[Tackle] NO WRAP = Red Card

[Donk93953]

Twenty minutes into first/half Under 19 game in USA.
White Player is brought down with no wrap (this is subject to debate from witnesses).
Contact well below waist by Blue tackler.
Referee had not admonished either team for dangerous, non-wrapping or high tackles.
Blue tackler awarded yellow card for not wrapping.
Blue retreats to goal posts as is standard here.
White tackled player was injured.
Ref and sideline officials (also refs) confer as White player is attended to.
Ref then goes to Blue player under posts and awards him a red card.

This player is now looking at a 3 game ban.
No priors. No history of misconduct.

Firstly, Im a little taken back buy ref changing cards after initial yellow.
Secondly, 3 game ban seems out of line.

Have I missed a new protocol for refs this year?

 

[Rich_NL]

Not internationally, at least. The local society (or the national organisation) might have local/age grade-specific rules and requests.

The second card after deliberation is unusual and mostly undesirable, but it's hard to judge without knowing a lot more about the situation and the tackle. Perhaps it was a rookie ref who a more experienced sideline official felt it necessary to advise, or perhaps the sideline official had extra information that made the ref believe it was a deliberate and cynical foul.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Blue retreats to goal posts as is standard here.

Ref and sideline officials (also refs) confer as White player is attended to.
Ref then goes to Blue player under posts and awards him a red card

Perhaps RC was given for not leaving field of play. I would suggest the standard of under the posts as the problem. I do recall one's DBL as the location for YC players at one point in time.

 

[Donk93953]

Perhaps RC was given for not leaving field of play. I would suggest the standard of under the posts as the problem. I do recall one's DBL as the location for YC players at one point in time.

That would be my error....indeed it was the deadball line...

 

[Ian_Cook]

IMO, It sounds like another example of the outcome-driven decision making infecting (and ruining) the game . As long as the player wasn't injured, YC... but ref. finds that the player was injured, RC

Its just wrong on every level.

 

[Dickie E]

IMO, It sounds like another example of the outcome-driven decision making infecting (and ruining) the game . As long as the player wasn't injured, YC... but ref. finds that the player was injured, RC

Its just wrong on every level.

who knows what happened? Maybe the Blue player gave the touchie a spray as he was leaving the field.

The danger here is giving the OP some ammunition to go back to the officials and say "the guys on the internet said you were wrong because ..."

No offence intended Donk

 

[Pegleg]

Twenty minutes into first/half Under 19 game in USA.
White Player is brought down with no wrap (this is subject to debate from witnesses).
Contact well below waist by Blue tackler.
Referee had not admonished either team for dangerous, non-wrapping or high tackles.
Blue tackler awarded yellow card for not wrapping.
Blue retreats to goal posts as is standard here.
White tackled player was injured.
Ref and sideline officials (also refs) confer as White player is attended to.
Ref then goes to Blue player under posts and awards him a red card.

This player is now looking at a 3 game ban.
No priors. No history of misconduct.

Firstly, Im a little taken back buy ref changing cards after initial yellow.
Secondly, 3 game ban seems out of line.

Have I missed a new protocol for refs this year?

1:
"...Contact well below waist by Blue tackler..." and "...Referee had not admonished either team for dangerous, non-wrapping or high tackles..." are not relevant. IF an offence is "cardworthy" then a card can be issued. There is not requirement for a previous warning.

2:
This bit "...Blue retreats to goal posts as is standard here..." Even as adjusted to "ded ball line" a player deemed gilty is to close to potentialy critical incidents near a goal line especially at youth level where the atmoshphere is often "charged".

3:
The injury should not affect the outcome.

4:
Ref will learn from this, I hope, He should have consulted with the AR before the card and not after. The AR may well have seen good reason to recommend a red card, without seeing a video we can't make a definitive call, but any recomendation is at the referee's request and before the referee gives his on-field "verdict".

5:
The ban is not for me unreasonable for a dangerous tackle. It may be in or out of line with the norm in youth rugby in your area I can't comment on that point.

Donk, you don't say what your capasity at the game was. Did you get the chance to chat to the officials later to find out why the officials responded as they did?

 

[L'irlandais]

...

This player is now looking at a 3 game ban.
No priors. No history of misconduct.

Firstly, Im a little taken back buy ref changing cards after initial yellow.
Secondly, 3 game ban seems out of line.

Have I missed a new protocol for refs this year?

Hello donk,
Welcome to the forum.

It's not unusual for the match referee to confer with his AR (the guy may have been closer to the tackle.)

