Time wasting

[crossref]

I wonder how many times Foley thinks he is entitled to be warned about his delaying of the game before the referee takes action?

but would a better action have been to simply stop the clock and put it back on only when the PK was taken ?

 

[BikingBud]

but would a better action have been to simply stop the clock and put it back on only when the PK was taken ?

He did stop the clock and having already prompted/advised Aus 10 to play he told him, we start the clock and you play. Foley didn't! So better for who?

• Was it better for NZ that the referee applied the laws as written?
• Would it have been better for Aus if he had ignored the continual time wasting and allowed Aus to run down the game? (I wonder how we would discuss that on here).
• Would it have been better for the fans, yellow, black or neutral? Would we all be discussing how yellow had effectively time wasted into a win? Plenty of discussion around SA tactics to break down and slow the game.
• Would it have been better for the game? Perhaps the area for objection might be empathy for the game but the Laws are written as they are. If they are deemed unclear, ineffective or detrimental to the game there are processes to look at the laws, request clarification, suggest and introduce trial laws and ultimately change the laws as written. But they are what they are.

In line with effective game management principles, for players who persistently ignore your prompts or advice, the referee escalated to the sanction.

By comparison, how many times would you warn for not rolling away or persistent offside before penalising?

Perhaps we are back to the age old problem about fashionable laws. Those that always get pinged and those that might be applied less rigorously eg deliberate KO and Penalty Try v Offside - In front of kicker at restarts. Does the frequency of application make them any less valid? The referee should know all the laws so the principles of the game can be upheld. The forward to the laws:

It is the duty of the referee to apply fairly all the laws in every match, including law trials and variations as authorised by World Rugby.

The Principles of the Laws: (My bold)

Application​

There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the laws and to respect the principles of fair play. The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management. In return, it is the responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.

- to observe the laws and to respect the principles of fair play. - Foley didn't, he continually flouted the law.
- through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management - Foley's persistent transgression led to the referee to progress to managing the transgression. Timings provided earlier in this thread would support the perspective that Aus were given opportunity to modify their behaviour, but didn't
- captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials - Foley continued to ignore the prompts of the referee even after acknowledging the prompt to kick without delay, demonstrating a lack of respect for the match officials direction. At this stage any empathy you may have may started the game with may have long since gone as clearly you are fighting a losing battle with players that do not respond to any of your empathetic calls. We have all heard and probably used the phrases, "please work with me on this" or "we agreed you would control this before kick off" or "we can do this all afternoon if you want to".

We are still in the position where the referee applied the laws and some think that shouldn't have happened! Might lead to a great discussion topic "Are empathy and officiousness interchangeable during a game?"

 

[crossref]

@BikingBud
- I didn't suggest the the ref should take 'no action' I suggested the the best action to take is to stop the clock, and don't put it back on until the PK is taken
- indeed MR did stop the clock (good) I can't see what the point was in turning it back on again [this was in fact his key mistake, he put himself in a corner]
- if the clock is stopped no time is being wasted.
- so no one will be bothered about how long Foley takes to kick it
- so everyone will be happy
- and no one will debating the referee's match-changing decision a week later.

All in all, I would suggest that would have been better course of action.

 

[Dickie E]

That's only a function of 'decision taken to penalise' and 'time taken to put whistle to lips'.

Like the ref whose whistle for a knock-on is heard after the players' appeals.

That's a very different situation. A knock on is a binary and objective event (it either is or isn't) whereas assessing undue delay is quite subjective.

I've been in similar situations to the French ref. The hooker who is taking to long to take the lineout throw despite prompting. But one thing I wouldn't do is blow the whistle just as he's taking the throw cos that way I'd look like a jobs worthy dick

 

[Stu10]

@BikingBud
- I didn't suggest the the ref should take 'no action' I suggested the the best action to take is to stop the clock, and don't put it back on until the PK is taken
- indeed MR did stop the clock (good) I can't see what the point was in turning it back on again [this was in fact his key mistake, he put himself in a corner]
- if the clock is stopped no time is being wasted.
- so no one will be bothered about how long Foley takes to kick it
- so everyone will be happy
- and no one will debating the referee's match-changing decision a week later.

All in all, I would suggest that would have been better course of action.

I somewhat agree with you, however, I don't think it is always as simple as "if the clock is stopped no time is being wasted"... although 39 seconds passed on the game clock, over a minute had passed in real time, and the Gold pack was still in a huddle debating something when MR blew up (honestly, I think Foley was waiting for the pack, and they deserve some blame here)... the opposition and spectators should not have to tolerate a team taking 2 minutes to discuss/plan the next phase of play even if the game clock is stopped.

