restart to whom?

[OB..]

No OB, That's dealing with the afterbrawl, I'm talking about setting a standard of brawl prevention , if all players know that "retaliation = reversal consequence" then they should be mindful about commencing.

I simply don't believe that to be true. Retaliation is so often a knee-jerk reaction. Not all retaliation leads to a multi-player brawl.

It's in Law for a good reason, conversely 'severity exceptions' aren't, for similar good reasons.

The Law does not mandate the PK - it simply provides it as an option. How about retaliation to retaliation to ....?

The fact that relative severity is not mentioned is a red herring from which you can draw no inferences. Until recently, Law 8 did not allow a referee to judge severity if there were two infringements. However everybody did, and now so does the law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

...the original infringer hasnt gotten away with it - his offence is merely superceeded by a retaliators 'dangerous' offence.

No, no, and no. You cannot, indeed you MUST NOT, apply that philosophy in a blanket fashion absent of your judgement as to the circumstances of what happened.

Blue tackles Red ball carrier with a vicious, high swinging arm that breaks the ball carrier's jaw and renders him unconscious.

Red player runs in and shoves Blue player to the ground and then reels off a stream of expletives directed at the prone Blue player - clear breaches of 10.4(f), 10.4(l) and 10.4(m)

So, you are saying that your response would be to PK the Red player for the retaliation. because this offence supersedes what the Blue player did, and then restart with a PK to Blue?

I hope that is not what you advocate!!!

what else did the Law writers expected when they specified.....
[LAWS]. 10.4 [FONT=fs_blakeregular](l) [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Retaliation. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]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 *
[/FONT]Sanction: Penalty kick[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT] [/LAWS]
*my bold

....what else did the Law writers expect when they specified.....
[LAWS].10.4 (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT] [/LAWS]
It's nonsensical to think it was deliberately written this way in error.

and

....what else did the Law writers expect when they specified.....
[LAWS].10.4 (c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT] [/LAWS]
It's nonsensical to think it was deliberately written this way in error.

Your emboldening and oversized text can be applied to any Law in the book!

 

[OB..]

[...] otherwise the original infringer has gotten away with it.

If there are multiple offences, you can only award one PK, so somebody will think they have got away with it. The spectators might draw the wrong conclusion, but what matters on the pitch is what the referee says to the captains and what they say to their teams. Don't let there be any misunderstandings here.

 

[OB..]

PK White
We'll take a scrum please, Sir
Bugger

:biggrin::biggrin:

Level 6 match. After a lineout, two players behind the referee start fighting. He hears, turns, and whistles to stop play. More whistle to prevent anyone else joining in. The two players finally stop fighting. He calls the players and captains over. Short, sharp, clear warning about future behaviour, but decides he can not award a PK since he did not see who started it (neither did his AR, and nor did I), so will restart with a scrum to the team in possession. Further strong warning against any consequential foul play in the scrum.

It worked. (My criticism was that the fighting warranted YCs for both, which would have reinforced his words.)

 

[Ian_Cook]

:biggrin::biggrin:

Level 6 match. After a lineout, two players behind the referee start fighting. He hears, turns, and whistles to stop play. More whistle to prevent anyone else joining in. The two players finally stop fighting. He calls the players and captains over. Short, sharp, clear warning about future behaviour, but decides he can not award a PK since he did not see who started it (neither did his AR, and nor did I), so will restart with a scrum to the team in possession. Further strong warning against any consequential foul play in the scrum.

It worked. (My criticism was that the fighting warranted YCs for both, which would have reinforced his words.)

As I have recounted here before, I saw this in an NPC match some years ago. The referee was about to order a scrum when the opposing scrum halves started fighting (punches being thrown both ways). It was pre TMO days and none of the TO3 could say for sure who threw the first one.

The referee showed the YC to both players, and resumed play with the scrum he had ordered. The 1st 5/8ths became scrum-halves for 10 minutes!!

 

[Browner]

[LAWS]. 10.4 [FONT=fs_blakeregular](l) [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Retaliation. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]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 *[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT] [/LAWS]

Irrespective of infringement, if a player "dangerously" retaliates - then he should be penalised. [NB, such wording clearly implies that 'non dangerous' retaliation isn't to be sanctioned - aka shoving to ground/name calling or shirt grabbing etc.]

