scrum half trip

[Browner]

And it is worth trying again next game because he might well not get noticed.
It was deliberate cheating. Not pushing the boundaries, but knowingly stepping out side them.

Lots of this kinda stuff goes unnoticed, week to week.

I'm arguing that admonishments are seemingly ignored in favour of YC's too often, IMO its becoming a lost refereeing 'art'.

When does "pushing the boundary" cross into "cheating" ?!? ..... On 2nd thought, save this discussion for another day.

 

[OB..]

Lots of this kinda stuff goes unnoticed, week to week.

I'm arguing that admonishments are seemingly ignored in favour of YC's too often, IMO its becoming a lost refereeing 'art'.

When does "pushing the boundary" cross into "cheating" ?!? ..... On 2nd thought, save this discussion for another day.

A deliberate trip is deliberate cheating. No ifs, buts or maybes. Just what legal boundary do you think he could be pushing?

I am not arguing the general case about adminishments vs YCs but just this specific case.

 

[Dixie]

Deliberate trip.......YC all day long.
Previous YC bears no relevance, treat each situation in isolation.

Worrying how often and how completely I agree with Phil E since I met him up at Leicester. I think he put something in the post-match shandy ...

 

[Phil E]

Worrying how often and how completely I agree with Phil E since I met him up at Leicester. I think he put something in the post-match shandy ...

Tiger Beer......it's brings everyone round to our way of thinking :wink:

 

[Browner]

A deliberate trip is deliberate cheating. No ifs, buts or maybes. Just what legal boundary do you think he could be pushing?

I am not arguing the general case about adminishments vs YCs but just this specific case.

I'm not classifying a sly 'foot hook' on a opposition 9 who hasn't yet commenced running of any speed, as being equally as dangerous as it would be to a player tripped whilst running....... ( the latter gets at least a YC) and if I'm picturing the sneaky arse 9s action (as described by Crossref) correctly, then PK & admonishment is sufficient for me.

 

[crossref]

this one was absolutely NOT dangerous. (except perhaps in the sense that it might have provoked a smack on the nose!)
but clearly unacceptable nonetheless.

 

[Browner]

this one was absolutely NOT dangerous. (except perhaps in the sense that it might have provoked a smack on the nose!)
but clearly unacceptable nonetheless.

That's what I'd gathered Crossref, 'provocation potential' isn't being debated here, cos if it were then there are a host of niggly 9 'traits ' that have the same potential to ignite, but you wouldn't YC for most of them either, unless they persist after being warned of course.

Did you warn the 9?

Answering your second Q? In your OP. IF you deem it worthy of a YC, then it cannot be anything other than a RC , ie.....if its his 2nd Qualifying offence, if you're oozing sympathy then it was never worthy in the first place!

 

[crossref]

what I actually did is above, post #12

 

[Browner]

what I actually did is above, post #12

So, no discussion with the player?

 

[crossref]

So, no discussion with the player?

Oh, I see. No, I discussed it with the player and quickly told the capt what the PK was for (he was a second row and had hs head in the scrum and had no clue what had happened)

 

[OB..]

Browner - are you arguing that a YC is only for dangerous play? Do you agree that the trip was definitely cynical?

 

[Browner]

Browner - are you arguing that a YC is only for dangerous play? Do you agree that the trip was definitely cynical?

OB,
No but not all foul plays are YC either.
Yes ( albeit at the bottom end of its range)

The SH was being a prat, and his sly leg hook ( which was so insignificant that it neither drew notice or response or materially affected the game) needs to be discouraged for sure, but in the context described, i (same as crossref) wouldnt YC.

"Capt, anything similar repeated by your 9 & he will be watching from the side, make sure he knows"

If this is your low benchmark from which all offences will be measured then presumably you give equal YC sanction to any shirt pull, shove or deliberate crooked feed ?!? All deliberate and therefore cynical to some degree.

 

[Blackberry]

Sometime last season in the early round of a cup competition I encountered a similar event, this time the SH trod on the foot of his opponent who was trying to break away with the ball. I whistled, then said "David, David...really?" He had the grace to look embarrassed and his captain at flanker biffed him gently on the back of the head, and we reset and went on. As a management option it is sound but would not be appropriate for every situation.

 

[Browner]

Sometime last season in the early round of a cup competition I encountered a similar event, this time the SH trod on the foot of his opponent who was trying to break away with the ball.

I whistled, then said "David, David...really?" He had the grace to look embarrassed and his captain at flanker biffed him gently on the back of the head, and we reset and went on. As a management option it is sound but would not be appropriate for every situation.

TBH blackberry, if the trod was deliberate then its a PK and a bollocking from me, not a reset !

Notwithstanding this, OB seems to be arguing YC 'always' for 'all' deliberates ( cynicals)

 

[Dixie]

Notwithstanding this, OB seems to be arguing YC 'always' for 'all' deliberates ( cynicals)

Can we agree that a cynical foul is a deliberate one, where the offender weighs up the sanction for fouling vs the consequence of not fouling, and decides it is better to make the foul?

If so, can we agree that this is synonymous with "cheating"?

If you don't give a YC for cheating, what on earth is it there for?