rewarding

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,729
Post Likes
2,245
Very common nowadays to hear referees talking about 'rewarding' a team -- by which they mean giving a PK against the other side.


I am beginning to wonder if this turn of phrase is leading us astray.

PK are the result of an infringement.

Whether or not red deserve a 'reward' isn't really relevant : the question is whether blue committed an offence.


whaddyathink?
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,894
Post Likes
989
It will be a semantic debate that ends up going nowhere, and I struggle to understand how it leads anyone astray.

Let's take a scrum. Blue get a strong nudge on and continue to exert legal pressure that white front row can't tolerate and Dylan Hart....sorry, White hooker stands up to relieve the pressure.

You can say that you are penalizing white; there's an equally valid argument that you are rewarding blue for exerting so much legal pressure that white had to concede the penalty.

What sort of problems do you think using "reward" is causing?
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,729
Post Likes
2,245
well this is one example that got me thiniking ...

Sure, traditionally you'll give the 9 a couple of warnings first so no gotchas, but yet, reward the defence (normally) for stopping the maul, here it would actually be the attacking team who get to keep the ball

Or this from JP
the most positive people get rewarded.

https://youtu.be/dFbsMbTVVu0?t=126

or this
If one team gets the scrum moving straight forward and it then spins I would penalise the other team. (so reward them with a penalty).


are we deciding which team deserves to be rewarded? or are we working out which team has actually offended?

the thing is: I don't think those two approaches would always lead to the same answer
 
Last edited:

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,379
Post Likes
286
Current Referee grade:
Level 9
Well, the first example is me - and that refers to a stationary maul, not a penalty offence so no infringement, you are literally rewarding the defensive team for their efforts in defence, brought a maul to a stop and / or wrapped up the ball carrier so they can't play. So a reward?

In actual PK scenarios, there are lots of occasions that are technically an offence and subject to a PK (Offside etc), but they are not always given. Also, there can often be two PK worthy offences at once, eg holding on by blue and not rolling by red, and you'll often hear the phrase that you can't 'reward' the red jackler doing positive things (blue holding on) because red tackler hasn't rolled any. So I don't think any real confusion there.

You get a reward for being positive, if your positive play results in the oppo materially infringing then yes, that's your reward. I like the term because it encourages positive play, which is a good thing no?
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,421
Post Likes
598
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
From me ithe use of "reward" impies the use of the scrum as a penalty winning machine rather than "positive" play . So, teams destabalize and then drive so it is often difficult to stay up etc.

If, in our minds, we look to punish the illegal. We might get to the truth. Often the Nudge and pressure that "blue" were able to exert comes from illagal binding / angles etc that refs miss all to often when they look to reward the dominant pack. The question sometimes needs to be "WHY are Blue dominant?"
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,601
Post Likes
278
I do not understand why referees permit scrums to continue if one of the props fails to bind correctly.
It is a penalty offence and the other side is not going to get a better outcome.
 
Top