penalty caused by injury

[Dickie E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XR3Ur467Oc

have a look at youtube time 11:30 onwards. Australia player doesn't roll out of tackle and is understandably penalised. As you'll see, it turns out that the Australian player is significantly injured in the tackle.

Wouldn't an empathetic referee then change the restart from an Argentinian penalty to an Argentinian scrum?

 

[Taff]

I would.

He didn't roll away because he COULDN'T roll away. A scrum seems the fairest thing to do.

 

[ChuckieB]

I don't think on the face of it you could call the situation as one that allows for empathy.

Sympathy for his plight maybe, but that doesn't necessarily allow for a change in the original decision.

I think of empathy as something related to a concept of something you buy into and is ongoing. I can perhaps think of the concept of playing the advantage to keep the game flowing wherever possible and being an ethos of the game and as situation that might allow for empathy.

I don't think fairness is ever allowed to come into it.

 

[Dickie E]

and it finished up with the ref doing the "roll away" secondary signal. :wtf:

 

[ChuckieB]

and it finished up with the ref doing the "roll away" secondary signal. :wtf:

Didn't review this particular one, but I have always pretty much seen some irony when this happens!

 

[didds]

I don't think fairness is ever allowed to come into it.

SAFETY - ENJOYMENT (nee EQUITY) - LAW

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

Whenever this comes up, I am minded that empathy for an offending player means you are taking something away from the non offending team. They may want their PK

 

[VM75]

The offence is one of FACT, empathy isn't an appropriate application.

 

[Taff]

I don't think on the face of it you could call the situation as one that allows for empathy. ... I don't think fairness is ever allowed to come into it.

The offence is one of FACT, empathy isn't an appropriate application.

A bit harsh there gents.

We can't see the video because "This video has been removed by the user" but if we are going to penalise a player for offending, surely there is an implication that he had some say in whether he offended or not. If a player had collapsed on the wrong side of a tackle (fact) are you honestly saying you would penalise him for not rolling away? Come on.

Whenever this comes up, I am minded that empathy for an offending player means you are taking something away from the non offending team. They may want their PK

I'm sure they do. They probably also want a handful of penalty tries, but it's unlikely they'll get them.

 

[ChuckieB]

I am sure I could have expressed some sympathy for his plight, as I suggested.

Does the rugby community have an interpretation of empathy as being something different to its generally accepted meaning?

 

[ChrisR]

The offence is one of FACT, empathy isn't an appropriate application.

If the player is unable to avoid an offence the laws allow the sanction to be adjusted. See unintentional offsides.

In the case of a tackler being unable to comply with rolling away because he is unconscious then a scrum restart is appropriate. To do otherwise suggests a lack of empathy for the game.

 

[Taff]

If the player is unable to avoid an offence the laws allow the sanction to be adjusted. See unintentional offsides.

In the case of a tackler being unable to comply with rolling away because he is unconscious then a scrum restart is appropriate. To do otherwise suggests a lack of empathy for the game.

Exactly. I for one would have no problem changing a decision if it turned out a player was physically unable to comply, and if I'm honest I don't think any player would grumble.

 

[Dickie E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSK1ppBaEMk

start at youtube time 9:40

 

[SimonSmith]

I'm sure they do. They probably also want a handful of penalty tries, but it's unlikely they'll get them.

Except that this is a penalty that they are due. For example, if the player had rolled away, they night have had a quick ball advantage and been under the sticks. Now, instead of the PK they are due, they get a measly scrum.

 

[Dickie E]

if the ref had realised that there was a serious injury before he'd blown for the penalty I doubt that he would have blown for the penalty

 

[ChrisR]

Except that this is a penalty that they are due. For example, if the player had rolled away, they night have had a quick ball advantage and been under the sticks. Now, instead of the PK they are due, they get a measly scrum.

The"measly scrum"gives them similar possession to what they would have if the tackler had been able to roll away.

 

[Taff]

if the ref had realised that there was a serious injury before he'd blown for the penalty I doubt that he would have blown for the penalty

My thoughts exactly Dickie.

In fairness, watching that video at first glance I thought PK too. The only difference is I would have changed my mind once I'd realised he was physically unable to roll away. Some Argentinians may have grumbled, but what would they have said if the boot was on the other foot? They can't have it both ways.

Good looking stadium BTW.

 

[Pegleg]

If the player is unable to avoid an offence the laws allow the sanction to be adjusted. See unintentional offsides.

In the case of a tackler being unable to comply with rolling away because he is unconscious then a scrum restart is appropriate. To do otherwise suggests a lack of empathy for the game.

Spot on. If a player genuinely can't roll away a penalty is poor refereeing.

Ref (PING!): "Penalty, Red 6 not rolling away."

Red Captain: "But he's dead sir."

Ref: "Well he could have tried to roll away first."

Common sense and emapthy; scrum {20.4(d)}.