restart to whom?

[Dickie E]

Blue tackles Red ball carrier high

Red team mate comes in and punches Blue player

More punches thrown and mass goes to ground

Blue player comes in and kicks Red player on ground

etc, etc

Forget about the cards - who gets the restart penalty?

1. first offence
2. first act of retaliation
3. kick out trumps punch
4. something else

What would be your reasoning?

 

[FlipFlop]

I almost always go with "worst" offence (so PK always against Red Card if only 1 side gets a red card). But also look at position, and sometimes the person who "started" the mass fight (as opposed to a single incident).

I don't really want to see 3 points coming from an "arbitary" decision.

Players generally want to see the most serious incident punished the most.

In your scenario:
1 - definitely not.
2 - possibly - this trumps #1 above anyway. But how "bad" was it? Did it cause the brawl, was it immediate, or did the player come running in? All other things aside - is it PK, YC or RC punch?
3 - kick to where, by who, against who? Is it worse than the punch? Did it start the mass brawl?
4 - depends....

If the Kick and punch are both RCs, then I would probably PK the Kick, especially if to head, and a running kick or stamp (as opposed to a "toe poke")

 

[winchesterref]

Penalty red restart.

My reasoning would be 2 obvious acts of retaliation, cancel out these and get left with the first offence. Make it easy for myself!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Agree with jonesy

PK to red

Cards for the two retaliating players, colour determined by severity of the offences, you be the judge.

 

[Taff]

Given that you could justify giving it to either side, I would look at the position on the FoP, and give the PK to the side that is unlikely to get 3 points.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Given that you could justify giving it to either side, I would look at the position on the FoP, and give the PK to the side that is unlikely to get 3 points.

And if it happens on halfway maybe you could just flip a coin to work out who gets it?

 

[OB..]

Too much depends on the actual details. Sort out who gets red cards, and then decide which was the worst offence. Only if it is not clear would it make sense to give the PK to the team that could not score from it (and many teams have kickers who can score from halfway!).

 

[Taff]

And if it happens on halfway maybe you could just flip a coin to work out who gets it?

So, given that you could give it to either side, what do you suggest?

 

[ChrisR]

I think that there is a natural progression:

Foul play by Red: PK to Blue

Blue retaliates: Reverse PK, now PK to Red

Melee: Return to original PK.

Apply cards as needed. Let the discipline panel handle the degree.

 

[tim White]

If you penalise/card a player then you cannot just ignore that when deciding on the restart. If the late joining player kicking another on the ground warrants a PK and possible card (I would suggest both) then deal with it as 'misconduct when the ball was dead' i.e. restart at the place of the original PK , PK to red thanks to the blue thug -wherever this happens to be on the pitch, it is not your problem and not for you to attribute some gain over and above what the laws provide for.

 

[Phil E]

I am going to go against the trend on this.
We don't have full details on the severity of the punch or the kick, so I am working on the basis they were as bad as each other.

Blue high tackle - PK to red.
Red Punches Blue - reverse the PK for retaliation and a RC.

Everything that happens after that is as a result of this punch.

Yes, RC the kicker, and anyone else who comes in for a cheap shot, but don't reverse it again. Otherwise where do you stop?


Red punches blue - reverse PK
Blue kicks red - reverse again
Someone else throws a punch - reverse again
Another kick - reverse again
etc
etc

Red started the fight so they lose the PK. Everything else is dealt with by cards.

Am I alone in this? It's how I have always been taught to approach it. Never had a problem with assessors or coaches over it.

 

[Browner]

Blue tackles Red ball carrier high

Red teammate comes in and punches Blue player

More punches thrown and mass goes to ground

Blue player comes in and kicks Red player on ground

etc, etc

Forget about the cards - who gets the restart penalty?

1. first offence
2. first act of retaliation
3. kick out trumps punch
4. something else

What would be your reasoning?

BLUE get the restart penalty.

Reasoning:
*The High tackle will/should be dealt with by the referee, retaliation Law exists to deter anyone from starting brawling - its at their risk if they do because once they start its usually bedlam!

*Red teammate had no business taking the law into his own hands ( any 'excused' [blind eye] retaliation empathy isn't given to Red TEAMMATE.)

Law expects Brawling to be prevented by robustly enforced policy of 'not joining in' when foul play has occurred.

 

[Rushforth]

I am going to go against the trend on this.
We don't have full details on the severity of the punch or the kick, so I am working on the basis they were as bad as each other.

Am I alone in this? It's how I have always been taught to approach it. Never had a problem with assessors or coaches over it.

How often is kicking a prone player "as bad" as punching a standing one?

I fully agree that if subsequent brawl offences are "as bad" as the one that started it, only the first reversal should apply.

However, if a brawl starts with handbags and ends with someone kicked in the face whilst on the ground, then options must remain open to the referee.

I once refereed a national youth semi-final in which a player was tip-tackled, and in the time I took to scan for incoming potential brawlers managed to get up at knock his tackler out. I didn't have the luxury of TJs let alone ARs, but both sets of coaches confirmed that it was the tackler who was knocked out and the BC who decked him. After the stoppage we only had two minutes available to go, and both sets of coaches insisted the game not end on a low. Both were happy with attacking scrum as a restart.

All that said, for adults there should be a penalty one way or another, even more so after a brawl than usually.

 

[OB..]

It all depends far too much on the actual details of the offences. Give out the cards and then award the PK against the worst foul.

 

[ChrisR]

It all depends far too much on the actual details of the offences. Give out the cards and then award the PK against the worst foul.

Too subjective. After the second retaliation and melee the restart is almost immaterial. Get the miscreants off the pitch and the worst offenders with immediate red.

At that point I'd be OK with a scrum restart but I think a PK for the original offence is better.

 

[Phil E]

Both were happy with attacking scrum as a restart.

At that point I'd be OK with a scrum restart

So you have just had players from either side attacking each other.
Tempers are high.
Players will be feeling resentment and want revenge.

........and your decision is to put the 16 biggest *******s on the pitch straight into close physical contact with each other :chin:
#recipefordisaster

 

[Rushforth]

So you have just had players from either side attacking each other.
Tempers are high.
Players will be feeling resentment and want revenge.

........and your decision is to put the 16 biggest *******s on the pitch straight into close physical contact with each other :chin:
#recipefordisaster

I specifically said this was for a U17 national semifinal in which there was NOT a brawl. There had also been 5 minutes stoppage. The coaches made it clear to me that the boys wanted to finish the game (it was close enough that a score by the losing side might have put them ahead).

 

[OB..]

Too subjective. After the second retaliation and melee the restart is almost immaterial. Get the miscreants off the pitch and the worst offenders with immediate red.

At that point I'd be OK with a scrum restart but I think a PK for the original offence is better.

A lot of refereeing decisions are subjective - they have to be. What matters is using consistent criteria, but that is not easy.

I flatly reject any general idea of giving the PK against the original offence. It must be a matter of judgement, not rote.

 

[The Fat]

I specifically said this was for a U17 national semifinal in which there was NOT a brawl. There had also been 5 minutes stoppage. The coaches made it clear to me that the boys wanted to finish the game (it was close enough that a score by the losing side might have put them ahead).

I have a problem with a couple of things relating to this post and your previous post.
1. It was a national U17s semi-final and they could not even organise TJs let alone ARs for what would seem to be a pretty important fixture.
2. I don't like the ref deciding to opt for a scrum because he knows that a different decision may cause a team to score points from the event.

 

[Dickie E]

I think Rushforth was planning to blow full time after the incident (my interpretation, happy to be corrected). The coaches didn't want to end on a sour note.