

Well, you shouldn't do that then. What you should say is "yes, your team were awarded a penalty and chose not to take a QT. Their YC'd player had served his time, so the ref sensibly brought him back on at a break in play".

If a coach asked you why today's ref marched them 10, but last week's ref hadn't, at an identical situation ... what would you say?

That’s really the point I’m making. All I can say is that WR says it us up to the ref, and it is that that annoys the coaches.

 

[crossref]

That’s really the point I’m making. All I can say is that WR says it us up to the ref, and it is that that annoys the coaches.

i wish the RFU would develop game management gudielines, I think they are a great idea to prodcue consistency withn the Laws.

This grey area is a great example of how GMG could be useful, by laying out some guidelines and principles without taking away referees autonomy.

 

[Balones]

I agree. And this is what the clarification is trying to tell us to do. Technically, the ref can blow time off but just waving player on is OK.

Not sure I’m happy with that situation although I do have some empathy with the idea. I’d want everyone to know that the player is returning and not just the player that catches my eye on the sideline. You would end up with players ‘popping up’ unexpectedly on the pitch and this cannot be deemed fair, especially if the opposition decide to run the ball one way because they see a gap and then a player suddenly steps into the pitch and makes a tackle. What if the ref makes a sort of waving arm signal to another player and the waiting player enters the pitch? Then we have the completely cynical, “I thought you waved me on ref”!

 

[crossref]

Not sure I’m happy with that situation although I do have some empathy with the idea. I’d want everyone to know that the player is returning and not just the player that catches my eye on the sideline. You would end up with players ‘popping up’ unexpectedly on the pitch and this cannot be deemed fair, especially if the opposition decide to run the ball one way because they see a gap and then a player suddenly steps into the pitch and makes a tackle. What if the ref makes a sort of waving arm signal to another player and the waiting player enters the pitch? Then we have the completely cynical, “I thought you waved me on ref”!

yes - although that seems to be exactly what happens in elite rugby where the touchline official seem to let a player on without fanfare or warning (presumably they let the ref know in his earpiece) .

I'd try and bring the player on and make it clear he's come on. Perhaps : peep, time off, on you come, peep time on. All over in 2 seconds

 

[SimonSmith]

i wish the RFU would develop game management gudielines, I think they are a great idea to prodcue consistency withn the Laws.

This grey area is a great example of how GMG could be useful, by laying out some guidelines and principles without taking away referees autonomy.

GMGs produce theoretical consistency, not practical.

 

[crossref]

They don't guarantee consistency, but they must improve it

 

[SimonSmith]

My experience in the US is that is not the case. Consistency is actually driven better at the local level.

 

[Balones]

My experience in the US is that is not the case. Consistency is actually driven better at the local level.

Can agree with that to some degree but doesn’t that mean local consistency is achieved rather than nationally?

 

[crossref]

My experience in the US is that is not the case. Consistency is actually driven better at the local level.

How do different localities become consistent with eachother ?

 

[SimonSmith]

A Federated model is the best way to get close to it. But I think we need to be honest when we say that there is a correlation between the standard of game and the chances of referee consistency.

Higher level games: greater chance.
Lower level games: Lesser chance.

if you don't believe, look at the USA R Referee page. Or rather, don't, if you value your sanity. Or, if you do, please don't blame me.

Current hot topic of debate on a page hosted by someone who used to be someone significant in USA Rugby: You can't be offside in-goal.

 

[Dickie E]

Current hot topic of debate on a page hosted by someone who used to be someone significant in USA Rugby: You can't be offside in-goal.

:knuppel2:

 

[OB..]

Current hot topic of debate on a page hosted by someone who used to be someone significant in USA Rugby: You can't be offside in-goal.

[LAWS]10.2 A player can be offside anywhere in the playing area.
Definitions. Playing area: The field of play plus the in-goal areas. The touch lines, touch-in-goal lines and dead-ball lines are not part of the playing area.[/LAWS]

How does he get out of that?

 

[crossref]

we have been through this a few times -- you can't have scrums, mauls, rucks or tackle in the in-goal, so the offside lines that normally form from those all disappear as the ball goes into in goal, and cannot exist in goal.

indeed even when the tackle/scrum etc is in the FoP, the offside line is the goal line- never in goal.

That's where the confusion comes from.

But what does remain is being offside by way of being in front of a team mate who last played the ball. That is the one form of offside that can happen in goal.