This really isn't difficult.

Sanction this robustly & initial retaliators may think twice, from this position 'the third man in [aka Mr Brawl creator] is now ....redundant.

We can all find extremes which require multi Carding [zzzzz] , but these carding sanctions are a separate management prevention tool. A reversed PK is the consequence of retaliation that is designed to ameliorate the risk of 'dangerous' retaliations happening.

 

[Rushforth]

Irrespective of infringement, if a player "dangerously" retaliates - then he should be penalised. [NB, such wording clearly implies that 'non dangerous' retaliation isn't to be sanctioned - aka shoving to ground/name calling or shirt grabbing etc.]

You are perfectly welcome to disagree with your own former opinions, Browner - I do it myself too - but you are now agreeing with everybody else in this thread that it can be difficult to get priorities right.

 

[OB..]

Irrespective of infringement, if a player "dangerously" retaliates - then he should be penalised. [NB, such wording clearly implies that 'non dangerous' retaliation isn't to be sanctioned - aka shoving to ground/name calling or shirt grabbing etc.]

This really isn't difficult.

Sanction this robustly & initial retaliators may think twice, from this position 'the third man in [aka Mr Brawl creator] is now ....redundant.

Your procedure means that you will assess if the retaliation is dangerous. If it is, you will ignore (for the purposes of awarding a PK) anything else that occurs during a subsequent brawl. Your theory is apparently that the retaliation causes the brawl. I think that places process above judgement, and is therefore unwise.

 

[Dickie E]

I'll ask Robbie to change our motto from "BETTER OFFICIALS, BETTER GAMES" to "10 DIFFERENT REFS, 100 DIFFERENT OPINIONS"

 

[Ian_Cook]

You are perfectly welcome to disagree with your own former opinions, Browner - I do it myself too - but you are now agreeing with everybody else in this thread that it can be difficult to get priorities right.

I agree.

Use your judgement. Don't lock yourself into a process; there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to every problem like this you will encounter.

 

[ChrisR]

Use your judgement. Don't lock yourself into a process; there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to every problem like this you will encounter.

Sound advice. However, having a process to work with (see SimonSmith's earlier post) is important when multiple events happen in short order and generate much confusion.

The post melee sequence I'd recommend is to deal with the events in reverse chronological order, as follows:

With both captains present pull out the melee punchers/kickers one at a time in order of severity and issue appropriate cards or warnings.

Pull out the first retaliater and deal with him.

Deal with the initial cause (it may not have been foul play).

Inform the captains of the restart and send them to their teams for a warning chat.

After 30 seconds signal the restart.

 

[Browner]

Your procedure means that you will assess if the retaliation is dangerous. If it is, you will ignore (for the purposes of awarding a PK) anything else that occurs during a subsequent brawl. Your theory is apparently that the retaliation causes the brawl.

I think that places process above judgement, and is therefore unwise.

Yes OB, youve got it, the PK award is established at such a point, and that outcome was the intention behind the creation of L10.4(l)

Thereafter, more serious fighting/kicking offences get dealt with sanctioning severity as they each deserve.

I disagree that assessing each of the next 5-10 fighters to establish whether their punching 'ability' trumps each others matters, For the referee to be required to mentally oscillate the PK award as each new ' better punch' is delivered, or assess whether elbow in the face no3 outranks the punch no6, or kick no 2 amongst 7-8 delivered within the subsequent brawl, ie categorising severity, thereby attracting the PK award, is just bemusing thinking.

I 100% dismiss the notion of the suggestor who said he'd YC(RC?) Both subsequent fighters but keep the PK against the original offender as some sort of 'sharing out' of sanction to avoid the original offender getting away with it - that clearly ludicrous thinking that dismisses the conscept of "retaliation law" per se.

 

[Browner]

You are perfectly welcome to disagree with your own former opinions, - but you are now agreeing with everybody else in this thread that it can be difficult to get priorities right.

No, My position has remained consistent, if its too complicated for you to grasp Rushforth, well thats not my fault.

