I agree this alone would not, but it establishes a standard of neglect for future incidents as a review of incompetence
Had an interesting one today.
Local game that would be about L5 or 6 in the Old Dart.
6 blue had been warned for a late tackle and then YCed for a high tackle in the 1st half. 2nd half and there is a bit of push and shove following a ruck and 6 blue throws a haymaker right uppercut that misses by the thickness of a cigarette paper. Unseen by both referee and AR.
Fellow to my left (we are spectators), says "That has to be a YC and therefore a RC for the thrown punch".
I reply, "When it goes to the judiciary, what offence will be written on the ref's report?"
He says, "Striking".
I respond with, "But he missed. Are you giving him the YC for throwing a punch that did not connect or are you giving him the YC because he's shit at landing punches? What offence has been committed?"
You can't send a player off for an attempted stamp that misses by half a yard, or an attempted stiff arm tackle that the ball carrier ducks under or a swing and a miss. You can give the player a serious bullocking and perhaps, at a stretch if he tries and misses again, escalate to a PK under 10.4(m) so he knows he is on borrowed time. Obviously if he keeps up with the crap you may even get to YC/YCs.
From past posts, I know there will be people on here who completely disagree with what I have just said.
If the Courtney Lawes tackle was legitimate, do you think it would hold water at the judiciary if your ref's report said, "Although technically legal, I thought it could lead to ill-disciplined play by others later in the game and therefore I sent the player from the field".
