Penalty for Not Listening

[Brian Ravenhill]

Penalties at rucks this last weekend were not given for player breaking the laws but for not listening to the referee.
Scenario 1). Tackle… Defender gets hand over ball preventing quick recycle of ball... Referee shouts hands off white... defender removes his hand and play continues.
Scenario 2). Tackle… Defender gets hand over ball preventing quick recycle of ball... Referee shouts hands off white... defender dose not remove his hand … referee blows… penalty Blue hands in ruck

The infringement in law in both instances is the same so why is the referee letting them get away with it in one instance but not another. We are all guilt of it, we all shout leave it then play on. If we apply the laws correctly see the infringement play advantage or penalise it, there would be little need for the mass alteration to the laws coming after the World Cup. Why do we have to tell them to behave and them not listen before we penalise it. Players are now expecting us to tell them to get on side rather than penalise them. Last season I was told by a player that I couldn’t penalise him for off side as I hadn’t told him to get on side!

 

[QE2wgc]

Brian
As a level 5 referee you are well aware that we are meant to try to keep the game flowing.

In the first instance we try pre-emptive communication, then try to get them to comply quickly so that the game can continue.

If they fail to comply we play advantage or penalise.

If we penalise every infringement we would all have penalty counts of 50+ per game (and thats forgetting all the infringements we did not see).

Yes players know what they are doing, but part of the communication should be with the captain at downtime along the lines of "captain, at the last x breakdowns your players have attempted to slow the ball down, tell your players to be carefull as my options are becoming more limited".

If no response from the players after that sort of team warning, the next one you ping straight away, and then you can escalate it from there.

 

[Davet]

I remember very clearly my younger playing days.

Whistle - "Penalty against Red!"

No reason asked, none given, and very often no real understanding of how we had trandsgressed. But it would have been a brave man who asked!

 

[Bryan]

Brian,

The penalty was given for the player not listening to the referee AND as a result that player having an outcome on the game.

I fully agree with QE2 on this one. If, by the time the referee has spotted it, the intention of the offence (normally slowing down the ball) had been achieved, I see no reason for a referee to encourage a player to release- the referee should play advantage or penalize immediately as the damage has already been done.

Much like repeating an instruction means that the referee has condoned it the first time round, asking a player to comply only works if the referee feels he/she can prevent the infringement from having an effect on the game.

This is better used for offside lines. The offside lines only matter once the ball has immediately left the R/M/S. Preventative commands mean that you can prevent awarding a penalty if you see a player offside and encourage him to get back onside. If he does, yippee. Otherwise, penalise. We could say nothing, but we are not in the business of playing "gotcha".

At the Tackle, the speed at which the play occurs means that preventative statements are less effective. I noticed Steve Walsh simply say "2 Green" instead of the whole blurb of "Roll away 2 Green". Later on, at one point he only said "Two!".

I'm less annoyed by the referees who give preventative statements than by those who either say nothing at all and play "gotcha" all game long, or those who repeat the same commands again and again, thereby justifying the first offence.

 

[OB..]

At a tackle, you can handle the ball. In a ruck, you can't. When does a tackle become a ruck?

That is often more obvious to the referee than the players, and to that extent it is good to let them know and require them to adapt. The voice should mainly be used for prevention rather than cure

However I agree it is often taken too far nowadays. If you have an opponent binding on to you, you know perfectly well you are in a ruck and should let go of the ball. Any player who tries to argue that he was not warned first is taking the mickey. How about a further 10 metres for dissent?!

 

[Wert Twacky]

I think QE2wgc has it spot on. No-one wants a gotcha ref - they ruin things for everyone and I agree that often it is easier for us as refs to see when a tackle becomes a ruck, becomes a tackle, etc.
Are you saying we say nothing all game? We call ruck - they know that means hands off - if they chose to cheat, there is no cause for debate when you award a penalty.

We expect the players to help us to ensure a flowing game, so why not use preventative measures and help them?

I must say thou Brian, I'm at a loss to understand why you seem against this as a level five ref.

 

[Brian Ravenhill]

My point is the authorities want a quick game to appeal to the TV audience. So why do referees allow the slowing down of the game then ask them to remove their hand rather than penalise them. Yes initially there would be more penalties but once players realise 'if the ref sees my hand on the ball I'm in trouble' he is less likely to put his hand on the ball, thus giving us a quicker game without the need to rewrite the law book.

 

[mkottke]

I remember very clearly my younger playing days.

Whistle - "Penalty against Red!"

No reason asked, none given, and very often no real understanding of how we had trandsgressed. But it would have been a brave man who asked!

I have also noticed this, but it is good for the players to understand for what and for why they were dinged. In general, I think we, as refs, have become lacks about taking control of the game. A player talks back we should be more apt to dinging for talking.

At higher levels players know the rules, but try and gain that marginal advantage by picking our pockets. The social levels are a little bit more tricky. The players at this level want to win and play hard rugby, but sometimes they lack the finer points of the law to understand what they are doing wrong. I think we have let them bitch and grip too much. If they talk back, ding them for talking to the ref.

-mark

 

[beckett50]

At a tackle, you can handle the ball.

Although if you are the tackler, you must let the tackled player go and get to your feet before you attempt to play the ball. However, there is nothing in Law to prevent you from trying to strip the ball as you are bringing the player to ground.

