Not straight. Again. And again.

[didds]

Wow - all these people saying no YC.

Lets look at this. Ref has escalated. Ref has given the captain an opportunity to correct. Captain didn't try anything to correct it.

Ref sent player to bin.

Suddenly the problem goes away.

Seems to me like the card solved the problem, after the referee tried to manage it away. .

In the OP the team were either on some sort of bizarre death wish mission to give the ball away, or genuinely didn't think they had an alternative. As it turned out they did.

but what if they hadn't and post YC the next victim stood forward and mis threw. Is that a YC for him too?

because if the clock resets then the solution for any team is to always rotate the thrower (when nobody can throw!) so nobody ever gets escalated - or if they do its very late in the game after 15X throws have been done. Possibly 18X depending on use of bench!

I can't explain why the skipper didn't rotate him. I can't explain either why any team would deliberately expose themselves in this manner.

But it still seems - to me - that you are now carding someone because he is purely incompetent (to an Nth degree as well it seems)

didds

 

[didds]

Seems like a perfect use of a card to me - problem seen, attempt to solve problem, problem not solved by management (via players and captain), issue card, problem solved.

This is soemwhat chopperesque so apolgies but I am intrigued now...

If threatened with a YC "next time", at the next lineout that player refuses to throw in as they don;t want to be YCd, and nobody else from the throwing side steps up - because they don;t want to be YCd either.

what do you do now - abandon the game? PK for time wasting - and what do you do next time when this happens? card the bloke that is refusing to expose himself through his incompetence? what about the other 14 that could throw in biut are also refusing? card them too?


I am guessing here that D1 is a higher level than D3, so we are dealing with guys that play for fun once a week at most, not hard bitten semi=pros looking to gain an edge to get a fully pro contract etc



didds

 

[OB..]

But it still seems - to me - that you are now carding someone because he is purely incompetent (to an Nth degree as well it seems)

didds

Since all the throws were going to his own team, I find it difficult to interpret that as incompetence.

 

[SimonSmith]

I did warn the captain and the replacement thrower that this was a cumulative thing, so he was going to be on a bit of a tightrope as well. No issues at all.

As I said, first time in 20+ years of doing this

 

[OB..]

This is soemwhat chopperesque so apolgies but I am intrigued now...

If threatened with a YC "next time", at the next lineout that player refuses to throw in as they don;t want to be YCd, and nobody else from the throwing side steps up - because they don;t want to be YCd either.

what do you do now - abandon the game? PK for time wasting - and what do you do next time when this happens? card the bloke that is refusing to expose himself through his incompetence? what about the other 14 that could throw in biut are also refusing? card them too?


I am guessing here that D1 is a higher level than D3, so we are dealing with guys that play for fun once a week at most, not hard bitten semi=pros looking to gain an edge to get a fully pro contract etc



didds

Aussie Rules: ref stands with his back to the lineout and throws the ball over his head, turning round quickly to see what happens.

(There is a sort of international precedent for this. A referee got so fed up with the scrumhalfs messing up the feed that at one scrum he did the job himself.)

 

[didds]

(removed - strange double post!)

 

[didds]

Since all the throws were going to his own team, I find it difficult to interpret that as incompetence.

I have sympathies with that view as well OB... but for a constant stream of deliberately not straights with the escalation of penalties along the way, to continue makes absolutely no sense. Particularly with the captain and tea,m mates aiding and abetting that policy by not replacing him. Something really isn'tt adding up here ... but I just cannot see that this was consistently deliberate with nobody from his own side changing anything. why would it have been deliberate? A hope that the ref would just give up calling the not straights ? ??

didds

 

[ChrisR]

.... and now a word from the opponents: "Please, Sir, don't card him. We're really thriving on the PKs."

 

[didds]

bang on chrisr!

 

[DocY]

Personally, I'm loathe to YC someone for incompetence. I'm not too comfortable with giving a penalty for incompetence, though it is useful as a threat in these cases.

The only time I've come close to penalising a hooker for repeated not straights was when he kept trying to throw to the back and just wasn't accurate enough - I ended up speaking to him and the captain saying "FFS throw to the front".

 

[Taff]

Personally, I'm loathe to YC someone for incompetence.

Well, strictly speaking you're not - you're YCing a player for Repeated Infringement.

