My first red card(s)

[colesy]

Well I guess it had to happen eventually. Instead of relaxing and watching a bit of TV on a Saturday night, I've been typing up two dismissal reports.

Nasty stamp, immediate big whistle. However, that didn't stop stampee exchanging blows with stamper. Oh dear. At least my discipline guy is happy as he has the reports now.

The one positive - I now know what other refs mean when they say you know a red when you see it.

 

[damo]

Well I guess it had to happen eventually. Instead of relaxing and watching a bit of TV on a Saturday night, I've been typing up two dismissal reports.

Nasty stamp, immediate big whistle. However, that didn't stop stampee exchanging blows with stamper. Oh dear. At least my discipline guy is happy as he has the reports now.

The one positive - I now know what other refs mean when they say you know a red when you see it.

Amen. All the IRB guidance and memos and the rest aren't a replacement for that instinctive reaction you get when you see a red card offence.

 

[SimonSmith]

You sent the stampee as well?

I know, retaliation etc etc. But... why did he go?

 

[colesy]

You sent the stampee as well?

I know, retaliation etc etc. But... why did he go?

Because of the retaliation. I can't have a player involved in a full on punch up on the pitch staying on. Plus he was already on a yellow for a less serious punch earlier in the match. But to make it clear, he went off on a red and not for two yellows.

 

[Taff]

Because of the retaliation. I can't have a player involved in a full on punch up on the pitch staying on. Plus he was already on a yellow for a less serious punch earlier in the match. But to make it clear, he went off on a red and not for two yellows.

So even with a :noyc: for retaliation, he would have had a :norc: as it was his second :noyc:.

I don't see how anyone can complain at that. :chin:

 

[Waspsfan]

Out of interest... how did you restart the game?

 

[colesy]

Out of interest... how did you restart the game?

I remembered some advice I'd had a while ago about just such an occasion which was "don't under any circumstances restart with a scrum as it's too confrontational. Give a penalty to the team in whose half you were in at the time so it's a line out." So that's what I did.

 

[andyscott]

I always go with the original penalty unless the retaliation is more serious (such as a headbutt)

 

[Dixie]

I always go with the original penalty unless the retaliation is more serious (such as a headbutt)

And how do you rank and stack the two offences here? Which was the more "serious" - the punch to the head or the stamp (presumably to a limb)?

 

[Waspsfan]

And how do you rank and stack the two offences here? Which was the more "serious" - the punch to the head or the stamp (presumably to a limb)?

I always punish the retaliation. If you give a penalty and then there is retaliation (which is also a penalty offence) the good book says reverse the penalty and punish the retaliation, so we all do. This sends the right message to the players; 'do not retaliate, let me deal with it'. This is always the message to convey to limit the chances of a massive brawl.

I don't think it changes if it is two red card offences. I don't care where we are on the pitch. The message I want to convey, especially after a nasty incident is the message above.

Now, someone will say what if the retaliation is not as bad as the original offence? Well if they are both red cards then they are equally bad, and if the original was a red offence I am likely to completely overlook any retaliation which isn't also red card offence. I can't envisage a situation where I would give a red for the original an a yellow for the response. Just would not happen so I can always punish the retaliation.

 

[OB..]

I always punish the retaliation. If you give a penalty and then there is retaliation (which is also a penalty offence) the good book says reverse the penalty and punish the retaliation, so we all do.

All the law says is that you can give a penalty for retaliation. it does not say you MUST reverse any previous penalty decision. I have seen many cases at all levels where the referee speaks to the retaliator but says he will stick with the original penalty.

 

[Taff]

.... I can't envisage a situation where I would give a red for the original an a yellow for the response.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I can easily envisage a :norc: for the original offence (if it justified it) and a :noyc: for the retaliation.

I always punish the retaliation.

But just because you don't reverse the PK, it doesn't mean that the retaliation goes unpunished, because a :noyc: is a punishment in itself surely.

 

[colesy]

The incident went like this. Red stamp. Blue punch. Red punch. Blue bunch. Red punch. Both had to go. My concern was to restart the match is as non confrontational a manner as possible. A scrum would not have been a good idea. So, we have original offence, retaliation, retaliation for the retaliation and so on. Penalty followed by line out with a slow walk to the line out gives everyone a chance to calm down. Whose penalty? Quite frankly I wanted no one to gain an advantage. A penalty to restart to the team in whose half of the field the offences occurred seemed to give no one much of an advantage at all. An equitable solution perhaps?

 

[Waspsfan]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I can easily envisage a :norc: for the original offence (if it justified it) and a :noyc: for the retaliation.

Go on then..... ! I don't think you'll persuade me to give the yellow.

 

[OB..]

The incident went like this. Red stamp. Blue punch. Red punch. Blue bunch. Red punch. Both had to go. My concern was to restart the match is as non confrontational a manner as possible. A scrum would not have been a good idea. So, we have original offence, retaliation, retaliation for the retaliation and so on. Penalty followed by line out with a slow walk to the line out gives everyone a chance to calm down. Whose penalty? Quite frankly I wanted no one to gain an advantage. A penalty to restart to the team in whose half of the field the offences occurred seemed to give no one much of an advantage at all. An equitable solution perhaps?

I have no problem with the particular case. My point was simply that a referee does not have to reverse the penalty - he should use his judgement. It sounds as if you did. Well done.

 

[Dixie]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I can easily envisage a :norc: for the original offence (if it justified it) and a :noyc: for the retaliation.

I think Waspfan's point was the if, in retaliation for a red card offence, you yourself commit a red card offence, you can't expect it to be downgraded just because there was provocation. Of course, if someone sticks a finger in your eye and you respond with a choice Anglo Saxon expletive, it would be a strange ref who sends you off. But if you kick him in the plums, expect to take an early shower yourself.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Sounds like you handled it well

 

[TigerCraig]

Go on then..... ! I don't think you'll persuade me to give the yellow.

Blue player eye gouges Red player. Red player gives Blue an open handed back hander to the face

 

[damo]

If someone does something deserving of a red card and the victim retaliates, I have to think I am almost never going to red card the retaliator. 3rd man in is different, especially if he has come from a long distance to get involved.

 

[Taff]

Blue player eye gouges Red player. Red player gives Blue an open handed back hander to the face

Exactly. Technically Blue has committed a RC offence (striking an opponent) but I doubt many would actually give him a RC for that.

If someone does something deserving of a red card and the victim retaliates, I have to think I am almost never going to red card the retaliator. 3rd man in is different, especially if he has come from a long distance to get involved.

It depends on the amount of retaliation though surely. I wouldn't say "never" but my default attitude is the original PK stands unless the retaliation is out of proportion - in which case the PK gets reversed. If the retaliation is really OTT then he gets a card. In other words, there is no hard and fast rule; I can easily imagine a PK offence, where the retaliation is so out of proportion that the rataliator gets carded and the original offender doesn't.