[LAWS]‪6.A.7 Referee consulting with others‬
(a)‪ The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside[/LAWS].‬

I liked to make two further points.
‪Firstly, Having spoken with the AR, the match referee is entitled to alter his decision.‬ Although it's not great that he changed the colour of the card, it is certainly permitted by the Laws of the game.
Second point: 3 weeks seems to be the entry level for suspensions, so it could have been a lot tougher.

9. Having characterized the Foul Play as Lower End, Mid-Range or Top End, the Trier of Fact then uses Appendix 1 of Regulation 17 to determine the Entry Point (i.e., the base period of suspension to be given to the player.) For example, per Appendix 1, the Entry Point for an elbow to the head in violation of Law 10.(a), which is determined to be Mid-Range, is a suspension of 5 weeks.

Source : USA RUGBY DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
(Effective for all disciplinary matters arising within the jurisdiction of USA Rugby, no matter what level of play is in question, on or after April 25, 2016)

Hope this helps.

 

[didds]

Perhaps it was a rookie ref who a more experienced sideline official felt it necessary to advise, or perhaps the sideline official had extra information that made the ref believe it was a deliberate and cynical foul.

Or maybe a ref that decided upon an outcome based sanction.

didds

 

[didds]

Perhaps RC was given for not leaving field of play. I would suggest the standard of under the posts as the problem. I do recall one's DBL as the location for YC players at one point in time.

wouldn't he have at least "suggested" a move to the DBL before the RC?

seems wierd.

Of course there may be other information missing from the OP. We can only answer what is given etc.

didds

 

[DocY]

Welcome to the forum!

It doesn't sound good from the way you've described it, but are you sure you saw absolutely everything that happened? The conversation between the ref and the AR might have been (for illustrative purposes, roughly based on the last time I was in this situation):
Ref: "Hi AR, I just saw a no arms tackle. Not dangerous, but it was deliberate so I'm going to give a yellow card"
AR: "I saw him throw a punch to the head on the deck. You were on the far side and the ball had gone, so I expect you missed it"
Ref: "I did miss it. If he punched him in the head that should be a red card"
AR: "Yes, I agree it should be a red card"

I'll just reiterate what others have said:

We can't know what went on without having seen it and probably talking to the officials.

There's nothing wrong with the ref changing his card after consulting an AR, but you'd hope he'd give some explanation about why.

Three weeks for a straight red card is fairly standard.

 

[DocY]

"the guys on the internet said you were wrong because ..."

If guys on the internet said it it must be right

 

[ChrisR]

The change in cards may not have been outcome driven but the result of the injury providing time for a referee huddle and someone insisting that it be a red card offence.

Shoulder charge tackles without grasping are a feature of football here and is more likely to be reactive than deliberate. However it is dangerous, especially if aimed at the knees, for both players.

The three week ban seems pretty hefty for youth.

 

[DocY]

The change in cards may not have been outcome driven but the result of the injury providing time for a referee huddle and someone insisting that it be a red card offence.

I'd hope this isn't the case - the only time I'd want an AR asking me to change a card is if they'd seen something I'd missed. This is where society standards should come in and not leave two referees with differing opinions - at least not to the extent that an AR would insist it be a different color card.

 

[Pegleg]

The change in cards may not have been outcome driven but the result of the injury providing time for a referee huddle and someone insisting that it be a red card offence.

Shoulder charge tackles without grasping are a feature of football here and is more likely to be reactive than deliberate. However it is dangerous, especially if aimed at the knees, for both players.

The three week ban seems pretty hefty for youth.

The time for the discussion was BEFORE the card nor after. Otherwise where does it stop? Card issued after 5 mins. At half time AR speaks to the ref in the changing room (they were not miked up) and tells him: That yellow should have been a red!" Does the ref go in the changing room and tell the player etc: "Sorry you are back off it's now a red card!"?
If the AR has input stick the flag out!

I see no reason why youth bans should be more lenient than adults, particularly where intent is an elelment. We need to sort their discipline before it becomes an issue at senior level.

 

[Pegleg]

I'd hope this isn't the case - the only time I'd want an AR asking me to change a card is if they'd seen something I'd missed. This is where society standards should come in and not leave two referees with differing opinions - at least not to the extent that an AR would insist it be a different color card.

