[CLUB RUGBY] Tackle?

[Drift]

Pegleg

Just exploring this individual post in a bit more detail. How did you see this incident?

On it's own, it's a very brief and sweeping statement and you, along with Beckett50, marked "liked this post".

I think I know your answer.

Viewed without any further clarification, Drift, in this instance, beckett50 perhaps (I suspect not), but more probably other readers including the IRFU, might be viewing it that every PT needs a YC?

I an effort to improve the laws, as someone who thinks he is reasonably understanding of the game but is unfettered by some of the issues that have arisen over many a year, I am just suggesting where people might still see the law is short on clarity without taking into account the specifics of the clarification.

So why not just say it in the face of the laws perhaps, i.e. admonishment may be considered in instances of unintentional foul play in a penalty try scenario?

Not at all. However ones that are caused by foul play, IMO, do.

 

[ChuckieB]

Not at all. However ones that are caused by foul play, IMO, do.

Can I please raise the question, "Under what circumstances might you consider it reasonable to award a PT and then not issue a sanction of a YC?

I

 

[Phil E]

Can I please raise the question, "Under what circumstances might you consider it reasonable to award a PT and then not issue a sanction of a YC?

I

That was covered in Post No 27 by OB.

[LAWS]Clarification 9 2004

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling 9-2004
Union / HP Ref Manager
IRFU
Law Reference 10,22

Date 23 December 2004

Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

The first paragraph states:
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. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

The final paragraph states:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

The clarification sought is:
Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.
[/LAWS]

The second para in the current 10.2 (a) was added after this Clarification was issued. Note the bits in red.

 

[ChuckieB]

The second para in the current 10.2 (a) was added after this Clarification was issued. Note the bits in red.

No. I am generally happy with what is in the clarification.

I am raising the response to Drift's actual quote:

"Not at all. However ones that are caused by foul play, IMO, do."

On it's own is an instance where the reader again might think that all foul play incidents require a card sanction?

The full text of 10.2a as it now stands:

"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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."

Where even now, without going back to the clarification, do people take or understand.....

"If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending , theplayer, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or sendoff, can be admonished by the referee." ?

Again, all I am just trying to say that this could be added to the face of the laws it would make life so much easier.

If people are readily saying what Drift and others have been so simply putting, without the clarification, it suggests to me a different message.

This addition on the face of the laws would better highlight the "admonishment without YC" possibility for the unitntentional offence. i.e. something still seen as foul play and a PT perhaps but not a YC.

Best,

CB

 

[ChuckieB]

Separately,and this is where I think the law clarification is perhaps a bit perverse.......

"If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous."

.....I am finding it hard to envisage a situation of how you can have a late tackle, one that is anything other than the perfect tackle, if it happens to be an attempt on the ball carrier trying to ground the ball!

 

[Drift]

Can I please raise the question, "Under what circumstances might you consider it reasonable to award a PT and then not issue a sanction of a YC?

I

Usually scrum ones, but I've only awarded 1 PT in 10 years and it was for foul play.

 

[ChuckieB]

Usually scrum ones, but I've only awarded 1 PT in 10 years and it was for foul play.

"If you would consider awarding a PT for a scrum infringement then, in line with the attached (sorry to requote);

"Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

[If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous",]

the steer very much looks to be a YC in every case.

That's why I was looking at trying to identify specific instances that wouldn't contradict a not awarding a YC to accompany the PT.

Your scrum ones. Any thoughts?

I just included unintentional offending for completeness, and there is no example of unintentional Scrum offending, which supports the reasoning for my relatively open ended question.

 

[The Fat]

"If you would consider awarding a PT for a scrum infringement then, in line with the attached (sorry to requote);

"Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

[If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous",]

the steer very much looks to be a YC in every case.

That's why I was looking at trying to identify specific instances that wouldn't contradict a not awarding a YC to accompany the PT.

Your scrum ones. Any thoughts?

I just included unintentional offending for completeness, and there is no example of unintentional Scrum offending, which supports the reasoning for my relatively open ended question.

There have been plenty of PTs awarded for scrums collapsing/disintegrating near the goal line where the referee has not issued a YC. Not all scrums that disintegrate are due to a deliberate/willful action on the part of the scrum that is being dominated.
If a scrum simply turns to shit because the attacking scrum is so dominant, which player are you going to give the YC to? Are you just going to pick one out or simply card the whole pack?

 

[ChuckieB]

There have been plenty of PTs awarded for scrums collapsing/disintegrating near the goal line where the referee has not issued a YC. Not all scrums that disintegrate are due to a deliberate/willful action on the part of the scrum that is being dominated.
If a scrum simply turns to shit because the attacking scrum is so dominant, which player are you going to give the YC to? Are you just going to pick one out or simply card the whole pack?

at elite level there will have been a series of similar scrum
infringements beforehand, the warning will come, and yes I suggest the ref has to yc someone
if he awards a pt in such a circumstance. To award any penalty he must have an offender in mind. With pt it will be the offender he has to determine at that offence. Under the warning, It may be a first time offender not Necessarily a repeat offender.

 

[The Fat]

at elite level there will have been a series of similar scrum
infringements beforehand, the warning will come, and yes I suggest the ref has to yc someone
if he awards a pt in such a circumstance. To award any penalty he must have an offender in mind. With pt it will be the offender he has to determine at that offence. Under the warning, It may be a first time offender not Necessarily a repeat offender.

