Hartley red card - Saints v Leinster

[Pegleg]

Just because you are crap at punching is no reaon for you to not be dealt with.

I wonder what the courts would make of a ref who ignored a haymaker that missed only for the same player to throw another that puts someone into a coma minutes later.

Send him off and put the facts in the report. Keep the players safe and let the DC sort out the sentence.

 

[winchesterref]

I gave a penalty for a swing and a miss a few weeks ago.

Skipper from receiving side said to me "he's thrown a punch, what if it hit my face?"
I said "if it had I'd have dealt with it accordingly"

Stern words with the player who threw it and gave a penalty, nothing more. It was a lash out as someone wouldn't give up the ball, air shot and nowhere near connecting.

 

[Pegleg]

Obviously you judge it on its own "merit". For me the nature of the action and not whether or not it hits is what matters to the PK / PK & YC / PK & RC decision tree. Handbags = warning / a Haymaker = RED.

You're not backing outcome led decision making surely.

 

[The Fat]

If you RC a player for a swing and a miss, make sure that from the outset, you are sending the player off for a 10.4(m) offence. If you tell the captain and the player he is going for throwing a punch (striking), then change the offence to 10.4(m) (unsporting behaviour) when filling in the paperwork, I expect the case will get thrown out just as it would if you say it's a punch (striking offence).

 

[Pegleg]

Of course.

 

[didds]

I've never sent anyone off for a swing and a miss didds

them's the rules.

like I said.

didds

 

[didds]

If you RC a player for a swing and a miss, make sure that from the outset, you are sending the player off for a 10.4(m) offence. If you tell the captain and the player he is going for throwing a punch (striking), then change the offence to 10.4(m) (unsporting behaviour) when filling in the paperwork, I expect the case will get thrown out just as it would if you say it's a punch (striking offence).

The point is you won't be sending a player off for a swing and a miss - because as the guidance/protocols stand currently you can't.

I am not saying anyone should go against the grain of their society's and WR guidance.

I am saying the guidance is bollocks.

didds

PS: Ah... the Fat may have been responding to Pegleg ...

 

[DocY]

Just because you are crap at punching is no reaon for you to not be dealt with.

I have a lot of sympathy for this view point - if the player in question were more competent, he'd be punished, so why let his own incompetence prevent that? I'm talking in a philosophical sense here, I know was the guidelines say.

Regarding the Hartley incident, though: at best, that was the opposite of the above. He went for a cheap shot but misjudged it and caught him high (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here). There was no legitimate reason for him to swing his arm like that and "I meant to hit him in the back" isn't any sort of defence.

A lot of people seem to be equating it to the BC slipping before a legitimate attempt at a tackle, but I don't see that as a fair comparison at all. In one case the tackler is trying to play legally and circumstances conspire against him, in this case he's trying to commit an offence and a slip just makes it worse.

We do need to consider outcomes, yes, but not solely, as is proscribed now and if a player is deliberately committing foul play any adverse outcomes should be counted against him far more than if he weren't.

 

[Skids]

Does Hartley's record commend him as a national captain? Someone we'd want our kids to look up to and emulate?

Whether deliberate or accidental, unlucky or vicious, it was yet another appalling challenge and watching it on tv it was an instant RC for me.

I'd expect a very lengthy ban and I would hope EJ will drop him from the national side.

 

[Pegleg]

them's the rules.

like I said.

didds

Can you quote the rule that says that?

 

[didds]

I refer you to posts passim whereby your colleagues assure me that a player swinging a haymaker and missing is subject to at most a PK. "Them" rules I guess. wheresoever they come from.

didds

 

[didds]

As others point out - to be totally fair -

10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

So it is by the law book only forbids making connection.

I think that's pants but by "them rules" missing with a haymaker doesn't matter.

Of course there is always this

(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

I suggest its jolly unsporting to attempt to smash an opponent (or a team mate!) with a haymaker. BUt I appear to be on my own in this regard. 10.4(a) would also seem to suggest its perfectly fine to strike a team mate... I would suggest its just not a scenario the law makers ever envisaged (I have seen it happen - once ).

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Obviously you judge it on its own "merit". For me the nature of the action and not whether or not it hits is what matters to the PK / PK & YC / PK & RC decision tree. Handbags = warning / a Haymaker = RED.

You're not backing outcome led decision making surely.

Pegleg. I don't think differentiating between a swing and a miss, and a punch that connected is necessarily "outcome driven decision making". When I use that term in relation to rugby, it usually means that the infringer has done the same thing, but the result for the victim has been different, for example, a tackle in the air that lands the opponent on their feet vs one that lands them on their head, or a punch that connects and is shrugged off vs one that connects and breaks the opponent's jaw.

Criminal Law differentiates between "assault" and the lesser charge of "attempted assault", so I see no reason why rugby laws should not use that as guidance...

swing and a miss =YC
swing and connect = RC

 

[OB..]

Criminal Law differentiates between "assault" and the lesser charge of "attempted assault",

Criminal law usually refers to "assault and battery". Battery is the actual contact. Assault is making someone fear you are going to batter them. Applying that to rugby, a swing and a miss is assault; connecting is battery.

 

[crossref]

Criminal law usually refers to "assault and battery". Battery is the actual contact. Assault is making someone fear you are going to batter them. Applying that to rugby, a swing and a miss is assault; connecting is battery.

... and the first is a YC, the second is a RC !

 

[Pegleg]

I refer you to posts passim whereby your colleagues assure me that a player swinging a haymaker and missing is subject to at most a PK. "Them" rules I guess. wheresoever they come from.

didds

So you don't have rules to back up the claim. OK.

 

[Pegleg]

As others point out - to be totally fair -

10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

So it is by the law book only forbids making connection.

I think that's pants but by "them rules" missing with a haymaker doesn't matter.

Of course there is always this

(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

I suggest its jolly unsporting to attempt to smash an opponent (or a team mate!) with a haymaker. BUt I appear to be on my own in this regard. 10.4(a) would also seem to suggest its perfectly fine to strike a team mate... I would suggest its just not a scenario the law makers ever envisaged (I have seen it happen - once ).

didds

10.4 (m) is suitable and I have seen a player sent off for striking a team mate. There is nothing in the law to prevent a referee red carding someone who is unable to find the target when he throws a punch.

 

[SimonSmith]

It's contextual, surely?

I can see - and have seen situations - where a punch was a PK and YC only. Say, two players being arses and handbagging each other.

I can equally see a situation where a swing and a miss is an RC. Hot tempered match, several warnings for foul play "next one..." type warning.

We tend to head for absolutes here, and I don't think this is a situation where that mindset is helpful.

Except for Hartley. He's a ******.

 

[Pegleg]

Hear Hear!

 

[DocY]

It's contextual, surely?

I can see - and have seen situations - where a punch was a PK and YC only. Say, two players being arses and handbagging each other.

I can equally see a situation where a swing and a miss is an RC. Hot tempered match, several warnings for foul play "next one..." type warning.

We tend to head for absolutes here, and I don't think this is a situation where that mindset is helpful.

Except for Hartley. He's a ******.

Post of the month!