Idiot parent

[PaulDG]

If he's new to rugby, then that will be his only mitigation ...

How?

I mean, what sport, in particular what youth sport condones parents crossing into the playing area, deliberately endangering players and with the absolute intention of affecting the result of the game?

That sort of thing would be frowned upon even in football!

 

[PaulDG]

They'll just [use] another referee surely?

Or one of the coaches would do it (just as they do every other time a ref isn't available).

All it would mean would be the kids at that club would have less experience of what it's like to play in a match where the guy with the whistle actually knows what he's doing - but since all players know no guy with a whistle really knows what he's doing, I doubt if that would worry too many people.

 

[crossref]

When I have been made aware of this kind of behaviour I have simply asked not to referee that club. Its very effective and requires no organisation, no committees, no meetings, no processes, its a simple and effective grass roots way of dealing with the issue. So if the Herts refs individually declined to ref this team, steps would be taken and expectations clearly made about future conduct.

that seems way OTT to me. Fullerians is a perfectly repsectable club, my son has played them home and away, they were a club just like any other. I don't see any reason at all why referees would want to boycott them over this. I am sure the fullerian blazers are as narked about it as everyone else. More so. It's not like its a regular club ruse.

 

[Blackberry]

Crossref... just to re-read what I said, I said team not club, hope that makes sense. Furthermore because of the closeness of the rugby community, if one ref politely declines that wil be enough to send alarm bells ringing.In this case it looks like matters are being sorted anyway.

In the case where I did it, the effect was wonderful. The club had no idea about the actions of one particular team, warmly thanked me and the society (tacitly for giving them ammunition), the manager concerned put his hands up and has been a positive role model ever since.... and the beauty was there was no fuss, just a small series of emails which winged around the ether following my polite declining of the invitation to ref that team. Interestingly the referee they had insulted was from another society, but we all stand together. By taking the quiet stand which I did the attitude fostered in the team has changed very much for the better.

 

[tim White]

We had a recent abuse case against a coach thrown out; every single referee in the society declined to attend games at that club. It was resolved satisfactorily within a week. QED.

 

[The umpire]

From a refereeing perspective what is the correct restart? I suppose you can't give a PT as the offence was by a spectator and not a player. Scrum I suppose.

Using your skill and judgement you determine what would have happened had the idiot not intervened. With only one photo to go on, I doubt we can say with any certainty, but a scrum seems most likely.

 

[didds]

Just checking this - if that trip was the only thing stopping the black and white player from scoring a probably try, would you award (in effect) a PT? (Yes, this is hypothetical and now unrelated to the original photograph aside from the basis of a spectator tripping a winger)



didds

 

[Simon Thomas]

Adult spectator clearly and openly trips U16 player on the pitch as shown in the photo - only one decision, match abandoned.

 

[Taff]

Adult spectator clearly and openly trips U16 player on the pitch as shown in the photo - only one decision, match abandoned.

Even in an otherwise good natured game?

Seems a pity to me that 30 boys enjoying a good game, have to suffer because of 1 idiotic parent who frankly should know better.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Even in an otherwise good natured game?

Seems a pity to me that 30 boys enjoying a good game, have to suffer because of 1 idiotic parent who frankly should know better.

If nothing else a major CRB offence has taken place. In our current world that is a serious offence.

 

[Toby Warren]

Adult spectator clearly and openly trips U16 player on the pitch as shown in the photo - only one decision, match abandoned.

Really?

If the tripper is removed immediay and relatively fuss free - why would you adanadon the game and ruin it for the players?

 

[RobLev]

Really?

If the tripper is removed immediay and relatively fuss free - why would you adanadon the game and ruin it for the players?

The game's already ruined for two players - the away team wingers, who aren't going to go near the touchline if they can help it. As the away team coach, are you going to call any more moves involving your wingers speeding down the touchline?

You've had an assault by a home team parent on one of the children in your charge. You have no assurance that it won't happen again. How can you safely continue? If you do continue, what do you say when another home team parent does it, this time mistiming it, trapping the winger's foot and wrecking his ankle?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Really?

If the tripper is removed immediay and relatively fuss free - why would you adanadon the game and ruin it for the players?

Yes - our primary concern is safety and as it is U16 Child Welfare issues are paramount.
No option but to abandon the match and report the incident to the CB and Society.

