Penalty count

[Brian Ravenhill]

At level 5 and above referees are ‘marked’ by the number of penalties they ‘give away’. Often the first question of the referee to the asses is how many penalties did I give, below 20 big smile on referees face over 20 big frown on assessors face. If a penalty can be awarded and no advantage can be gained award the penalty.

So as a result referees would rather manage a situation than award the penalty. If a player has to be ‘managed’ to release the ball/player he has not been penalized therefore he has gained in slowing the ball down, the referee has gained because he hasn’t awarded a penalty. But the non-offending team has been cheated the opportunity to play rugby, and at the top end the paying spectators have been cheated the opportunity to watch rugby.

To much reliance is given to penalty counts, to clean up the game and reduce penalty OFFENCES, award penalties. If white has his hand preventing quick release of the ball penalise him, if whites do it again penalise them. A constant concession of penalties with the inevitable 3 points occasional will put a stop to the penalty OFFENCES.

Chris White was heavily criticized for the number of penalties he awarded in Ireland/Italy game. Chris, I believe is now of the attitude “ I’ am having my last few games at this level, I don’t have to climb a greased pole any longer and thus tow the party line, so with in reason I will do what I have to do to put this game back on track and stuff the statistics at the end of the game.”

As a referee gets better, surly he should be able to spot more offences during a game not less. Surly better players know more ways to cheat.

SO WHY DO PENALTY COUNTS DECREASE? Management is not an answer, as it rewards the offender.

 

[Padster]

Excellent point. It might result in more yellow cards as the persistent offending will be better demonstrated. Teams need to have a rethink about so called 'pragmatic' offending.

 

[OB..]

Brian - delighted to belong to the same society as you and Chris! Well said.

And meanwhile down in the subsoil ...
During a game I felt the penalty count was rather high, and at the end discovered it was over 30. It was an issue we discussed.
A couple of weeks later the penalty count turned out to be even higher, yet it had not seemed that way. I had no doubt at all as to which referee ran his game the better, and the discussion was distinctly different.

 

[ex-lucy]

Brian, i agree with what you say - i think!
I have a problem with players cheating and esp at the breakdown (holding on, not rolling, in the side etc) and then players and spectators moaning about penalty counts ...
Yes, play adv if you can, but if the cheating materially affects the play, ping the cheating b'stard.
28 pens y'day. 24 against blues, 4 against yellows. 3x Ycs for blues.
You will never guess the result/ score !

Blue were all ex-1st xv from a L4/5 club.
They knew what they were doing.
I talked to them, i warned them, i spoke to skipper, i warned again.
I pinged them. I carded them.
The crowd got on my back.
The Director of rugby spoke to me afterwards and provided the stats.
but you cannot get over the facts that the blues were cheating - when they didnt have the ball and they knew what they were doing.
Yellows gave me some good feedback on my card ..

the score ... Blues won 65-17 to win their league.

 

[Andyr8603]

23 Pens today including one penalty restart after conversion, so I am going to say it was 22 pens, less in the last quarter, but I would rather be under 10 for a game, but nowadays that is rarely possible

 

[Dickie E]

the new SH ELVs go a long way to addressing this issue. Its all about punishment fitting the crime - slowing the ball down on 1/2 way isn't worth 3 points.

And I agree with "the paying spectators have been cheated the opportunity to watch rugby." but to me this is running with ball in hand, not some golden boot taking pot shots.

(oh no, another thread on ELVs :nono: :nono: :nono: )

 

[ex-lucy]

slowing the ball down on 1/2 way isn't worth 3 points.

who says so?

i disagree ... johnny made sure it didnt happen again.

 

[FlipFlop]

slowing the ball down on 1/2 way isn't worth 3 points.

So why are they slowing it down? time to get the defence lined up and stop 7 points possibly? So why not say a Penalty Goal is 7 points. So players can infringe and give away 7, or not infringe and possibly give away 5/7 - depending on the conversion? They you would see more running rugby and less penalty kicks! (p.s. not suggesting we should go down this route....)

Is it worth losing a good 40m and not having the throw (if they team go for touch?)

so what is it worth? And why should there be different options available if the team is 5m out? Slowing it down 5m out - what is THAT worth?

 

[Dickie E]

so what is it worth?

it's worth good, clean ball with a 10 metre gap to defenders (AKA free kick).

 

[OB..]

So a team can afford to play illegally as long as it is only a long range penalty shot?

If they choose to cheat, then I see no reason to be sympathetic.