 

[crossref]

I somewhat agree with you, however, I don't think it is always as simple as "if the clock is stopped no time is being wasted"... although 39 seconds passed on the game clock, over a minute had passed in real time, and the Gold pack was still in a huddle debating something when MR blew up (honestly, I think Foley was waiting for the pack, and they deserve some blame here)... the opposition and spectators should not have to tolerate a team taking 2 minutes to discuss/plan the next phase of play even if the game clock is stopped.

yes, I do agree that the game needs to be hurried up - and so constantly stopping the clock would not be a sustainable 'solution' through the whole game, else we'd be here all day .

but with 90s to go, and the game in balance, I think that would he been sensible.

Indeed MR *did* stop the clock. But then (unwisely in my view) put it back on again

 

[Ian_Cook]

I somewhat agree with you, however, I don't think it is always as simple as "if the clock is stopped no time is being wasted"... although 39 seconds passed on the game clock, over a minute had passed in real time, and the Gold pack was still in a huddle debating something when MR blew up (honestly, I think Foley was waiting for the pack, and they deserve some blame here)... the opposition and spectators should not have to tolerate a team taking 2 minutes to discuss/plan the next phase of play even if the game clock is stopped.

Not to mention that even with the clock stopped, teams use the time off to rest and aid in recovery, to slow the game down to the pace they want to play at. While they are by no means the only ones, the South Africans are particularly adept at doing this, and they do it cynically - their players are exhausted after a period of tackling and defending their line, so a prop goes down to stop a scrum being taken to allow them to rest and recover.

 

[BikingBud]

That's a very different situation. A knock on is a binary and objective event (it either is or isn't) whereas assessing undue delay is quite subjective.

I've been in similar situations to the French ref. The hooker who is taking to long to take the lineout throw despite prompting. But one thing I wouldn't do is blow the whistle just as he's taking the throw cos that way I'd look like a jobs worthy dick

A knock on should be objective but the decision to blow for a knock on is very subjective, the decision relies heavily on any potential advantage for the non-offfending team, it may be an immediate decision but reactions and muscle movement take time as noted by @chbg or the perception of advantage my appear to delay the decision, possibly until a second KO offence occurs, or completely negate the decision, ball recovered by non-offenders and effective counter attack.

I would equate the situation under discussion to ball being caught in a maul, it always comes out just after you call trapped and blow for scrum. The SH of the team in possession will always bleat as it was just there ref!! Yes it well might be now but when I called and then warned, you did nothing to persuade me that you were in control and wanted to play. Scrum to the opposition!

Also how long would you allow the hooker to throw?

Line is formed, hooker is holding the ball poised to throw in and the dancing begins, do you count to 5 or 10 or 50. All the while the hooker is holding the ball seems an excessive mexican stand-off.

Allow the delay for one line out, warn at a break in play, "blue hooker, I want the ball thrown in quicker".

Next line out the delay occurs again, you speak with the captain.

Another line out, 15 secs and counting, you prompt for the put in, twice. It doesn't come, peep, just as the ball was being thrown.

Why do you look like a jobsworthy dick?

Surely the responsibility is with blue to throw in without delay. Despite warning they don't and you are merely applying the laws effectively, in line with the Principles of the Laws, so that red, possibly the fitter side and able to play at a higher tempo for longer, get a fair chance and benefit from their superior preparation and conditioning.

 

[Ian_Cook]

To those Aussie commentators (Horan, Kearns, Martin et al) claiming they have never, ever in their careers previously seen a turnover of possession awarded by a referee for delaying the game, I'm just going to go right ahead and call BS on that! They may not have seen this precise scenario involving a PK being kicked for touch, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that they have at least seen a scrum-half get FK for delaying the put in to a scrum, or the hooker get FK delaying the throw in to a lineout.

yes, I do agree that the game needs to be hurried up - and so constantly stopping the clock would not be a sustainable 'solution' through the whole game, else we'd be here all day .

but with 90s to go, and the game in balance, I think that would he been sensible.

Indeed MR *did* stop the clock. But then (unwisely in my view) put it back on again

Strange. I always thought the laws of the game applied equally at any time in the game... from the opening whistle to no-side.