"Everybody else" in this thread dont agree, on that we are in agreement ! Are you mixing up your threads again?!?

 

[OB..]

Yes OB, youve got it, the PK award is established at such a point, and that outcome was the intention behind the creation of L10.4(l)

I disagree and find that overly simplistic. IF you get a sequence of offences you also get a sequence of retaliation. You are arbitrarily limiting the effect of 10.4 (l) to the first. I see no value in doing that.

I disagree that assessing each of the next 5-10 fighters to establish whether their punching 'ability' trumps each others matters, For the referee to be required to mentally oscillate the PK award as each new ' better punch' is delivered, or assess whether elbow in the face no3 outranks the punch no6, or kick no 2 amongst 7-8 delivered within the subsequent brawl, ie categorising severity, thereby attracting the PK award, is just bemusing thinking.

You are trying to make it sound difficult. It isn't. Whatever the referee decides will seem somewhat arbitrary to many. However it may be clear to all that a player who comes running in late from some distance to kick an opponent in the head is by far the worst offender. Yes, he will get a RC, but giving the PK in favour of his team when the original retaliation was no more than a YC offence will puzzle just about everybody.

Obviously we are not going to agree on this. I just hope I never have to assess you in such circumstances :hap:

 

[Browner]

You are trying to make it sound difficult. It isn't. Whatever the referee decides will seem somewhat arbitrary to many. However it may be clear to all that a player who comes running in late from some distance to kick an opponent in the head is by far the worst offender. Yes, he will get a RC, but giving the PK in favour of his team when the original retaliation was no more than a YC offence will puzzle just about everybody.

Obviously we are not going to agree on this. I just hope I never have to assess you in such circumstances :hap:

Conversely, Red commits marginally high tackle, blue springs up & knocks him down with a single blow , x6 reds now commence to batter blue and between them knock him out ( a collective severity ???) Blue11 runs up & kicks a Red, Red kicks him back twice, Blue then returns three better kicks , Red teammate grabs blue kicker & squeezes his testicals, a blue teammate gouges the red testisqueezers eyes, red coach hits blue gouger with chair.

PK to who on your severity scale ..... ????

If spectators don't agree with that single PK award then thats tough, ( they can bag it amongst all the others they disagree with ) its lawfully sound, & we all soon move on.

Without the initial 'retaliation' none of the escalation transpires, and it makes complete sense to me that retaliation Law was written with this methodology in mind.

Disciplinary committee can decide on the severity benchmarking when the Red Carded subsequents appear before them.
P's.. last Retaliator led escalated brawl was 3 seasons ago, im so very lucky !:shrug:

Pps, if you assess me, you can record it as a error of ( expectation) ???? .....what exactly?, it can't be law.
However if Law ever becomes amended to say that retaliation is ok provided another worse retatiation superseedes it ( aka brawl charter) then you'll be justified in then marking it a law error. Until then. :bday:

Ppps ​i agree.

 

[OB..]

Without the initial 'retaliation' none of the escalation transpires, and it makes complete sense to me that retaliation Law was written with this methodology in mind.

If the initial offence was worth a RC and the retaliation was worth no more than a PK? You would apparently penalise the retaliation.

P's.. last Retaliator led escalated brawl was 3 seasons ago, im so very lucky !

The last brawl I saw (some years ago) was started by a spectator.

Pps, if you assess me, you can record it as a error of ( expectation) ???? .....what exactly?, it can't be law.

I would initially ask you to talk me through your view of events and how you came to your decision. If you insisted on awarding the PK against the first act of retaliation, regardless of other considerations, I would note it as a mistaken interpretation of the law. Your Society could then take what action they thought appropriate.

The bottom line is that I think your interpretation of 10.4 (l) is unnecessarily and inappropriately restrictive, but we are obviously not going to agree.