Varying your conversation:

Ref: "Hi AR, I just saw a no arms tackle. Not dangerous, but it was deliberate so I'm going to give a yellow card"
I have a no arm tackle. I looked deliberate to me but not overly serious I am thinking Yellow card. Have you got anything else for me?
AR: "I saw him throw a punch to the head on the deck. You were on the far side and the ball had gone, so I expect you missed it"
I saw a punch to the head on the floor. It was in my side of the "tackle".
Ref: "I did miss it. If he punched him in the head that should be a red card" (Don't give a recomentdation UNLESS asked for one. )
From what you say I am thinking the card should be Red. Am I reading you correctly?
AR: "Yes, I agree it should be a red card"
Yes I agree Red

OR

Ref: "I have a no arm tackle. I looked deliberate to me but not overly serious I am thinking Yellow card. Have you got anything else for me?"
AR: "I saw a punch to the head on the floor. It was in my side of the "tackle".
Ref: "Ok do you haver a recomendation for me?" (Only ask if the report is not clearly directing you to a specific outcome)
AR: "Red card"
Ref: "Thank you."

This way the referee is leading the process. It all happens before the card is issued.

 

[L'irlandais]

The USA disciplinary procedure linked in #8 doesn't suggest U19 players be treated differently from Seniors.

REGULATION 17 APPENDIX 1
WORLD RUGBY SANCTIONS FOR FOUL PLAY

Law 10.4(g)
Dangerous charging or knocking down an Opponent with the ball, including shouldering

LE – 2 weeks MR – 5 weeks TE – 10+ weeks
Entry Point Based on Scale of Seriousness of the Player’s conduct, which constitutes the offending – Lower End (LE), Mid Range (MR), Top End (TE).

Maximum Sanction 52 weeks.

Appendix 1 of WR 17 uses the terms “weeks.” As a practical matter (and particularly with 7’s), this means matches.

Do bear in mind,
2.2 The WR Regulation 17 process is not based on the American or English system of law (which is an adversary system with a prosecution and a defense); instead, it is based on the French legal system... etc.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The three week ban seems pretty hefty for youth.

Twenty minutes into first/half Under 19 game in USA.


This player is now looking at a 3 game ban.
No priors. No history of misconduct.

Firstly, Im a little taken back buy ref changing cards after initial yellow.
Secondly, 3 game ban seems out of line.

Have I missed a new protocol for refs this year?

The OP has identified this as U19. An 18 yr old is not a youth. Was this player 18 and playing with youth U18?

I have always seen U19 as foolhardy, at least in US. At one time, players at college level had to be identified before game if they were under 18. These players also had to have signed parental permission beforehand at least inOhio.

Although I have never heard or seen a legal case in HS gridiron, a situation of 18yr old adults playing a game with children has always been a possible litigation nightmare. The school districts and athletic associations probably have this covered through parental waivers.

TBH, I'm not sure rugby has the well laywerred procedures in place.

To Donk, advise for the player. Do your 3 wks and stfu.

 

[Pegleg]

In rugby terms here Youth is U17, U18 & U19. This, I thought, was the basis across the world. U19 laws for rugby up to the end of youth rugby. Is it different in the USA? If so WR needs to really get it's act in order. A messy law book and regulations all over the shop.

(The UN defines a youth as between 15 and 24 www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/.../youth/youth-definition/) so the player certainly falls into that catagory.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The change in cards may not have been outcome driven but the result of the injury providing time for a referee huddle and someone insisting that it be a red card offence.

Shoulder charge tackles without grasping are a feature of football here and is more likely to be reactive than deliberate. However it is dangerous, especially if aimed at the knees, for both players.

The three week ban seems pretty hefty for youth.

Twenty minutes into first/half Under 19 game in USA.
White Player is brought down with no wrap (this is subject to debate from witnesses).
Contact well below waist by Blue tackler.
Referee had not admonished either team for dangerous, non-wrapping or high tackles.
Blue tackler awarded yellow card for not wrapping.
Blue retreats to goal posts as is standard here.
White tackled player was injured.
Ref and sideline officials (also refs) confer as White player is attended to.
Ref then goes to Blue player under posts and awards him a red card.

This player is now looking at a 3 game ban.
No priors. No history of misconduct.

Firstly, Im a little taken back buy ref changing cards after initial yellow.
Secondly, 3 game ban seems out of line.

Have I missed a new protocol for refs this year?

In rugby terms here Youth is U17, U18 & U19. This, I thought, was the basis across the world. U19 laws for rugby up to the end of youth rugby. Is it different in the USA? If so WR needs to really get it's act in order. A messy law book and regulations all over the shop.

(The UN defines a youth as between 15 and 24 www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/.../youth/youth-definition/) so the player certainly falls into that catagory.

18 is adult is USA, I haven't studied law, but i think it is actually the day before your birthday. That is 17 yr plus 365 1/4 days. Birthday is actually 18years and 1 day.

The day before your birthday, one could commit assault on the field and get charged for it. Additionally troubling for parents of 18 yr olds adult men is the possibility that their adult child may be dating a young girls below the age of consent. (age of consent varies from state to state). So in one birthday the charges against loverboy change significantly.