 

[crossref]

To those Aussie commentators (Horan, Kearns, Martin et al) claiming they have never, ever in their careers previously seen a turnover of possession awarded by a referee for delaying the game, I'm just going to go right ahead and call BS on that! They may not have seen this precise scenario involving a PK being kicked for touch, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that they have at least seen a scrum-half get FK for delaying the put in to a scrum, or the hooker get FK delaying the throw in to a lineout

Strange. I always thought the laws of the game applied equally at any time in the game... from the opening whistle to no-side.

.. I can't recall, specifically, an example of 20.5 ever being used before . Can you ?

Would be impressed if you can find one

On the other hand, managing time wasting by simply stopping the clock happens all the time

Indeed MR first stopped the clock, before going on to putting it back on and setting up the confrontation

 

[Dickie E]

I would equate the situation under discussion to ball being caught in a maul, it always comes out just after you call trapped and blow for scrum.

I disagree. It equates more with the scrum half having the ball in hand then the ref blowing for unplayable. Foley was in the action of complying with the instruction but the Frenchman decided he would teach him a lesson anyway.

 

[crossref]

I disagree. It equates more with the scrum half having the ball in hand then the ref blowing for unplayable. Foley was in the action of complying with the instruction but the Frenchman decided he would teach him a lesson anyway.

the mistake happened before that. The mistake was : I will put the time on, and then we play immediately. With that he painted himself into a corner.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Could the referee havre chosen a different answer to the Aussie pillock? Yes
Was the ref correct in law? Yes
Will players think before acting in the way the Aussie did? Yes
Is that a good thing? Yes.
All good then.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Foley was in the action of complying with the instruction but the Frenchman decided he would teach him a lesson anyway.

Clearly not quickly enough. At the end of the day Foley was in the wrong. Yes the refere COULD have acted differently. SHOULD he have acted differently? Thst is open to debate. BUT the CAUSE of the problem was Foley. Even other Aussie players were trying to shift him. If Foley had not been a pillock there would have benn no debate! Direct your Green and gold glare in HIS direction.

 

[crossref]

Could the referee havre chosen a different answer to the Aussie pillock? Yes
Was the ref correct in law? Yes
Will players think before acting in the way the Aussie did? Yes
Is that a good thing? Yes.
All good then

but was he correct in Law?

- first off he stopped the clock. IMO that was the right thing to do, but technically it's not right

5.5 The referee may stop play and allow time for:

1. Player injury for up to one minute. If a player is seriously injured, the referee has the discretion to allow more than one minute for that player to be removed from the playing area.
2. Consultation with other officials.

it was neither of those
Technically, you don't stop the watch to tell a player to hurry up ..

Then he put the clock back on, so Foley was now obliged to the take the PK without delay

A penalty or free-kick must be taken without delay.

How long is 'without delay' - well the same phrase is allowed for
- forming a lineout
- taking a restart kick
- throwing into the lineout

So it's quite a long time - and that time must start from when the clock was put on : was Foley given enough?

 

[Ian_Cook]

but was he correct in Law?

Yes, he was...

Law 6
THE WHISTLE
8. The referee carries a whistle and blows it:
b. To stop play. The referee has the power to stop play at any time.

 

[Stu10]

.. I can't recall, specifically, an example of 20.5 ever being used before . Can you ?

Would be impressed if you can find one

On the other hand, managing time wasting by simply stopping the clock happens all the time

Indeed MR first stopped the clock, before going on to putting it back on and setting up the confrontation

Maybe I'm playing Devil's advocate here (I'm not sure), and this maybe aligns with the last couple of posts above if stopping the clock was allowed...

Did MR actually go above and beyond to help Foley? Foley had been warned twice earlier in the game. After Aus awarded this free kick, MR told Foley three times to play, which Foley ignored... MR than stopped the clock to explain to Foley that he was taking too long and needed to play immediately after time on.

Having told Foley three times to play, instead of stopping the clock and taking the time to explain, it might be argued that MR could have reasonably blown for time wasting at that point.

 

[crossref]

Yes, he was...

Law 6
THE WHISTLE
8. The referee carries a whistle and blows it:
b. To stop play. The referee has the power to stop play at any time.

well, then I think we agree that that it was right to stop the clock.
The question then is, having stopped it, was it a good decision to re-start it?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

You can't educate pork...

 

[chbg]

It has had an impact on our game: in yesterday's U16 schools match (1) one early call for "time-wasting, Sir" - an internal giggle from me at the same time that I reminded him of my PMB about appealing. (2) One call from me "don't delay" was immediately re-iterated with 4 or 5 team-mates saying "get on with it".

Every cloud has a silver lining!