[Law] 'Technical offences?'

[smudgie49]

Question: Is there a definitive list of 'technical offences' which if yellow carded and aggregated to a red card would not lead to a further sanction from the disciplinary panel ( a la Blair Cowan recently - his first yellow being a 'technical offence' of collapsing the maul)?

 

[didds]

a la Blair Cowan recently - his first yellow being a 'technical offence' of collapsing the maul)?

Is collapsing a maul a technical offense? I wold have considered it a dangerous play offence?

didds

 

[smudgie49]

That's what I thought too and it prompted me to try and find out what is or isn't a technical offence.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu.../61/CowanLondonIrishJudgmentSep17_English.pdf

 

[didds]

well there ya go - you learn something new every day!

didds

 

[Phil E]

I would have said that a technical offence was anything that wasn't foul play?

 

[Dickie E]

That's what I thought too and it prompted me to try and find out what is or isn't a technical offence.

I'm not sure why it matters, though. 2 Yellows in a game = a Red irrespective of reason for the yellow.

 

[Pegleg]

Is the confusion due to the introduction of the "free kick" sanction for what used to be PK offences that we considered technical and not worth a full penalty?

 

[crossref]

I would have said that a technical offence was anything that wasn't foul play?

I had the same thought, and I imagine that's what they meant.

However they goofed as collapsing a maul speciically is foul play

[LAWS]
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct

10.4(k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. The front row of a scrum must not rush against its opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Front row players must not intentionally lift opponents off their feet or force them upwards out of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

and

[LAWS]17.2(e)
A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[smudgie49]

Agreed - but if one of the yellows is deemed a technical offence then there is no further playing ban - hence why I was surprised to see Blair Cowan playing the following week and looked into it....

 

[Pegleg]

I had the same thought, and I imagine that's what they meant.

However they goofed as collapsing a maul speciically is foul play

[LAWS]
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct

10.4(k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. The front row of a scrum must not rush against its opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Front row players must not intentionally lift opponents off their feet or force them upwards out of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

and

[LAWS]17.2(e)
A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

I agree.

 

[beckett50]

I thought a Red Card meant that the player could not be fielded until the discipline hearing had taken place; which means at least a 1-week ban.

 

[Camquin]

The one week ban only applies to foul play.
From Regulation 13 Appendix A

Yellow Cards Received
2 technical yellow cards in a match or 1 technical and 1 Foul Play yellow card in a match
Sending off sufficient

2 Foul Play yellow cards in a match
1 week suspension from playing

Note you can appeal against a yellow or red given for foul play.
You cannot appeal against yellow for a a technical offence.


I can understand that a player who is penalised twice in a match, but is unfortunately the third player offside each time so sees two team yellows does not need further penalty. But

But,as collapsing a ruck is a law 10.4 offence, I cannot see how that is technical.

 

[thepercy]

I think what is meant is that the card he received was not for FP collapsing the maul, but because it was cynical/intentional offending that got him the card.

 

[Dickie E]

I would have said that a technical offence was anything that wasn't foul play?

well, even that is not without ambiguity. Throwing the ball into touch is 'foul play' (refer 10.2(c)) but hardly dangerous play.

 

[Paule23]

I thought a Red Card meant that the player could not be fielded until the discipline hearing had taken place; which means at least a 1-week ban.

I think it depends on the area and when the disciplinary meeting is held. Here in scotland if someone is RC on a Saturday and you get the paperwork in promptly, there is usually a disciplinary meeting in the week which could decide the RC was sufficient punishment and clear the player to play again.

The player however cannot play until their case has been heard by a disciplinary committee, hence the importance for referees of getting RC reports in promptly. If you delay then players case could miss the next ,eating and they could be effectively banned for longer than necessary.

On topic i'm confused about the definition of a 'technical' offence. All YC are for some form of foul play.

 

[Treadmore]

I had the same thought, and I imagine that's what they meant.

However they goofed as collapsing a maul speciically is foul play

Yes, and it seems the referee thought so too because he (Barnes) says "I can't be certain it's a try but you're going to the bin Blair you collapsed it". The implication being he considered a penalty try i.e. it was foul play but thought a try wasn't probable.

However, that judgement form linked above states:

The first yellow card was issued in the 54th minute of the match for a technical offence of collapsing a maul. The Referee report stated that the action prevented a probable try being scored.

So now the implication is it's not foul play but it did prevent a probable try? :wtf:

 

[crossref]

The plot thickens

 

[crossref]

I think it depends on the area and when the disciplinary meeting is held. Here in scotland if someone is RC on a Saturday and you get the paperwork in promptly, there is usually a disciplinary meeting in the week which could decide the RC was sufficient punishment and clear the player to play again.

The player however cannot play until their case has been heard by a disciplinary committee, hence the importance for referees of getting RC reports in promptly. If you delay then players case could miss the next ,eating and they could be effectively banned for longer than necessary.

On topic i'm confused about the definition of a 'technical' offence. All YC are for some form of foul play.

In London hearings are on Mondays, nine days after the game , so everyone with a RC misses one game waiting for the hearing

 

[irishref]

Since when is collapsing the maul not dangerous play?

 

[irishref]

The process hier in the Netherlands is a bit simpler.

The ref has to file his red card report within 48 hours of the offence and the competition organisor applies the standard ban for the offence. 2 yellows is standard 2 games.

Then, the player and club can appeal to a regulation committee if they feel the sanction was not correct.

We use the standard WorldRugby sanction list as reference.

But this is amateur rugby, I realise it's different in the UK where profs are involved.