[Law] Player tackles referee

[Dan_A]

Anyone see this?

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/ad...three-year-ban-taking-referee-no-arms-tackle/

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

 

[Pegleg]

Yep. I hope he gets a very long ban. Oh and it is assaults not tackles!

 

[Guyseep]

I've had something similar happen to me and at first I blamed myself for being in the wrong position, but after seeing it as a spectator, it's clear that the onus is on the player to NOT tackle or push the ref.

The first time it happened I let it slide but in the next incident(not in the same game) I penalized the offending player. In my case it was a push and not a tackle.

When questioned by the captain I told him that a) I'm doing my best to get in a position that gives me the best vantage to make the right call, while also not interfering. At the end of the day I can't float so I have to stand somehwere. b) if I do get in the way and a team gains an advantage I will call it back for a scrum c) If I'm in the way tell me, don't hit me and d) treat me like you would the upright. If it's in the way you wouldn't try and tackle it out of the way

 

[DocY]

I get the occasional bump, usually followed by a mutual apology, but if I ever thought it was an intentional push, it wouldn't be just a penalty!

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Bizarre

The only explanations possible are that player is blind in left eye or he owed someone a lot of money, and this settled the debt

 

[didds]

I could be charitable and say he was lining up striped 16 who may have been a possible ball receiver.

But ... that isn't enough of an "excuse".

didds

 

[beckett50]

Yes.

And the really bad news is that the player only got a 3-year ban :wtf:

 

[Dickie E]

I wonder if the gender of the referee was taken into account by the judiciary

 

[Guyseep]

I wonder if the gender of the referee was taken into account by the judiciary

It shouldn't and hopefully wasn't. I hope they based their decision on the fact that a player tackled a referee, not a female referee.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I wonder if the gender of the referee was taken into account by the judiciary

well, I hope not. Gender, used properly, refers to masculine or effeminate. Which by the video and the refs appearance I assume is effeminate.

I wonder if the sex of the referee was taken into account by the judiciary. Which by the article I am sure the refs sex is female.

We are either XX, XY, and I do understand others exist, but do not be afraid to use the word Sex, especially with Dickie E as your ruggbyref name. You of all people, an Aussie, must not give in to PCness

 

[Dickie E]

well, I hope not. Gender, used properly, refers to masculine or effeminate. Which by the video and the refs appearance I assume is effeminate.

I wonder if the sex of the referee was taken into account by the judiciary. Which by the article I am sure the refs sex is female.

We are either XX, XY, and I do understand others exist, but do not be afraid to use the word Sex, especially with Dickie E as your ruggbyref name. You of all people, an Aussie, must not give in to PCness

the whole fabric of my day will be enhanced by this piece of insight. Thank you.

 

[Dickie E]

It shouldn't and hopefully wasn't. I hope they based their decision on the fact that a player tackled a referee, not a female referee.

It is interesting though. What if the referee had been a 12 year old boy or an elderly man - should "special" consideration have been given based on vulnerability?

 

[Drift]

It is interesting though. What if the referee had been a 12 year old boy or an elderly man - should "special" consideration have been given based on vulnerability?

No. The player deliberately tackled a referee, something which when I first started playing I was told it would be a life time ban. He deserves a lot more than a 3 year ban.

 

[didds]

It is interesting though. What if the referee had been a 12 year old boy or an elderly man - should "special" consideration have been given based on vulnerability?

well, what if the ref had been a 6'4", 19 stone bloke... shou'd less consideration be given at all etc ? ;-)

didds

 

[didds]

No. The player deliberately tackled a referee, something which when I first started playing I was told it would be a life time ban. He deserves a lot more than a 3 year ban.

I think he must be VERY lucky.

I can only guess he was able to use some excuse about thinking the ref was a oppo player lining up to take a pass and he closed his eyes or some rubbish.

Or the panel was made up of his uncles.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

well, what if the ref had been a 6'4", 19 stone bloke... shou'd less consideration be given at all etc ? ;-)

didds

yes, that is my question

 

[Drift]

I think he must be VERY lucky.

I can only guess he was able to use some excuse about thinking the ref was a oppo player lining up to take a pass and he closed his eyes or some rubbish.

Or the panel was made up of his uncles.

didds

I have no idea how, when watching that footage, you would believe that he bought the dummy runners and got it wrong. Ball was always going deep and wide, plus if you watch he braced himself and launched towards the referee and no other player was in the direction that he went.

 

[Taff]

I have no idea how, when watching that footage, you would believe that he bought the dummy runners and got it wrong. Ball was always going deep and wide, plus if you watch he braced himself and launched towards the referee and no other player was in the direction that he went.

Exactly. It was nothing but a cheap shot - simple as that.

 

[leaguerefaus]

It is interesting though. What if the referee had been a 12 year old boy or an elderly man - should "special" consideration have been given based on vulnerability?

This!!

I think it should have been a huge ban anyway, but yes, the size of the referee should be an aggravating factor (but not a mitigating one) as a smaller or more fragile referee is at more risk of serious injury from such action.

I would also think a younger referee is more likely to walk away from the game forever as a result of an on-field assault compared with an older referee.

 

[Dickie E]

This!!

I think it should have been a huge ban anyway, but yes, the size of the referee should be an aggravating factor (but not a mitigating one) as a smaller or more fragile referee is at more risk of serious injury from such action.

should we then apply this to players - a dangerous tackle on a skinny, 5 ft SH more serious than the same tackle on Wendell Sailor?

Just asking - not advocating