Equity

[jdeagro]

Do we not apply judgment and equity all the time and call it “game management”?

As noted by Balones:


I have to agree with that approach. I will be a lot more chatty for say a U14 match with lots of green players vs. say College/Adult level but only across the match as a whole. I’m there to ensure a safe and fair match, not apply some form of handicap system.

As hard as it is to be in the middle and watch a team get blown away, they will learn a lot about the game, and themselves, from it.

Right. I think equity is applied between different levels of games, but applied with equality within any particular game.

 

[Balones]

Just a moment of contemplation. Would it be better to have the mantra, - safety, fairness, (honesty?) law?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I think your talking game management.
Here's some examples I've used many times.
Team A dominant in all aspects of the game and after 5 minutes you realise it's going to be at least an 80-0 game.
Team B keen and plod on regardless.
Speak to Team A captain and get them to understand your problems to wok with you to get a game..
At scrum time if Team B are getting stuffed have a word with Team A front row, tell them to dominate not destroy or you will be forced to go unopposed on safety grounds., you'll find most comply.
don't stop the clock for injuries and if it's looking like getting towards 100-0, if Team A captain agrees, blow up early.

 

[Locke]

It says much more than this, but this page defines it as such:

At all times, there are the three guiding principles:

• SAFETY - If someone’s safety is at risk, stop play.
• EQUITY - Treat both teams equally.
• LAW - If someone gains by playing against the Law, stop play.

https://passport.world.rugby/offici...n-programme/why-the-whistle-was-blown-or-not/

Some wider context:

Application of the Laws of the Game is far more important than knowledge of the Laws.
… …
If a referee applies the Laws in a wise and astute manner, he/she has the potential to lift a game to a higher tenor. Appropriate application draws upon two basic principles:

- A referee only blows the whistle for issues that have impact upon the game
- Often it is not what the referee calls with his whistle, but what the referee does not call, that is important.

It should be the aim of a referee to let the teams play the game in a continuous manner. Unfortunately, there are times when the referee simply has to blow the whistle and cause play to stop. It should be the objective of all referees to keep the whistle blowing, and therefore the stoppages, to a minimum.

At all times, there are the three guiding principles:

• SAFETY - If someone’s safety is at risk, stop play.
• EQUITY - Treat both teams equally.
• LAW - If someone gains by playing against the Law, stop play.

 

[jdeagro]

At all times, there are the three guiding principles:

• SAFETY - If someone’s safety is at risk, stop play.
• EQUITY - Treat both teams equally.
• LAW - If someone gains by playing against the Law, stop play.

Ah, seems like they've taken the equality definition here, and not the actual definition of equity that Dickie posted earlier. In that case, I unretract the earlier examples I provided lol, such as being more lenient at the lineout on a windy day, so long as that leniency is granted both ways.

 

[didds]

Ah, seems like they've taken the equality definition here, and not the actual definition of equity that Dickie posted earlier. In that case, I unretract the earlier examples I provided lol, such as being more lenient at the lineout on a windy day, so long as that leniency is granted both ways.

and that's also a pragmatic approach if you want to avoid all ball-in-touch scenarios not to waste a minute plus to just end up as a scrum on the 15m line.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For me equity comes under management. A simple example:

Players have been told time is up at a PK. The team (red) kicks for touch as they are 4 points behind. So we have a line-out. In the subsequent maul a blue player is injured (red are the attacking side, In possession and moving toard the opposition goal-line.

Do we:

1: Play on and see if Red score.
2: Stop the game and call time. It would be a scrum restart and time is up.
3: Stop the game but restart with a scrum to Red.

1 might cause further risk to the injured player.
2 seems unfair to red (maybe the blue player faked the injury).
3 seems the equitble solution.

I had an incident in an U12 game in a tournament many years ago where something similar happened. A maul formed and suddenly a player let out a massive cry. I stopped play and called the physio whereupon the player jumped up smiling and said he was fine. I said I was restarting the game with a scrum and I was not prepared to be conned. Both coaches call the decision as "correct". Was I right? I think so. BUT is the injury appeared real would I have been justified in taaking the "equitable" line?

