Thoughts?

[didds]

If the law ever came to pass then the first thing that would happen is sides would;t have a nominated captain. As somebody already pointed out there is no law requirement to have one.

Unless of course the laws were changed to insist on one. with presumably penalties against teams that don't have one. I'm struggling to think of a sanction now that would work.

didds

 

[thepercy]

but this incident couldn't have taken place in the FoP , could it?
the place it happened is important

let's move the incident a bit - ball is in touch and red grabs it and hurries forward along the touchline looking to take a QTI from the LoT - and a small blue player stands in his way .. and is clattered to the ground.

Your scenario the ball is dead, or zombie if you like, but in the OP the ball is live.

 

[thepercy]

Responsibility for what? For every rash offence committed by one of his team?

What offence has the captain himself committed? None. The concept of punishing someone for another person's offence is contrary to all the principles of Natural Justice (aka Fair Play). I agree it is frustrating but you still cannot give the captain a card just because you are frustrated. That would in fact be the worst option.

BTW there would never be any chance of getting such a provision into the laws - at the professional level the lawyers would have a field day with it.

Card are there not just to punish the culprit but also their team, otherwise the team wouldn't have to play down a man.

 

[OB..]

Card are there not just to punish the culprit but also their team, otherwise the team wouldn't have to play down a man.

In the days before cards, when sending off was the ultimate sanction, there was collateral damage to the team, but that was not the main idea, which was to remove a dangerous player.

I think that was still the thinking behind cards - damage to the teams was collateral, the main point being underlining the seriousness of the situation to the offender.

(None of this justifies binning a player who has not committed an offence.)

 

[VM75]

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly

* TigerCraig's RED player 'Lomo's' an opponent.
* The referee decides it's 'dangerous' play - and it's his sole judging of fact that counts, not the RED coach or RED players.
* A Red player refuses to accept the decision - and verbalises that the referees decision is 'b......ks'
* Red Captain refuses to help the referee identify the 'dissenter' - I'm fairly sure a captain could obtain the information if he really wanted to!

Incidentally, I also don't think the referee should've YC the captain, but maybe the players should have complied with

[LAWS]Law 9. 27 [/LAWS][LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions.[/FONT][/LAWS]


Taking this a scenario several steps further
Scenario,
Referee is gives a decision against RED, from behind he receives a firm slap around the side of the head & hears you Forking BarSteward! , after he's recovered from the initial shock he turns to see only two RED players stood 1m away, all other players are 15m away, he enquires "who hit me" & both REDS deny it was them, the captain is summoned & they both deny the same to their captain

Now what? Play on?, merely because of the silence of the guilty conspirers ?


Ps. Didn't we hear that referee numbers in NZ community rugby had dropped badly?!?

 

[Zebra1922]

Taking this a scenario several steps further
Scenario,
Referee is gives a decision against RED, from behind he receives a firm slap around the side of the head & hears you Forking BarSteward! , after he's recovered from the initial shock he turns to see only two RED players stood 1m away, all other players are 15m away, he enquires "who hit me" & both REDS deny it was them, the captain is summoned & they both deny the same to their captain

Now what? Play on?, merely because of the silence of the guilty conspirers ?


Ps. Didn't we hear that referee numbers in NZ community rugby had dropped badly?!?

It's this sort of thing which makes me like the YC captain option (although as noted I'm clearly on the losing side rugbyref opinion here). You cannot allow this to go unpunished, but you do not have a definitive perpetrator. Who gets the YC? Have a guess? The captain? Or ignore it and let it go unpunished?

 

[Balones]

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly

* TigerCraig's RED player 'Lomo's' an opponent.
* The referee decides it's 'dangerous' play - and it's his sole judging of fact that counts, not the RED coach or RED players.
* A Red player refuses to accept the decision - and verbalises that the referees decision is 'b......ks'
* Red Captain refuses to help the referee identify the 'dissenter' - I'm fairly sure a captain could obtain the information if he really wanted to!

Incidentally, I also don't think the referee should've YC the captain, but maybe the players should have complied with

[LAWS]Law 9. 27 [/LAWS][LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions.[/FONT][/LAWS]


Taking this a scenario several steps further
Scenario,
Referee is gives a decision against RED, from behind he receives a firm slap around the side of the head & hears you Forking BarSteward! , after he's recovered from the initial shock he turns to see only two RED players stood 1m away, all other players are 15m away, he enquires "who hit me" & both REDS deny it was them, the captain is summoned & they both deny the same to their captain

Now what? Play on?, merely because of the silence of the guilty conspirers ?


Ps. Didn't we hear that referee numbers in NZ community rugby had dropped badly?!?

Very straightforward scenario. No sdmittance of guilt. Game over. Club reported to Union.

 

[didds]

Now what? Play on?, merely because of the silence of the guilty conspirers ?

Yes. Because that is all the law book provides for.

I suspect ref's reports and union disciplinary committees etc may have other powers...

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's this sort of thing which makes me like the YC captain option (although as noted I'm clearly on the losing side rugbyref opinion here). You cannot allow this to go unpunished, but you do not have a definitive perpetrator. Who gets the YC? Have a guess? The captain? Or ignore it and let it go unpunished?