... The only time I've come close to penalising a hooker for repeated not straights was when he kept trying to throw to the back and just wasn't accurate enough - I ended up speaking to him and the captain saying "FFS throw to the front".

Two points:

• If the Hooker can't throw it straight - do they have another player on the pitch who can? It doesn't have to be the Hooker's job.
• If he can't throw to the back the conventional way - throw it underarm then! There's nothing in the lawbook that says how the ball is thrown in - as long as it's thrown in straight.

There isn't a team on the planet surely who would fail on both counts, is there?

 

[didds]

Two points:

If the Hooker can't throw it straight - do they have another player on the pitch who can? It doesn't have to be the Hooker's job.
If he can't throw to the back the conventional way - throw it underarm then! There's nothing in the lawbook that says how the ball is thrown in - as long as it's thrown in straight.


There isn't a team on the planet surely who would fail on both counts, is there?

clearly the one in the OP.

I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with any answers as to why a thrower would continue deliberately throwing squint after already being penalised and being threatened with a YC.

didds

 

[DocY]

There isn't a team on the planet surely who would fail on both counts, is there?

Isn't that what the OP was about?

 

[crossref]

I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with any answers as to why a thrower would continue deliberately throwing squint after already being penalised and being threatened with a YC.

didds

to provoke the ref ?

 

[didds]

but why would a team do that?

that just doesn't make any sense.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

clearly the one in the OP.

I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with any answers as to why a thrower would continue deliberately throwing squint after already being penalised and being threatened with a YC.

didds

Perhaps you can answer this: Why the player's incompetence only causes him to throw off centre to the right? I was poor at throwing in but mine went; to us, to them and straight over the top. Not always to my side.

 

[FlipFlop]

How many teams, when told, change it, or he goes, wouldn't at least TRY someone else? I do wonder if the team involved just wanted that player off the field, but were unable to sub them (club president, money man, etc).

But to let a problem continue, and do nothing about it apart from PK it, consistently, is not a great option. Yes things like this, you perhaps have a bigger standard of "repeated infringement", but if after 5-10 PKs, why aren't you going to your pocket?

And the oppo - they would want you to YC it. Then they play against 14 men AND the chances are the replacement is even worse, so they still get the PKs.

 

[DocY]

Perhaps you can answer this: Why the player's incompetence only causes him to throw off centre to the right? I was poor at throwing in but mine went; to us, to them and straight over the top. Not always to my side.

Perhaps a mis-placed sense of "I'll get it right this time".

Perhaps a word along the lines of "aim to the left" would have been in order.

 

[didds]

well, I can see that base imperfections in technique could cause that. If it was ALWAYS to the RIGHT, and that meant it was always thrown to his own team, that would suggest that all lineouts were from the same side . until half time in which case it would be "the other side" so to speak - or if you prefer the same side in terms of "upfield" left or right.

Was that the case Simon?

Because if it was always to the right, and lineouts were shared across both touchlines in each half, then the NS can't always have been to his own side.

??

Were all lineouts only form one side of the pitch ? - that would explain why a throw to one side always ended up on his own team's benefit. Though it wold be very unusual to have all lineouts on one side of the pitch, unless weather was a factor (which then may have been a factor in the throwing). I'm pretty sure weather has been excluded in the OP.

I just see no reason why anybody would continually deliberately throw NS, in the knowledge that they are turning over the ball at best, and being penalised increasingly more stringently ending up in being YCd. Why would anyone do that?

I can;t explain either why a skipper wouldn't try somebody else anyway.

There is something not adding up here at all, generally. But I still don't see the point of continuing to deliberately thow squint. Its senseless.



didds

 

[SimonSmith]

A D3 game down here is...not good. There are some very good teams, but the average is poor.

The whole match was a management challenge, which actually made me reflect on how higher level rugby can be easier to referee.

The throws all went to his side, both sides of the field. Bear in mind I set a really BIG gap, probably 1.5m, and tell them "inside the inside shoulders" is straight enough. His throws were over the head of his jumper (who hadn't stepped in) with one going outside the outside shoulder.

Why didn't they change thrower? Probably the reason they stuck with a bad kicker; or ran the same back play that got rumbled in the first 5 minutes; or had an ineffectual captain. Or... who knows. Rugby IQ was not high on this day.