 

[Decorily]

For me equity comes under management. A simple example:

Players have been told time is up at a PK. The team (red) kicks for touch as they are 4 points behind. So we have a line-out. In the subsequent maul a blue player is injured (red are the attacking side, In possession and moving toard the opposition goal-line.

Do we:

1: Play on and see if Red score.
2: Stop the game and call time. It would be a scrum restart and time is up.
3: Stop the game but restart with a scrum to Red.

1 might cause further risk to the injured player.
2 seems unfair to red (maybe the blue player faked the injury).
3 seems the equitble solution.

I had an incident in an U12 game in a tournament many years ago where something similar happened. A maul formed and suddenly a player let out a massive cry. I stopped play and called the physio whereupon the player jumped up smiling and said he was fine. I said I was restarting the game with a scrum and I was not prepared to be conned. Both coaches call the decision as "correct". Was I right? I think so. BUT is the injury appeared real would I have been justified in taaking the "equitable" line?

Great example and a scenario that I found myself in many years ago. Unfortunately I blew for half time and within a minute I regretted it!

 

[didds]

I had an incident in an U12 game in a tournament many years ago where something similar happened. A maul formed and suddenly a player let out a massive cry. I stopped play and called the physio whereupon the player jumped up smiling and said he was fine. I said I was restarting the game with a scrum and I was not prepared to be conned. Both coaches call the decision as "correct". Was I right? I think so. BUT is the injury appeared real would I have been justified in taking the "equitable" line?

PK against the cheat. And whatever the u12 equivalent of a card is. Id be tempted to use red to send a message to all concerned especially for the future. Bet they wont be effing smiling after that. maybe "only" U12 but it was clear that the 11 year old knew exactly what (s)he was doing - or had been coached by the coach (an adult) to do it, in advance. Its the thinnest end of wedges.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

PK against the cheat. And whatever the u12 equivalent of a card is. Id be tempted to use red to send a message to all concerned especially for the future. Bet they wont be effing smiling after that. maybe "only" U12 but it was clear that the 11 year old knew exactly what (s)he was doing - or had been coached by the coach (an adult) to do it, in advance. Its the thinnest end of wedges.

i did not feel it was a "team thing". If I saw it at senior level I'd certainly be looking at a card. At U12? Probably not.

 

[Dickie E]

Last week's U16 game. Halfway through the game one of the team requests uncontested scrums. No problem. One of the # 8s asks me, under his breath so that opposition couldn't hear, if a #8 pick & go was OK for uncontested scrums. I repeated the question loudly, so that all forwards could hear, & answered that it was OK. #8 wasn't so happy. Was that an equitable thing to do?

On a similar vein, a team advises the ref at PMB that they have a special lineout move and want to check that its legal. Would the equitable ref then tell the opponents that?

 

[Balones]

Overall what you think is ‘fair’ is up to you. Personally I would simply say yes in a normal voice to the first question. I think it is up to teams to think and ask questions for themselves. It is part of what makes teams better of worse than the opposition, including the coaching they receive. It would be up to the opposition to ask their own questions. I would expect a similar question from the opposition if they didn’t know. Perhaps they knew anyway? I appreciate it may be slightly different with it being U16 where there is perhaps more ignorance of the laws, but where do you draw the line as far as coaching is concerned? I expect more explaining during the game the younger the team. Tricky.

As far as the second is concerned. No. For the reasons given above and stop the referee going back and fore with questions between teams. It’s up to teams to prepare for the match and rehearse moves that they have previously been found to be legal. When a team has found that different referees have interpreted a law differently then by all means ask and play according to the referee’s response. It would be up to the referee to do his/her own development by asking colleagues what they would do if they are unsure after the match.

 

[Phil E]

On a similar vein, a team advises the ref at PMB that they have a special lineout move and want to check that its legal. Would the equitable ref then tell the opponents that?

