Idiot parent

[Toby Warren]

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.



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.

We have a very different view on risk.

This is a once in a generation issue. I don't think that it's an automatic adandoment it's an individual idiot.

Me I'd rather use reasonable judgement to try and get 30+ people a game.

Also abandoning the game is likely to result in a big flare up. 30+ charged up players now have no game and 1 bloke to 'chase' to discuss their disappointment !

 

[The umpire]

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

I wouldn't necesssarily go under the sticks, but the outcome is the same. If I thought he'd beat whatever cover defence there was, then I'd award a try - where I guessed he would probably cross the goal line.

 

[OB..]

If the spectators get out of hand, your only option is to abandon.

Does an isolated incident amount to spectators getting out of hand?

 

[leaguerefaus]

I wouldn't necesssarily go under the sticks, but the outcome is the same. If I thought he'd beat whatever cover defence there was, then I'd award a try - where I guessed he would probably cross the goal line.

Wow...

 

[Taff]

... 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.

But if we all go to that extreme, nobody would even start a match - let alone abandon one.

There is only so much any club, or any ref etc can do. Nobody could have predicted such an extreme reaction. OK, it did happen, but surely the only thing the club can do now is remove the culprit and deal with him in the best way they see fit. And I don't follow the "It could happen again" reasoning. In fact you could argue that once you've seen a "once in a lifetime" event, the chances of it happening again (in your lifetime let alone in the same game) are so miniscule that we don't need to worry ourselves unduly about.

 

[RobLev]

But if we all go to that extreme, nobody would even start a match - let alone abandon one.

No. Just no. Unless every match you've refereed begins with an assault by one of the club member's parents upon an opposition player?

The fact that the incident happened has shown that the club has a problem with its parents. You cannot know, within the time available, that that problem is isolated to that single parent.

There is only so much any club, or any ref etc can do. Nobody could have predicted such an extreme reaction. OK, it did happen, but surely the only thing the club can do now is remove the culprit and deal with him in the best way they see fit. And I don't follow the "It could happen again" reasoning. In fact you could argue that once you've seen a "once in a lifetime" event, the chances of it happening again (in your lifetime let alone in the same game) are so miniscule that we don't need to worry ourselves unduly about.

It's potentially a systemic problem with discipline within the club; so that fact it has happened is potentially indicative of the same thing happening again within the same game. And, WADR, your grasp of statistics is shaky. The probability of an event happening isn't changed by its occurrence. The likelihood of throwing a double-6 on the next roll of the dice remains 8.33% even after having thrown a double-6.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Point of order:
Why are the parents so close to the sideline? I wouldn't start a match with parents so close... And in fact it is stipulated by competition guidelines over here that there must be a fence / rope and the spectators must be behind it. I would have assumed it's similar everywhere.

If you really care about safety, don't get to the stage where you're considering calling off the match - but get the spectators back a fair distance to start with.

From the Greater Brisbane Junior Rugby League Guidelines

Fencing of Playing fields:
a. Preferred - Full perimeter permanent fence enclosing playing area
b. Allowable - Full perimeter roped or combination of roped and fenced perimeter
c. Not allowable - markers denoting spectator boundary.

 

[SimonSmith]

You have evidence that one club can't control its spectators/parents.
Neither wing may be comfortable.
Moving them to different locations doesn't diminish the risk that a repeat of an already demonstrated incident will take place.

It's an assault by an adult on a child. If it happens again - and it's happened once already - it will be as much on the referee as anyone else, because the referee is the one making the decision to continue, knowing that one club can't control its parents. A nasty bad lawyer, quite unlike RobLev, would kill the referee if there was a repeat. And as it has happened once, what's your confidence it won't happen again?

 

[OB..]

You have evidence that one club can't control its spectators/parents.

No. You have evidence that one club failed to prevent one parent behaving appallingly. You have no evidence that this should have been anticipated.

I agree that failing to keep the parents back was a contributory factor. Accidental interference was always going to be a danger.

 

[dave_clark]

You have evidence that one club can't control its spectators/parents.

so the logical conclusion is to shut that club down? after all, surely there is the same risk the following week...