 

[FlipFlop]

But they prevented good clean ball, with a disorganised defence. So the person slowing it down, wins (IMHO).

And if they are 5m out, they get good clean ball, with the defence set, 5m away.

I don't see that as equitable.

Personally I would be happier if they changed a few other things as well. namely - if you kick out on the full from a FK awarded for one of the now PK offences,then you get the throw. That way, you can put the infringer back to their goal line, and put more pressure on thier line. But you also don't allow kicks at goal - you retain all the benefits of the PK, except the possible 3 pointer.

 

[Davet]

How does the ability to go fast at a FK, with 10m of space to run in differ from the ability to go fast at a PK with 10m of space to run in?

Other than that if the quick tap and go isn't on, then you lose the opportunity to score?

In that case the side that slows the ball down, whiles its defence reorganises seems to have a distinct advantage.

I suppose the game is potentially faster, and may therefore be more attractive to the general punter, and may therefore be financially attractive, but it does nothing for fair play.

And just because we can be paid for playing doesn't mean that we must be paid huge amounts, and just because peopel can earn money from TV deals doesn't mean that's a good thing. It does create a large vested interest, which can be difficult to fight - but that's no reason to simply watch while the game is changed to something else.

 

[Dickie E]

... and let's make tries worth 3 points to try to further discourage the running game

 

[Phil E]

... and let's make tries worth 3 points to try to further discourage the running game

Lets send all dissenters to the other side of the world...............................................hang on a minute :biggrin:

 

[Dickie E]

I used to like you much better when you were grade 13. :wink:

 

[Phil E]

I used to like you much better when you were grade 13. :wink:

The worst is yet to come !!!

 

[Davet]

There seems to be a perception that the running game is the best game.

Many forwards would argue that a tight game with pick and drive rucks and decent rolling mauls can be a thing of beauty.

Why do so many people have this fascination with spectacle?

The game is for the players, if someone wants to watch then they can, but they aren't actually necessary - unless you are driven by purely commercial considerations.

And if you DO want a free running game then make penalties worth 6 points and see how many are conceded then.

I watched part of the Sharks v Chiefs game - after about 3 minutes the Chiefs killed the ball close to their line and quite central - FK taken quickly, successfully defended by the Chiefs, no score to the Sharks - and as far as the Chiefs were concerned a job well done. The same scenario seems to occur quite regularly in almost every S14 game I watch. Perhaps if the FK had been accompanied by YC it may have been effective, but it wasn't, and again whilst it does happen - it seems not to be the first option the ref turns to, for quite obvious reasons, he is under some pressure to ensure that "a card happy ref doesn't ruin the game" - which has the effect of spoiling fair competition, whilst still providing the spectacle of "running rugby" and thus providing entertainment and TV cash, enriching the investors.

whoopy f****ng do.

 

[Brian Ravenhill]

But a card happy ref (or better still card happy refS) won’t spoil to many games, because coaches and players do what they can ‘get away with’. If we don’t let them get away with it they wont do it, simple. So here is to a week of card happy refs ‘ruining’ the first week of next season, so as the remaining weeks are a joy to watch, hopefully with rolling mauls!

 

[Brian Ravenhill]

As refs at the beginning of each game we set out our stall as to what we will generally accept and what we wont, the straightness of the feed to the scrum the binding of flankers, simple things that set the tone of our expectations.

Please let the IRB send down a directive at the beginning of next season as to what is and is not acceptable, the ball must be down the middle of the scrum to allow a contest, at scrums flankers must bind to the shoulder and not touch any member of the opposition, players off their feet have no part to play in the game whilst off their feet. Simple things that will allow the man with the ball whilst on his feet, the opportunity to play the game. If the laws currently in the game are applied consistently they will be no need to encompass all of the ELVs.

The free kick ideas currently trailed south of the equator are not working for the same reason the penalties don’t work north of the equator, the pressure applied to the referee from players, press, coaches and administrators to maintain a full playing complement, means that the referee will use the cards as a last tool rather than an early tool (not first) and so players continue to get away with what they can for as long as they can.

 

[ex-lucy]

i agree with your sentiments Brian. But it takes all refs to be consistent with the application of interpretations of laws.
We had a similar situation at the beg of this season with the directives.
some refs applied them correctly, some did not.
I know that i came across teams in Oct who had refs who hadnt applied them so when i applied them they were 'confused' and upset.
so whilst some of mean well and apply such matters, it must be all of us o/wise it doesnt work.