SA Rugby Referees on SANZAR directive to penalize for second early engagement

[Rawling]

So I gather SANZAR has currently directed referees to award a penalty for any early engagement after the first.

To be honest, I hadn't considered whether this needed to be backed up in law. However, SA Rugby Referees has done so via one of their Law clips:

What right in law do referees have to do this?

Law 10.3 REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily suspended.
(b) Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s). If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

If this is the official justification, then does it mean that a third early engagement results in someone being given a yellow card, and any further early engagements a red?

If not, why not? Having invoked 10.3(b) to justify upgrading the second early engagement to a penalty, by Law the referee then doesn't have an option but to keep upgrading.

 

[SimonSmith]

One suspects the reasoning is that the first may be an accident.
Any more than one ceases to be an accident but deliberate.
The escalation may be for deliberate infringing rather than repeated. In which case more penalties may follow before the cards come out.

 

[Rawling]

Simon: thanks for that - it's an angle I hadn't considered.

The deliberate infringement law suffers a similar problem, though:

10.2 Unfair play
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.

At least in this case it allows the ref a get-out in the form of "the last penalty was for #1 deliberately infringing, this penalty is for #2 deliberately infringing so I don't have to card #1", but it's a bit of a cop-out.

 

[Davet]

That's why the laws area useful servant but a poor master.

The good ref uses the laws, rather than let them use him. We want a fair and safe game, not a legal tyranny.

 

[Rawling]

Davet, I agree - that was my first reaction when I heard about the SANZAR directive. (I didn't wonder about whether they were allowed to ask refs to do it.)

However, if SA Refs see fit to try to justify it with reference to Law, it raises the question as to why the whole Law isn't being used.

 

[Dixie]

We [don't want] a legal tyranny.

speak for yourself!

 

[Davet]

Ah - well! That depends on who's the tyrant and who're the tyrannised.

Are you offering yourself as a benevolent despot?

 

[Womble]

Have to say, after 2 early engagement FK's I warn and then go to PK thereafter, They tend to get the message after the first PK

 

[crossref]

Have to say, after 2 early engagement FK's I warn and then go to PK thereafter, They tend to get the message after the first PK

I once PK'd on the very first scrum of the game, which was about 20 seconds after the kick off whic didn't go 10m...

.... It was an insanely early engage
... followed by a full on eight man shove
... that drove the unsuspecting oppo back about 2-3m before it all broke apart.

It was clearly a plan

 

[Womble]

did they copy you in on a secret e-mail

 

[Phil E]

did they copy you in on a secret e-mail

Of course not. He doesn't get the secret emails :booty:

 

[Davet]

He even thinks that when we mention them it's actually a bit of an in joke... don't tell him they actually exist.

 

[dave_clark]

guys, be fair. he's now listed as a level 12 London ref, so may well get the secret e-mails.

 

[Robert Burns]

SANZAR do enforce one FK then PK.

At my level (Technically one level below, but worlds apart in reality) we are 2 FK's then PK.

Seems to work well, SANZAR scrums have been quite good this year.

 

[Phil E]

guys, be fair. he's now listed as a level 12 London ref, so may well get the secret e-mails.

OMG when did that happen? :wow:
Are there no standards left in the world :wink:

 

[Simon Thomas]

In England I am not aware of, nor any plans to implement, such a directive.

At Group L5 we work the same as Womble - 2 x FK (and they could well be the first two scrums), then after warning progress to PK and higher sanctions of YC if still not get compliance.

Post match I would be asking a L5 referee to reflect on why his two FKs did not regain control and compliance, and so avoid escalation to PK - but sometimes, we all know, they just do not listen !

 

[dave_clark]

OMG when did that happen? :wow:
Are there no standards left in the world :wink:

from what i hear, London let all sorts in these days :biggrin:

 

[Womble]

guys, be fair. he's now listed as a level 12 London ref, so may well get the secret e-mails.

How did he get to lvl 12? with no secret e-mails? Has Phil E been forwarding them!

 

[Simon Thomas]

this needs checking with Uncle Bob O and DB. And now I suppose it comes under Clare D as Middx and Herts joined the four Southern Fed counties.

 

[Rawling]

Craig Joubert's response:

Just as the second time a player is penalised for not rolling away from a tackle is not necessarily a yellow card, so the second time a team is penalised for an early engagement is not necessarily a yellow card either. A yellow card is not simply the next sanction which is escalated on every offence, but it is designed for repeated infringements where the referee feels that penalties are not having the desired change in behaviour. So it’s entirely possible that you could end up in a situation where a yellow card could be given for multiple early engagements (I was one more early engagement away from doing exactly this in a Six Nations game at Murrayfield earlier this year) but it’s a not an automatic upgrade after the first penalty kick.

(Again, bear in mind that the only reason I'm arguing the toss here is because SA Referees say the second-engagement penalty is backed up by Law 10.3 b)

Rolling away isn't a good comparison - it's a penalty offense already so you can award as many penalties as you want before either escalating to a penalty + YC (individual repeat infringement) or a penalty + team warning followed by yellow and reds (team repeat infringement). By comparison, early engagement is a free kick, so the first time you give a penalty, by Law, you should either be giving a YC or a team warning, and once you've given a team warning Law says you have to escalate for further offenses.

a yellow card ... (is) not an automatic upgrade after the first penalty kick

... if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s).