 

[RobLev]

so the logical conclusion is to shut that club down? after all, surely there is the same risk the following week...

No. The CB (?) will also have the referee's report, the (initial, at least) outcome of the club's investigations and the club's proposed precautions to prevent any repetition of the incident. The CB will have equally been able to take a(n initial) view of the adequacy of those precautions and of the investigations, and may well have made its own investigations and proposed its own precautions, bearing in mind that the club itself may be subject to disciplinary action for allowing the incident. None of that would be available to you as referee in the few minutes you've got to decide whether to restart.

 

[RobLev]

No. You have evidence that one club failed to prevent one parent behaving appallingly. You have no evidence that this should have been anticipated.

I agree that failing to keep the parents back was a contributory factor. Accidental interference was always going to be a danger.

I think Simon's right; once it has happened, the issue is whether the club had no reason to anticipate the action or something similar.

The photo, by the way, appears to me to show that the idiot parent was much closer to the pitch than at least several other spectators. If he had been stood by the parents in the background, there would have been no question of accidental interference.

 

[didds]

he may well have been but of course approached the touchline as the winger threatened.

didds

 

[Simon Thomas]

The fact that it Is a possible Child a welfare issue adds a new dimension not present if it had been an adult match.

If CW Dept decide to act then that is direct from RFU at Twickenham and takes it out of the hands of both the Club and CB.

 

[Na Madrai]

I am quite astonished at some of the comments on here concerning this incident. In a nutshell, we have an adult entering - or at least partially entering - the FOP and assaulting a child the safety of whom is your direct responsibility as the referee.

IMO not only should the match be abandoned immediately, but I would be calling for the police to attend - assault at the very least.

I also have a vague memory, although I could well be wrong, that there is actually some law specifically directed at spectators entering the FOP - I recall watching a very, very low level soccer match where the referee had a portable telephone attached to his waist for just such an occurence!

Abandon the match and call the police.

NM

 

[leaguerefaus]

I am quite astonished at some of the comments on here concerning this incident. In a nutshell, we have an adult entering - or at least partially entering - the FOP and assaulting a child the safety of whom is your direct responsibility as the referee.

IMO not only should the match be abandoned immediately, but I would be calling for the police to attend - assault at the very least.

I also have a vague memory, although I could well be wrong, that there is actually some law specifically directed at spectators entering the FOP - I recall watching a very, very low level soccer match where the referee had a portable telephone attached to his waist for just such an occurence!

Abandon the match and call the police.

NM

I'd recommend to the coach or parent of the child to call the police, but I wouldn't be doing so myself.

 

[SimonSmith]

No. You have evidence that one club failed to prevent one parent behaving appallingly. You have no evidence that this should have been anticipated.

Failure to anticipate was never part of my argument.

Rob covered my gist upthread, and better.

An adult kicked a kid; let's not euphemize it. Game over. Over here, there would be blue lights and a court appearance in the offing.

 

[OB..]

An adult kicked a kid; let's not euphemize it.

Who is euphemising it? Who is overstating it?

I do not understand why it is impossible to carry on with the game after the offender has been removed, to be dealt with formally later. Is there really any danger of his behaviour catching on??

Over here, there would be blue lights and a court appearance in the offing.

Yes, but why does that mean we have to cancel the game?

 

[menace]

I could easily see that it's a huge flash point that could result in spectators v spectators and player vs players if the game continued. OB, you're a assuming that they will all behave like adults thereafter and will just move on from the incident. I'm not sure I share your confidence.
Definitely some teams I would abandon then and there, while others I would contemplate letting the game continue. I don't think there's a one rule that would fit all here. Up to the ref to assess it and make that judgment call in the context of everything that occurred before and immediately after the incident.

 

[andyscott]

Well I think we are just skirting around the facts.

The place wasn't roped off, they must be.

Its a criminal offence it is assault. (an no the parent/child doesnt have to report it for the police to take action).

He entered the playing enclosure and struck a player (this is a life ban surely).

Call the game off, report it to child protection folk at HQ and watch the cogs turn, leave it in the hands of the club and and CB and it will be dealt with by bloody posters up in the club and and apology.