Hartley red card - Saints v Leinster

[didds]

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

well, I am relying on what others tell me.
And I have shown where the laws actually support that above incidentally.

Frankly the idea that there are "rules" to say a missed punch is not a cardable offense is ridiculous IMO ... but others say it is so - in the majority - so somebody somewhere is being told this en masse.

I reiterate I don't agree with it. But also reiterate that others in the vast majority have this view so where do they get it from?



didds

 

[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.

So the question then is... whyy are the (seemingly) majority of refs here of the opinion that a swing and a miss is worthy or no more than a PK? Why do they ignore 10.4(m)?

didds

 

[Pinky]

I suspect part of this is to do with context. if you look at, for example, the Edinburgh Stade game and the red card for Burleigh. Ref felt he had to go red for strike to the head. (I think the same) but a strike that does not connect is well . . .. For me if a player swings and arm and connects with the head, he is likely to be off with a red unless he had been trying to, eg stop someone holding his shirt collar. Then possible yellow. however if he swung in similar circumstances and missed, you are looking at most at a penalty. however someone faces up to an opponent and tries to punch, then for me he is off whether it lands or not.

 

[Pegleg]

So the question then is... whyy are the (seemingly) majority of refs here of the opinion that a swing and a miss is worthy or no more than a PK? Why do they ignore 10.4(m)?

didds

Surely , you'd need to ask them. Please note that some such offences are worthy of only a PK.

 

[didds]

I am asking them but nobody is answering.

There are very few laws that mandate a red card ?

meanwhile for "thems the rules" aside from 10.4(a) in the thread regarding the face slap the ref and TMO discuss "the directive"

Maybe "the directive" is "the rules"?

I dunno _ I_ don't get secret emails ;-)

didds

 

[The Fat]

The "Directive" is that any illegal contact with neck/head area to be dealt with harshly in an attempt to send a clear message

 

[The Fat]

While I can sympathise with those who feel a swing and a miss deserves a RC on the basis that it may save a potential victim from getting a jaw/eye socket/whatever smashed next week by the same player, I don't think that argument really holds water. Most players don't find themselves in punch ups every week (serial nut jobs excepted). Who is to say that if you did RC a player for a swing and a miss that (a) the judiciary will agree that it is a 10.4(m) offence because we know that it is not a 10.4(a) offence and (b), if that player does get a 1 week suspension, how can you guarantee he will not punch someone the following week. Basically, a swing and a miss is not listed as an offence but we can use 10.4(m) during the game to justify a PK at least. If the swing and miss sparks more shenanigans, we now have grounds for a YC and if old mate reoffends, a 2nd YC = RC.
At the end of the day I would hope the judiciary would support the match officials and uphold a 10.4(m) charge but I wouldn't hold my breath

 

[Dickie E]

I think a red card for 10.4(m) offence may be met with rolling eyes at judiciary

 

[Camquin]

So what do you do if after the PK for a swing and a miss he swings and misses again.

Is it:
Just another penalty?
A Yellow Card and hope he calms down?
A red card on the grounds he is going to connect at some point?

 

[Nigib]

I think a red card for 10.4(m) offence may be met with rolling eyes at judiciary

How about 10.2 (a) - intentional offending - "a player must not intentionally... play unfairly" - PK, repeats lead to YC if original doesn't, and repeats again can be RC?

 

[Pegleg]

The "Directive" is that any illegal contact with neck/head area to be dealt with harshly in an attempt to send a clear message

So that is a specific directive on contact with the head (area). It does NOT rule that a swinfg and a miss cannot be a card.

 

[Pegleg]

While I can sympathise with those who feel a swing and a miss deserves a RC on the basis that ...

WE are not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that an attempted puch may or may not land (boxing people talk about punches that land or that do not - The ones that do not don not become "non-Punches"!) The action should be judged. Some Punches will only be PKs some will find a YC attached and some will find a RC attached. This applies to punches that land and to punches that miss. A big haymaker is alomost certainly going to get a card.

- - - Updated - - -

I think a red card for 10.4(m) offence may be met with rolling eyes at judiciary

It would depend on the nature of the offence as reported.

 

[crossref]

So what do you do if after the PK for a swing and a miss he swings and misses again.

Is it:
Just another penalty?
A Yellow Card and hope he calms down?
A red card on the grounds he is going to connect at some point?

for a proper swing and a miss -- I'd be looking to give a YC at first offence.

 

[didds]

I have just learned that in football (aka soccer) a swing and a miss is treated exactly the same as a connecting.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Totally logical. The player threw a punch. THe fact he is crap at it or gets lucky and misses should not alter the fact that he threw it. Leave mitigation etc to the DC.

 

[crossref]

Totally logical. The player threw a punch. THe fact he is crap at it or gets lucky and misses should not alter the fact that he threw it. Leave mitigation etc to the DC.

but judging 100% by intention is just as problematic as judging 100% by outcome.

a RC because he intended to punch someone but didn't (perhaps he though better of it, just in time)

next, how about a RC for tackle at armpit level (because he totally intended to high tackle around the head,but missed)



I think that we have to bring intent AND outcome into the equation, and not to be too rigid about it.

 

[didds]

a RC because he intended to punch someone but didn't (perhaps he though better of it, just in time)

then the MISS is the action that is relevant.

AS swing that stops though self control isn't a miss. its a stop. We are not discussing - yet - a swing and a stop.

If the stop is _past) the initial target though - that's a miss!

didds

 

[FlipFlop]

but judging 100% by intention is just as problematic as judging 100% by outcome.

a RC because he intended to punch someone but didn't (perhaps he though better of it, just in time)

next, how about a RC for tackle at armpit level (because he totally intended to high tackle around the head,but missed)



I think that we have to bring intent AND outcome into the equation, and not to be too rigid about it.

Really not comparable - there is no way to punch someone legally. But there is a way to tackle someone legally. So anyone throwing a punch is committing an act that is illegal on the field.

But I do agree about judging each on its merits. And not being too black and white. Context is everything. A bitter match, with tension, and lots of fights, a swing and a miss (due to opponent moving) is very different to a good tempered game, with no violence, and a swing and a miss due to a half-hearted punch, that was unlikely to land.

 

[crossref]

but it is possible to swing a punch and regret it immediately and pull out so you don't connect.

so you intended a punch, and then intended to miss..

 

[DocY]

but it is possible to swing a punch and regret it immediately and pull out so you don't connect.

so you intended a punch, and then intended to miss..

TBH, I think you and FlipFlop are both on the same page.

A missed punch could be of a different seriousness to one that connects, but you have to judge it yourself.

For example: a small slap to the face (of the sort that floored Pape), I'd likely consider less seriously than a haymaker that missed.