It is possible for the first 5m scrum to turn to shit and warrant a PT without any prior warning.

 

[ChuckieB]

It is possible for the first 5m scrum to turn to shit and warrant a PT without any prior warning.

Under what law protocols is that so then? I am happy to be bold enough to suggest that to do so would not be a reasonable application of the laws as they are written and then further clarified with the examples given.

I am seeking to just beg the question from the perspective of someone who will not have his judgement clouded by years of considering/ seeing it in a particular way.

trying to view it with a fresh set of eyes.

 

[The Fat]

Under what law protocols is that so then? I am happy to be bold enough to suggest that to do so would not be a reasonable application of the laws as they are written and then further clarified with the examples given.

I am not sure I follow the question. Are you asking under what Law protocols a PT is awarded after a scrum collapses/disintegrates and

(a) It is not deemed intentional?

or

(b) A YC is not automatically given?

 

[ChuckieB]

I am not sure I follow the question. Are you asking under what Law protocols a PT is awarded after a scrum collapses/disintegrates and

(a) It is not deemed intentional?

or

(b) A YC is not automatically given?

....in the law clarification the example of a collapsed scrum falls in the bracket of intentional offending.

so as it is then not stated as an example of unintentional offending, they are inferring it can't fall within two categories. So they have hung their flag their flag on a particular mast, i.e. One that then requires a card sanction.

You say you would do it but I just say the law suggests a clearer interpretation of the yc to go with it.

 

[The Fat]

....in the law clarification the example of a collapsed scrum falls in the bracket of intentional offending.

so as it is then not stated as an example of unintentional offending, they are inferring it can't fall within two categories. So they have hung their flag their flag on a particular mast, i.e. One that then requires a card sanction.

You say you would do it but I just say the law suggests a clearer interpretation of the yc to go with it.

But the clarification lists that an unintentional high tackle could be a PT and admonishment.
We know that an intentional high tackle that prevents a probable try will result in a PT and a YC.
So a high tackle can be in both categories i.e. intentional and unintentional, in the same way that a scrum collapsing could be intentional and could also be unintentional in the case of be rogered by a far more dominant scrum.
I don't believe the examples are exhaustive

 

[ChuckieB]

I am not sure I follow the question. Are you asking under what Law protocols a PT is awarded after a scrum collapses/disintegrates and

(a) It is not deemed intentional?

or

(b) A YC is not automatically given?

But the clarification lists that an unintentional high tackle could be a PT and admonishment.
We know that an intentional high tackle that prevents a probable try will result in a PT and a YC.
So a high tackle can be in both categories i.e. intentional and unintentional, in the same way that a scrum collapsing could be intentional and could also be unintentional in the case of be rogered by a far more dominant scrum.
I don't believe the examples are exhaustive

.... unintentional by virtue of being something clarified as something else and supported with specific circumstances, e.g. Mistimed.

So you say a dominant scrum. I accept that is your example. I just really think the laws point to something different for even that one. So if that one was their intent it could have easily and should have been added in.

 

[The Fat]

.... unintentional by virtue of being something clarified as something else and supported with specific circumstances, e.g. Mistimed.

So you say a dominant scrum. I accept that is your example. I just really think the laws point to something different for even that one. So if that one was their intent it could have easily and should have been added in.

You have the unrealistic expectation that World Rugby provides concise, clear clarifications in every instance.

If you had a scrum collapse (that triggered a PT) and couldn't pinpoint one person for a YC, would you just YC the entire front row and stick 3 in the bin?

 

[ChuckieB]

Fortunately one PT in 10 years, it doesn't become such an issue of concern for any individual but we all have an opinion on what we see applied elsewhere.

I talk in the context of what I believe I see and demonstrated at elite level but the principles should equally cascade down to humbler levels. We shouldn't be interpreting things differently.

What I am then saying is that if I were an elite referee, I am going to make sure I know who I am going to YC as I run under the posts!.

There will have definitely been a build up of offences, a warning and then the next offender, and I feel I am obliged to have an offender in my mind in that instance, otherwise it can't be a penalty even, is the one who then, unfortunately for him, takes the card for the team.

A dominant scrum, a collapse and no offender doesn't warrant a PT, non YC, for me I'm afraid.

If people start showing me TV examples then I will understandably budge, and happily so!

 

[The Fat]

A dominant scrum, a collapse and no offender doesn't warrant a PT, non YC, for me I'm afraid.

If people start showing me TV examples then I will understandably budge, and happily so!

We can start with this one.

 

[The Fat]

Here's another one that goes down without multiple resets/infringements leading up to the PT.
Again, the whole green scrum goes down on the first scrum set and a PT with no YC

 

[ChuckieB]

I am almost humbled.......but not quite throwing in the towel yet!

I've found my culprits.

• Canadian Hooker immediate loses his bind causing instability and results in front rows going up! He's in the bin.
• Highlanders Blind side turning in under pressure. He's going!

There is always someone you can blame.

....but yes, these are the examples I craved!

I don't agree with them, poor interpretation by the ref.

But we then get into the interpretation whether the PT is sanction enough under such circumstances and again something much debated but yet poorly clarified in the laws.