I think you are getting this all wrong.

You could "punish" the offence. Take the PK another 10 mtrs. You can't sanction the player who did not commit the offence with a personal card. You can tell the captain and the club committee that you will be putting in a code of conduct report against the club as the offender cannot be individually identified. In that report you can state who the probable offenders were. The DC of your union can deal howebver, they see fit. Giving a specific punishement to the not guilty player will result in the a successful appeal. All you achived is a "confirmation in the eyes of RED that you are indeed a pillock!

OR the more likely "punishment"...

Very straightforward scenario. No sdmittance of guilt. Game over. Club reported to Union.

This will probably be the right course of action. Indeed in 99.9999% of cases here is your solution. Perhaps preeceded with: "Captain, I have been assaulted by one of your players bring him to me or the game will be abandoned!" might do the trick.

 

[didds]

This will probably be the right course of action. Indeed in 99.9999% of cases here is your solution. Perhaps preeceded with: "Captain, I have been assaulted by one of your players bring him to me or the game will be abandoned!" might do the trick.

I have a lot of sympathy with this approach. Of course

* it still won't necessarily mean the captain despite his best efforts can still ID the culprit (I'm sure the opposition will be able to though!)
* the captain's eventual ability to be able to help may depend on the scoreline/state of game at the time of potential abandonment.

didds

 

[TigerCraig]

I have a lot of sympathy with this approach. Of course

* it still won't necessarily mean the captain despite his best efforts can still ID the culprit (I'm sure the opposition will be able to though!)
* the captain's eventual ability to be able to help may depend on the scoreline/state of game at the time of potential abandonment.

didds

Just point at a winger. They won't be missed

 

[didds]

meanwhile over in the round ball game.,..

(still requiring identification of course)

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/foo...lained/ar-AAyb8Ym?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

* it still won't necessarily mean the captain despite his best efforts can still ID the culprit (I'm sure the opposition will be able to though!)

Indeed but it may focus the mind a little. I guess the opposition might recognise the best player on the guilty team as the offender.

* the captain's eventual ability to be able to help may depend on the scoreline/state of game at the time of potential abandonment

Of course that information will be included in your report.

 

[crossref]

- captain who said that
- I don't know
- tell me who it was , so that I can YC him, else I will YC you
- in that case it was him (indicates the useless, fat 65 try old who was 40m away)

Now what are you going to do ?
You know it wasn't him.
You know it wasn't the captain

Which of the two innocent players gets the card

 

[thepercy]

In the days before cards, when sending off was the ultimate sanction, there was collateral damage to the team, but that was not the main idea, which was to remove a dangerous player.

I think that was still the thinking behind cards - damage to the teams was collateral, the main point being underlining the seriousness of the situation to the offender.

(None of this justifies binning a player who has not committed an offence.)

You could easily remove the dangerous player without the collateral damage, by allowing the carded team to replace the player, but we don't, because it is a punishment for the team as well.

 

[OB..]

You could easily remove the dangerous player without the collateral damage, by allowing the carded team to replace the player, but we don't, because it is a punishment for the team as well.

We can wonder about the actual rationale - I have no specific knowledge of it.

However if a Red Card allowed a player to be replaced, it would not have the same deterrent effect. There would be circumstances where a player might well be prepared to risk a Red Card for the benefit of his team eg a knock-out competition.

 

[didds]

in 1992 in taranaki at Senior thirds level we had a regulation that a RC did not punish the team. I only saw it used once in the season (19 games) we played [ one of our guys] and that wasn;t "tactical" as per OB's allusion. Basicially people respected the laws I guess.

However, it immediately struck me when I heard of his regulation that indeed as per OB's post it was open to all sorts of abuse potentially. Perhaps being pre-yellow cards and the focuses on dangerous play that we have now the "opportunity" to get RCd was lower. Maybe.
Basically RCs were for punching, kicking etc.

didds

didds

 

[ChrisR]

I'm ambivalent about whether a RC player can be replaced. The RC is a direct punishment to the miscreant and it removes a potentially dangerous player from the game.

I don't like the idea of it also being a team punishment but the threat of playing short is a bit of a stick that the captain can wield to control a player who's getting chippy.

However, I bet most RCs are spontaneous and not forethought so how much of a deterrent could it be?

 

[OB..]

However, I bet most RCs are spontaneous and not forethought so how much of a deterrent could it be?

My experience suggests that some players are more likely to be "spontaneous" than others, and they are the ones who need to learn control. I have certainly known of players being dropped because they could not be trusted.

 

[TigerCraig]

We can wonder about the actual rationale - I have no specific knowledge of it.

However if a Red Card allowed a player to be replaced, it would not have the same deterrent effect. There would be circumstances where a player might well be prepared to risk a Red Card for the benefit of his team eg a knock-out competition.

Interestingly probably the most brutal ball sport, American Football, allows an ejected player to be replaced

Aussie Rules didn't have a send off law at all until pretty recently (and still doesn't at the elite level - you can literally do whatever you like and cant be removed, although the umpires could abandon the game)