I will always answer these type of questions with "I would need to see it first; and will make a decision at the time based on what I see."
I am not going to commit to a course of action based on a hypothetical situation that's very dynamic.
That just gives them a stick to beat you with if it doesn't look like you imagined.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Last week's U16 game. Halfway through the game one of the team requests uncontested scrums. No problem. One of the # 8s asks me, under his breath so that opposition couldn't hear, if a #8 pick & go was OK for uncontested scrums. I repeated the question loudly, so that all forwards could hear, & answered that it was OK. #8 wasn't so happy. Was that an equitable thing to do?

On a similar vein, a team advises the ref at PMB that they have a special lineout move and want to check that its legal. Would the equitable ref then tell the opponents that?

For us in WRU land, Uncontested means no #8 pick up. At the next scrum I announce "unconsteste., No # 8 pick up" to both packs. They all kno the law but try it on.

How about this scenario:

You award a PK 6 or 7 mtrs out. The attacking team opt for a scrum. At this point the defending team say: "We are going uncontested". Do you allow the attacking team to change their option? I do on the basis that they were not making a judgement based on the full facts. Never had a side complainbut often wonder am I strictly correct. Based on equity I feel I am.

 

[Balones]

For us in WRU land, Uncontested means no #8 pick up. At the next scrum I announce "unconsteste., No # 8 pick up" to both packs. They all kno the law but try it on.

How about this scenario:

You award a PK 6 or 7 mtrs out. The attacking team opt for a scrum. At this point the defending team say: "We are going uncontested". Do you allow the attacking team to change their option? I do on the basis that they were not making a judgement based on the full facts. Never had a side complainbut often wonder am I strictly correct. Based on equity I feel I am.

That’s being ’fair’ to the attacking side and not equity? But totally agree with you.

 

[didds]

F

You award a PK 6 or 7 mtrs out. The attacking team opt for a scrum. At this point the defending team say: "We are going uncontested".

Straight question : can teams just make a call to go uncontested like that? eg unconnected with loss of a FR player say? And having called uncontested can they then go back to be contested at the next scrum eg on half way ?

 

[jdeagro]

Straight question : can teams just make a call to go uncontested like that? eg unconnected with loss of a FR player say? And having called uncontested can they then go back to be contested at the next scrum eg on half way ?

I don't necessarily agree with Marc in the scenario they described.

I'll always listen to the question "can we go uncontested" from the captain of either side. But it doesn't mean I'm going to allow it. I would have to have good reason to allow it, such as a legitimate safety concern (whether through my own observation throughout the match or for example both props were just replaced with subs who've never played before, as noted by the captain). Or it's a lopsided match, 75 to nil in a friendly, and they've been getting demolished in scrums all day, and just want some form of consistency. Perhaps that's an application of equity (per the actual definition of the word).

But if scrums have been pretty safe all game, and all of a sudden the side about to be driven into their in-goal off a penalty they committed calls for uncontested, I'm not going to allow it just for cause there. To me it's no different than a player faking injury during the opposing team's advantage or maul after time has expired, so that there's no time left for a scrum restart after (as mentioned either earlier in this thread or another recent one). It's a bit of gaming the system, and I'm opposed to it.

Should however, a safety concern arise that causes uncontested, even in the scenario Marc described where it could've been done intentionally (e.g. changing out the props for new players), then they're locked into that decision for me until the safety issue is corrected.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Straight question : can teams just make a call to go uncontested like that? eg unconnected with loss of a FR player say? And having called uncontested can they then go back to be contested at the next scrum eg on half way ?

They may have made a replacement and the player comming on says to his skipper I can't scrum on the TH. Little you can do about it. Safety trumps.

 

[didds]

thats accepted Marc.

But as in " eg unconnected with loss of a FR player say?".
ie scrum, scrum, scrum, scrum .... then after twenty scrums the same pack then says, at a defensive 5m scrum "we are going uncontested".

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

thats accepted Marc.

But as in " eg unconnected with loss of a FR player say?".
ie scrum, scrum, scrum, scrum .... then after twenty scrums the same pack then says, at a defensive 5m scrum "we are going uncontested".

I guess it would depend on competition rules, some lower leagues do not have man off, but I would not be going back to contested unless a suitably trained replacement comes on after the initial uncontested.
Anyone wants to complain, leave it to the the old farts in competition rules, not my problem. Always safety first.