I agree with Brian with regard to the mixed message that it sends. It is almost like rewarding a naughty child with a treat. At the end of the day the player is cheating, he knows he's cheating and should (and probably does) expect the full weight of the Laws to be applied. But, in our doffing of the cap to Murdoch's millions perhaps we have lost sight of the true meaning of "Equity under Law" and gone the for the mamby pamby 'mother state' type environment.

You know, the one where kids don't fail, they just have postponed success

If people at the levels of Brian (and I for that matter) stay tough then, at least the propper game can continue to flourish.

 

[Padster]

I agree with Brian and have found that penalising the first time a side transgresses in the scenario given is very effective. I will warn players rather than penalise them to get back onside (for example) only if I think it has had no material effect on the team in possession and their options. I will always try and thank them for complying if I can.

Why should a team gain an advantage for illegal play?

 

[Deeps]

You really can save yourself a lot of trouble by covering the bull points in your brief to skippers and then mercilessly hammering these points in the first 10 minutes or so. Nothing new here but we seem to have forgotten it.

Say 'ruck' once only on each occasion to avoid white noise; blow up for any player on the floor on the wrong side without any sympathy; be all over scrum halves who feed, hookers whose feet go up early, backs who come up offside; 'sentinels' who obstruct in front of the back foot without being bound etc.

Then, when they behave correctly, back off and let them play. If feeding starts again, then a gentle word might be appropriate before reverting to the wrath of Odin. Lay out your stall, police it with zero tolerance in the first few minutes then, when all are compliant ease springs but keep an eye out for lapses.

 

[jaycee1]

I agree with Brian and have found that penalising the first time a side transgresses in the scenario given is very effective. I will warn players rather than penalise them to get back onside (for example) only if I think it has had no material effect on the team in possession and their options. I will always try and thank them for complying if I can.

Why should a team gain an advantage for illegal play?

Sounds about what I do.
If a player transgresses and does not effect the game warn him, if it does affect the game penalty/advantage.
e.g in the first example of the hands in the ruck if the hands slow the ball but there is nobody there to take the ball there is no material effect therefore shouting at the transgressor is sufficient if there is an attacker there bending down to get the ball and he is prevented, even momentarily, then penalty. At the lower levels momentarily maybe stretched to account for players' skill levels.

 

[Davet]

When a ruck develops we get one call of "Ruck" or even "Ruck - hands out". That's fine - that's the information the players need, and they should comply. If they don't then penalise. It may be that a second row with scrum cap on may not hear, and on occasion an immediate, louder and closer shout seems like a fair idea. Followed by whistle for non-compliance.

The only problem which can arise out of this is that refs make a rod for their own backs - and players will ONLY respond after the call.

I generally make it clear that I will normally call "Ruck" - but that soemtimes things happen quickly, and faster than my voice can get the words out... just cos i haven't called it does not necessarily mean it ain't a ruck. Players must take some responsibility.

 

[PeterH]

You really can save yourself a lot of trouble by covering the bull points in your brief to skippers and then mercilessly hammering these points in the first 10 minutes or so. Nothing new here but we seem to have forgotten it.

Say 'ruck' once only on each occasion to avoid white noise; blow up for any player on the floor on the wrong side without any sympathy; be all over scrum halves who feed, hookers whose feet go up early, backs who come up offside; 'sentinels' who obstruct in front of the back foot without being bound etc.

Then, when they behave correctly, back off and let them play. If feeding starts again, then a gentle word might be appropriate before reverting to the wrath of Odin. Lay out your stall, police it with zero tolerance in the first few minutes then, when all are compliant ease springs but keep an eye out for lapses.

Deeps - thats my approach
They all bitch in the first 5 - to one another while I turn a deaf ear

In the bar afterwards after a pint or two - I usually get told that the approach I took and the liberal advantage was a the cause of a crackin game as they hardly heard from me after 15 minutes

 

[didds]

Players must take some responsibility.

Absolutely Dave. Sometimes it seems as if everybody is hell bent on taking all responsibility away from players.

IMO.

natch

didds

 

[Deeps]

Absolutely Dave. Sometimes it seems as if everybody is hell bent on taking all responsibility away from players.

When I played, nobody dreamed of speaking to the referee as everyone else notes in these pages. Even the skipper was the soul of discretion in venturing to inquire politely of the referee as to what the last decision was; not what it was for. Then I went off to sea and did all that fun stuff in a blue suit before returning to officiate. Back on the green stuff, I was told to talk to the players, manage the game, keep them from offending and apply that word 'materiality'. Suddenly, referees became game managers, tactical directors and commentators as well as counselors in anger management. Verbal diarrhea was a valued characteristic or so it seemed.

Now, I must admit that I do detect a swing of the pendulum away from all this talking. I don't think we will ever get to the point where nothing is said, nor should we, however I have long believed that it is wrong for the referee to impose himself or his style on the game or, even worse, to make players' tactical decisions for them by indicating when the ball is out for example, even if it does help the game to flow. Who is playing it, us or them? I truly believe that the game should be back in the hands of the players, as guided by their Captains who probably struggle nowadays without lessons in leadership and tactics to make up for the dearth of those skills foisted upon us by 'modern', grey, matrix management techniques.