 

[leaguerefaus]

The game's already ruined for two players - the away team wingers, who aren't going to go near the touchline if they can help it. As the away team coach, are you going to call any more moves involving your wingers speeding down the touchline?

You've had an assault by a home team parent on one of the children in your charge. You have no assurance that it won't happen again. How can you safely continue? If you do continue, what do you say when another home team parent does it, this time mistiming it, trapping the winger's foot and wrecking his ankle?

If you're that concerned - clear the sideline.

 

[Simon Thomas]

If you're that concerned - clear the sideline.

Any RFU qualified referee should be concerned and it is easy to clear the touchline - abandon the match.

I would expect our members to use their judgement on a case by case basis. Given the media attraction the OP case has attracted it is serious and lucky no one was injured.

This is a physical assault on a minor - a serious child welfare breach.

I would expect any of my Society's members to abandon the match immediately and report the incident. And from my extensive experience that will be the RFU Child Welfare Department and Rugby Development Department expectation too.

 

[RobLev]

If you're that concerned - clear the sideline.

1 - what Simon said.

2 - the photo in the OP, unless it gives a misleading impression, shows that the sidelines were already pretty clear - the idiot is well clear of the rest of the "crowd". How much further back are you going to take the spectators?

 

[Toby Warren]

We differ in views. Of course this incident could lead to an adandoment - but I don't see that as the only possible outcome.

The reaction post event is key.

 

[Toby Warren]

The game's already ruined for two players - the away team wingers, who aren't going to go near the touchline if they can help it. As the away team coach, are you going to call any more moves involving your wingers speeding down the touchline?

You've had an assault by a home team parent on one of the children in your charge. You have no assurance that it won't happen again. How can you safely continue? If you do continue, what do you say when another home team parent does it, this time mistiming it, trapping the winger's foot and wrecking his ankle?

Hmm. Before I ref any game I can't be sure that any of the players won't stamp on the head of an opponent. How can I ref that safely (an over exaggeration to make a point)

You appear to be saying because one idiot has tripped a player the a repeat is more likely. I don't follow that logic.

 

[Taff]

... This is a physical assault on a minor - a serious child welfare breach.

Agreed, but the "assault" has already taken place and abandoning the game won't change that.

I've never been given any guidance on abandoning a game, but if the offender held his hands up immediately (metaphorically not literally) the crowd reaction made it clear that he was being a dick, both sets of coaches and 30 players wanted to carry on a good natured game, I must admit I'd be happy to carry on. It's probably different in RFU land.

... Of course this incident could lead to an adandoment - but I don't see that as the only possible outcome. The reaction post event is key.

Exactly as I see it.

 

[RobLev]

Hmm. Before I ref any game I can't be sure that any of the players won't stamp on the head of an opponent. How can I ref that safely (an over exaggeration to make a point)

You appear to be saying because one idiot has tripped a player the a repeat is more likely. I don't follow that logic.

The logic is simple. You start the game assuming that everyone is going to follow the rules; that each side will be disciplined, and will follow the rules of the game. Any foul play by a player is dealt with within the rules, and in particular any player who commits serious foul play will not have the chance to repeat the offence because he will be remvoed from the field of play. Even so, if you feel that you have lost control of the game so as to threaten the physical safety of the players, I would have thought that you have no option to abandon.

We are however dealing here with spectators. You have no disciplinary control over spectators; that is down to the club. If the spectators get out of hand, your only option is to abandon. You already know that the club is unable to control at least one spectator, to the extent not just of voluble dissent or abuse, but direct intervention in the course of the match within the pitch; without investigation you won't know whether there are any others who may repeat the offence. If the club say that the parent involved is a known malcontent, then their judgment in permitting him to attend is called into question such that you can't rely on their assurance that there will be no repetition; if they say they didn't expect it, then once again you have to question the reliabliity of any assurances they may give, because they clearly don't know who may be capable of such an act.

The reaction post event is key.

And the reaction may well persaude you that a subsequent match can safely be played there. But you don't have the luxury of reviewing the club's reaction post-event, because you have to make the decision on whether to continue with the match before recommencing.

I realise that you refer to the reaction by way of exclusion of the spectator - but that is unlikely to be sufficient for the reasons above.