NatWest 6 Nations 2018 Championship - talking points

[DocY]

Well, give me an example of a non deliberate act of Foul Play, for which you would give a PT but no YC ?

Most offences at the scrum.

 

[DocY]

Though the new law book is pretty explicit that any offence leading to a PT should result in a yellow card.

I dont have anything polite to say about that.

 

[L'irlandais]

PREDICTIONS FOR THIS WEEKEND’S GAMES
Ireland 28 – 16 Scotland
France 18 – 24 England
*Italy 40 – 16 Italy

.

*Apart from their obvious typo on Wales, and getting one result wrong this weekend, the predictions are not far off points wise. Scotland were worth 16, only they butchered several chances; the game really was closer than the scoreline suggests:

Ireland 28-8 Scotland
France 22-16 England
Wales 38-14 Italy

 

[crossref]

Most offences at the scrum.

what are the Foul Play offences at a scrum?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have absolutely no problem with a PT and a YC both being issued. I hear arguments that it is a double punishment; this is simply not the case at all.

A PT is awarded when a player commits an act of foul play that prevents a try being scored. I once heard former SA referee Mark Lawrence give a very clear explanation of this:

A Penalty Try is awarded for the try that would have been scored anyway. The Yellow Card is for the act of foul play by the player that prevented it.

The YC is essentially the punishment for a professional foul

In the case of the France v England game, that is a stone cold PT and YC in my book. The tackler swung his arm and made direct contact to the ball carrier's head, with some force. He literally turned the ball carrier around lengthways 180°. IMO, he was lucky not to get RC (I've seen them given for that).

 

[Ian_Cook]

what are the Foul Play offences at a scrum?

[LAWS]LAW 9: FOUL PLAY
19. Dangerous play in a scrum.
a. The front row of a scrum must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush
against them.
b. A front-row player must not pull an opponent.
c. A front-row player must not intentionally lift an opponent off their feet or force the
opponent upwards out of the scrum.
d. A front-row player must not intentionally collapse a scrum.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

Exactly.. so if you gave a PK and a PT for one of those, why would you not give a YC as well ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Exactly.. so if you gave a PK and a PT for one of those, why would you not give a YC as well ?

Because you may not be certain as to which player was responsible for the collapse. Are you going to guess? (I hope not).

It could also be all three front row players, or both props. It would take balls of steel armour plate for a referee to YC all three front row players.

 

[DocY]

Exactly.. so if you gave a PK and a PT for one of those, why would you not give a YC as well ?

I can (almost) always identify at least one offence - usually lost bindings IME, where it's pretty easy to identify the culprit.

But where that comes from a pack just being unable to cope with the pressure - i.e. no intentional infringement - I wouldn't like to give a yellow card. To me they shouldn't be used to punish incompetence.

 

[DocY]

A PT is awarded when a player commits an act of foul play that prevents a try being scored. I once heard former SA referee Mark Lawrence give a very clear explanation of this:

A Penalty Try is awarded for the try that would have been scored anyway. The Yellow Card is for the act of foul play by the player that prevented it.

The YC is essentially the punishment for a professional foul

Until yesterday, this was my understanding, but the new lawbook makes it quite clear that a PT should always be accompanied by a YC. I'll bring it up at the next society meeting.

 

[Phil E]

Until yesterday, this was my understanding, but the new lawbook makes it quite clear that a PT should always be accompanied by a YC. I'll bring it up at the next society meeting.

But the 2017 law book said this as well (and the 2016). It's not a change of law.

There was a clarification that said it had to be intentional for a card.

[LAWS]Clarification 9 2004
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling9-2004
Union / HP Ref ManagerIRFU
Law Reference10,22
Date23 December 2004
Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

The first paragraph states:
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

The final paragraph states:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

The clarification sought is:
Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.
Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]2017
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be
cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.
[/LAWS]
[LAWS]2018
A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team
prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A
player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]

 

[DocY]

Thanks Phil! I was under the impression that the new lawbook was supposed to incorporate such clarifications. I was clearly being optimistic!

 

[didds]

The only query I have about the Watson card was the colour.

* Impact with the head
* With force.

Why wasn't it a red?

Didds

 

[DocY]

The only query I have about the Watson card was the colour.

* Impact with the head
* With force.

Why wasn't it a red?

Didds

TBH, I thought the impact to the head was minimal with most of it being directed downwards onto the top of the shoulder. Not nearly as bad as Liam Williams's YC.

 

[L'irlandais]

What with France ignoring HIA earlier in the Championship, now it is the IRFU who are at it.

Shortly before half-time Cian Healy took a blow to the head after coming into contact accidentally with Stuart Hogg’s elbow while attempting to tackle the Scottish full-back. The Leinster prop was seen receiving attention during the subsequent long passage of play, but unsteadily got to his feet to try and help the Irish defensive line. The Leinster hooker was wobbly, though it was the 50th minute before he was substituted.*
Thankfully the IRFU have confirmed that Healy is not a doubt to face England and will play a full part in training this week after a "stinger-like injury to the shoulder/trapezius area", but it certainly made for uncomfortable viewing at the time.

Source

Stinger- like injury seems to be Joe Schmidt’s shorthand for «*We have no intention of following HIA return to play protocol.*» He has used the term before Christmas in relation to Jonnie Sexton’s ignored/suspected concussion.

 

[crossref]

Thanks Phil! I was under the impression that the new lawbook was supposed to incorporate such clarifications. I was clearly being optimistic!

The clarification was in 2004 , since then we have had presumably 14 Law Books contradicting it, including the last one which is supposedly a careful restatement of laws

Is it really the case that a 2004 clarification remains in force despite being contradicted by so many subsequent Law Books .

Or put another way ..how does a clarification ever get superseded , if writing a contradicting Law doesn't do the job ?

 

[OB..]

The clarification was in 2004 , since then we have had presumably 14 Law Books contradicting it, including the last one which is supposedly a careful restatement of laws

Is it really the case that a 2004 clarification remains in force despite being contradicted by so many subsequent Law Books .

Or put another way ..how does a clarification ever get superseded , if writing a contradicting Law doesn't do the job ?

I originally quoted that clarification in response to a query from you:-

Well, give me an example of a non deliberate act of Foul Play, for which you would give a PT but no YC ?

I have no idea if WR still stands by that, but it seemed germane.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The clarification was in 2004 , since then we have had presumably 14 Law Books contradicting it, including the last one which is supposedly a careful restatement of laws

I'm not seeing any contradiction between Clarification 2004-9 and the subsequent Law books

For clarity, "contradiction" means "a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another", not that one expands on what the other one says.

Clarifications remain in force until they are officially incorporated into Law. WR issues a document like this one when that happens...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/me0vphuhffk17np/090430sglaexplanatory_7684.pdf?dl=1


I have a few of these documents, I'm not seeing any that include 2004-9

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The change in now (2018 book).

The clarification that the law ony "INTENTIONAL OFFENDING" carried an automatic card in conjunction with a PT. After all the reference was in 10.2 and therefore relation to intentional offences.



Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

"The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee/

However, the 2018 law book has moved the order of the laws so the previous clarification no linger makes sense And the reference to a PT and compulsory card is no longer under the law that has been "clarified"

Intetional offending is now under 9.7 and PT is referenced under Law 8 scoring.

So to say "The two parts of Law XX must be read in conjunction" no longer makes any sense. So, we have a law change. The renumbering of the Laws does not help as we must allow for renumbering is reading clarificattions.

 

[Blackberry]

Help! I've lost track of this PT / YC discussion. Is it possible sometimes to not give a YC after a PT?