restart to whom?

[Browner]

[LAWS](l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent. Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Browner, while I agree that retaliation is an offence, I don't see it as a given that it is an over-riding offence. Nor that the first retaliation trumps all others.

Dickie,
You shouldnt get mass brawling without someone initiating 'dangerous' retaliation, its the catalyst action after any of the hundreds of possible game infringements that might occur. The Law ( if applied robustly) is denying players any permission to meter out their own retribution. I see it as a fundamental aid to the game being controlled by a referee rather than the players own justice barometer whatever that setting is.

In fact, when considering the views of some others it begs the question why Law needs 10.4(l) at all, as (by definition) any 'dangerous' intervention is covered by other law , but it was created for a reason !

 

[Rushforth]

You shouldnt get mass brawling without someone initiating 'dangerous' retaliation

I disagree, "handbags" can escalate after a perceived infringement just as easily.

It is unrealistic to expect grass-roots referees (i.e. no AR support) to even know who "first retaliated", and there is no reason to believe that 10.4 (l) refers only to "first retaliators" as opposed to "worst retaliators".

I won't go into details, but as a TJ (not AR - it was an important match involving my own side) I told a former international referee what had actually happened, and once he knew, he went with my recommendations, which agree with your principles. Had I not been there, or only spectating, he would have winged it and made the "wrong" decision.

What I am trying to get at is that you are technically correct, but that in practice utterly unrealistic in your expectations.

Players should not be concerned with the whole issue of "first or worst", they should neither retaliate, nor brawl, nor (dangerously) foul another player in the first place.

 

[OB..]

What I am trying to get at is that you are technically correct, [...]

Whereas I think he is technically wrong - but we are not going to settle the matter on here. Unless anything new appears, I'm off to watch the grass grow.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Dickie,
You shouldn't get mass brawling without someone initiating 'dangerous' retaliation, its the catalyst action after any of the hundreds of possible game infringements that might occur.

And you shouldn't get retaliation without someone initiating 'dangerous' foul play.

I would like a straight answer to the following question;

Red 13 commits serious RC offence; a late, high, dangerous swinging arm tackle on Blue 12, breaking his his jaw and knocking Blue 12 unconscious. Blue 8 retaliates dangerously, grabbing Red 13 dangerously around the neck and throwing him to the ground, a YC offence. A brawl ensures.

Question: Would you restart with a PK at the mark to Blue?

Limit your answer to YES or NO

- no recounting everything else you might do
- no superfluous bullshit
- no long and contorted explanations

 

[leaguerefaus]

And you shouldn't get retaliation without someone initiating 'dangerous' foul play.

I would like a straight answer to the following question;

Red 13 commits serious RC offence; a late, high, dangerous swinging arm tackle on Blue 12, breaking his his jaw and knocking Blue 12 unconscious. Blue 8 retaliates dangerously, grabbing Red 13 dangerously around the neck and throwing him to the ground, a YC offence. A brawl ensures.

Question: Would you restart with a PK at the mark to Blue?

Limit your answer to YES or NO

- no recounting everything else you might do
- no superfluous bullshit
- no long and contorted explanations

Yes.
Can't leave it to just a yes / no because the minimum reply length is 5 characters

 

[Dickie E]

jawohl

 

[OB..]

Yes.
Can't leave it to just a yes / no because the minimum reply length is 5 characters

Yes..

 

[leaguerefaus]

Yes..

White font. Too clever for me, OB.

 

[irishref]

I think the reversal of the original penalty is pretty clear in everyone's minds (players, coaching staff, spectators) when it's an isolated reversal. For example a single piece of retaliation.

When there is an escalation of possible scenarios to reverse the penalty I think it would be better to restart with a scrum, put-in given to team in possession before the merde hit the fan.

Get the cards sorted out for the punches/brawl/kicking but I think in this scenario the game restart is the least of the ref's worries.

 

[OB..]

White font. Too clever for me, OB.

Well spotted!

 

[Browner]

presumably a PK against the relative :sarc:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11473547

 

[Browner]

presumably a PK against the relative :sarc:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11473547

 

[Browner]

Dickie,
See this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JXOIhPVhSGo
I've amended the wording written below by Ian Cook to fit the scenario in this video clip, albeit im replying to you.

. " Black 5 elbows Red 5" - PK against black

"Red5 retaliates & punches black 5 " - Reversed, now PK against Red and :norc: puncher

"black 8 comes in and king hits Red player from the blindside with a cheap shot " - Reversed again, now PK against Black8 and :norc: the king hitter

Restart with PK against Black


Question: Is your restart PK for the original offence, or the last act of foul play? No matter what you think or say, it looks the same from the outside.

IMO, when there is retaliation for foul play, its wrong to think that the original foul play doesn't matter and should not be sanctioned.
If possible, sanction all three offences, not just the two acts of retaliation..... PK + Card + Card and restart with the original PK is an effective and equitable way to do this, otherwise the original infringer has gotten away with it.

So, in the 1987 clip .....
IC says stick with the PK against B5 & :rc:for R5, B8 & B4
OB says judge on severity ( so choose the best punch from either B5, or B4? ) & give the PK against them.

& I say restart with PK against the Retaliator ( who was R5 ) as he retaliated to the initial elbow to the head from B5.

Had R5 not, then the brawl wouldn't have started. :shrug:

What do you think?
:chin:

 

[L'irlandais]

...What do you think?
:chin:

Rugby is a game where retaliation is penalised :
[laws]10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/laws]

for that reason some players prefer to get their "retaliation" in first ; that way their opponent stands to get penalised. Honestly, who'd want to ref a sport like that?

 

[Browner]

Rugby is a game where retaliation is penalised :
[laws]10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/laws]

for that reason some players prefer to get their "illegal foul play" in first ; that way their opponent stands to get penalised. Honestly, who'd want to ref a sport like that?

FTFY

Anyone who does so, risks being caught & severely sanctioned, its that risk that is supposed to curtail the initial temptation.
We all referee a sport like that, if not, why did they write the law?

the 1987 match was before TMO & multi camera angles, but ( assuming this happened in 2015) am I really the only referee who would award the subsequent PK against Red ????