 

[Blackberry]

I’ve got one, I’ve got one.
Ready? Three red players (lets call them Larry, Luke and Les) chase a high kick towards black’s 22 where three players (lets call them Mike, Morris and Mark) are waiting to receive it. As the ball travels, an unexplained force starts to move it towards the touchline. The players, all concentrating on the high ball, fail to notice that the ball then strikes an alien spaceship after crossing the plane of touch but the ref is unsure whether it crossed the putative extended 22 metre line or not but in any event is distracted by his attempt to remember World Rugby’s clarification on First Contact. The six player collide and start a brief flurry of handbags which rapidly escalates into full blown bitch slapping and name calling.
An alien steps out of the spaceship, and in doing so inadvertently touches the ball, thereby making it dead and precluding the possibility of a QTI. The alien is wearing black, so this further incenses most of the red crowd (the third one was texting) and the players too. Mistakenly the ref, understandably under pressure, deems the alien to be wearing leggings (an easy mistake) and warns him to change.
The alien, wearing a mask which the ref feels is almost certainly not IRB approved, ignores him and instead walks over to the melee and raises his hand. The players immediately start clutching their throats and the referee quite rightly blows for a high tackle. Quite a few high tackles to be accurate. He notices that one of the players is unaffected, and hears the alien speak to that player “Luke, I am your father, come, give yourself to the Dark Side.” Luke, who probably would not have been a contender for the Red vs Blue Uptake Stakes responds, “Huh? Wha….?”
The alien sighs, cuffs Luke round the ear and pointedly says “Give –your-self-to-the-dark-side” Luke’s mouth moves as he silently repeats the words, then a slow realisation dawns over him “Ahh, yeah, Rugby League at Hull HR?” The alien visibly stiffens and cuffs him again, “That bunch of losers, sheez, I have standards you know. You’re going to play for Huddersfield. They’ve got class”
The alien takes Luke by the ear and marches him, protesting plaintively, to his ship whereupon they rapidly depart.
So the restart question is, and I think you’ve all seen it coming, is does Luke’s departure count under the man off rule?

 

[Ian_Cook]

If the initial offence was worth a RC and the retaliation was worth no more than a PK? You would apparently penalise the retaliation.

That is the scenario I outlined in post#42, and if that would be his ruling then not only does it run completely against the norm, it would be just plain wrong.

 

[Dickie E]

[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.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I’ve got one, I’ve got one.
Ready? Three red players (lets call them Larry, Luke and Les) chase a high kick towards black’s 22 where three players (lets call them Mike, Morris and Mark) are waiting to receive it. As the ball travels, an unexplained force starts to move it towards the touchline. The players, all concentrating on the high ball, fail to notice that the ball then strikes an alien spaceship after crossing the plane of touch but the ref is unsure whether it crossed the putative extended 22 metre line or not but in any event is distracted by his attempt to remember World Rugby’s clarification on First Contact. The six player collide and start a brief flurry of handbags which rapidly escalates into full blown bitch slapping and name calling.
An alien steps out of the spaceship, and in doing so inadvertently touches the ball, thereby making it dead and precluding the possibility of a QTI. The alien is wearing black, so this further incenses most of the red crowd (the third one was texting) and the players too. Mistakenly the ref, understandably under pressure, deems the alien to be wearing leggings (an easy mistake) and warns him to change.
The alien, wearing a mask which the ref feels is almost certainly not IRB approved, ignores him and instead walks over to the melee and raises his hand. The players immediately start clutching their throats and the referee quite rightly blows for a high tackle. Quite a few high tackles to be accurate. He notices that one of the players is unaffected, and hears the alien speak to that player “Luke, I am your father, come, give yourself to the Dark Side.” Luke, who probably would not have been a contender for the Red vs Blue Uptake Stakes responds, “Huh? Wha….?”
The alien sighs, cuffs Luke round the ear and pointedly says “Give –your-self-to-the-dark-side” Luke’s mouth moves as he silently repeats the words, then a slow realisation dawns over him “Ahh, yeah, Rugby League at Hull HR?” The alien visibly stiffens and cuffs him again, “That bunch of losers, sheez, I have standards you know. You’re going to play for Huddersfield. They’ve got class”
The alien takes Luke by the ear and marches him, protesting plaintively, to his ship whereupon they rapidly depart.
So the restart question is, and I think you’ve all seen it coming, is does Luke’s departure count under the man off rule?

...and so the referee consults the TMO..

"..try or no-try, there is no 'do' "