To card, or not to card?

[ChrisR]

In a couple of recent threads there has been some debate as to whether a card should/should not be issued.

To some it seems that the card as an additional punishment for the evildoer. To others it's a game management tool.

Yellow cards seem to be more in dispute than reds. What are the criteria? I strongly agree with OB in that cards should be at the discretion of the referee on an event by event basis, not an automatic based on the crime.

I think yellow cards get overused and reserve it for the player who needs time off to chill and think about how he's playing the game. Reactionary type fouls such as the panicky fullback who throws the ball into touch or the player who knocks the opponent's pass down won't get a card from me.

 

[TheBFG]

the level at which you ref has to come into it.

I ref a kids game on a Sunday morning will be a different approach to the L6 game on that Saturday before.

This weekend, black attacking, blue give away a series of PK's, no real pattern, but when the ball goes into touch I have a word with the black capt about the number his side are giving. Next phase, blue 7 gets his hands on the ball in the ruck, I call "ruck, blue 7 hands away", he does, great, all good, however then blue 5 arrives and reaches for the ball, "advantage black", they don't use it, we come back for the PK and blue 5 gets a YC, simples!

5 mins later black attacking and after a couple of good ruck phases "go blind" blue 14 is stood (one player out) 1.5-2 metres of-side, "advantage black", again they don't use, Blue 14 gets a YC.

I don't see that just because I've given 1 YC the "penalty counter" goes back to 0, if they keep on offending they keep getting YC's :shrug:

However in a youth game/L9 or below game I would have another "chat" with the capt about their discipline before potentially going to another YC.

Foul play gets dealt with the same way what ever game is :wink:

 

[ChrisR]

"I don't see that just because I've given 1 YC the "penalty counter" goes back to 0, if they keep on offending they keep getting YC's"

And at that point every penalty gets a bonus YC. Repeated same offence or same player? OK. Different offences, different players? Not so sure.

 

[Browner]

. .......I don't see that just because I've given 1 YC the "penalty counter" goes back to 0, if they keep on offending they keep getting YC's :shrug:
:wink:

Sorry BFG, but I don't consider that further YC's are as automatic as you indicate.

Q? Is it a realistic expectation for a team to avoid ' any ' further offending of any law ??? .. I'd say that a YC for each subsequent 'new offence' isn't specifically demanded by law wording

Law gives the referee the ability to allow a team to commit a different offence of a different 'type' it only specifically sanctions repeating the same law (singular not plural) breach.

[LAWS]. 10.3 [/LAWS][LAWS]10.3 Repeated infringements(a)
Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any law.. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.
Sanctioned: Penalty kick

A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily suspended.

(b). Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team reportedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player. If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player.[/LAWS]
If you take the view (which you seem to) that ANY further LAW offence is caught within this scope then surely you have should then go to RED CARD for the "2.0m offside" you mentioned , and I don't think anyone does that routinely as its too harsh.

However, IF x4 'handling on the floor' penalties would mean a YC , then the 5th occasion of 'handling on the floor' should be Red Carded , as its repeating THAT same offence.

 

[TheBFG]

maybe I didn't explain my point very well (happens a lot!).

If the team keep giving cynical PK's then they keep getting YC's (that better?)

 

[Dixie]

the player who knocks the opponent's pass down won't get a card from me.

So red turnover deep in their 22, quick passes create an overlap leaving Red's flying winger with an 80 yard dash to the line. Blue winger, knowing he can't match his oppo for pace, puts in a "reaction" knock-down of the pass to deny a very likely try - but a lot can happen in 80m.

Do you give:

a) PT & YC?
b) PT only?
c) YC only?
d) PK only?
e) play on - it was just a reaction and he had no control over his body so can't be held responsible?

 

[crossref]

So red turnover deep in their 22, quick passes create an overlap leaving Red's flying winger with an 80 yard dash to the line. Blue winger, knowing he can't match his oppo for pace, puts in a "reaction" knock-down of the pass to deny a very likely try - but a lot can happen in 80m.

Do you give:

a) PT & YC?
b) PT only?
c) YC only?
d) PK only?
e) play on - it was just a reaction and he had no control over his body so can't be held responsible?

YC only, as 80m is too far for a PT..

 

[ChrisR]

So red turnover deep in their 22, quick passes create an overlap leaving Red's flying winger with an 80 yard dash to the line. Blue winger, knowing he can't match his oppo for pace, puts in a "reaction" knock-down of the pass to deny a very likely try - but a lot can happen in 80m.

Do you give:

a) PT & YC?
b) PT only?
c) YC only?
d) PK only?
e) play on - it was just a reaction and he had no control over his body so can't be held responsible?

Probably d) PK only. For sure not a PT.

 

[Dixie]

YC only, as 80m is too far for a PT..

Law reference? :shrug: :wink:

 

[Dixie]

Probably d) PK only. For sure not a PT.

I thought that was where you'd go. For me, the card as management tool gets pulled out here, so you can say: I can see why you'd opt for a professional foul in this situation, to save a very likely try. But if you want to engage in such cynical play, you needn't think that it's just a PK. If that was true, then such acts would be very much more common than is desirable, particularly out of kicking range. To manage such acts out of the game, you need to factor in that your team will play 14 v 15 for 10 minutes after such acts. Go have a think about that.

Of course, that's a long speech. Fortunately, it can be summarised very succinctly as: :noyc:

 

[Browner]

Its A) for me, sounds like it looked 'probable '

[LAWS]. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. [/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

I thought that was where you'd go. For me, the card as management tool gets pulled out here, so you can say: I can see why you'd opt for a professional foul in this situation, to save a very likely try. But if you want to engage in such cynical play, you needn't think that it's just a PK. If that was true, then such acts would be very much more common than is desirable, particularly out of kicking range. To manage such acts out of the game, you need to factor in that your team will play 14 v 15 for 10 minutes after such acts. Go have a think about that.

Of course, that's a long speech. Fortunately, it can be summarised very succinctly as: :noyc:

Dixie, I did say "probably" and that wasn't just weaseling out. As you described the event it's borderline and the temper of the match etc., etc. would play into it. The PT is still a no but the card is a "maybe".

When I started the thread I was seeking more general input. The problem with theoretical scenarios is they can get quite ....

View attachment 3014

 

[ChrisR]

Now, here is a real event where a YC was very much deserved.

Red has the ball but are bottled up and under pressure inside their own 5m in a very tight game. Red #8 goes to ground, doesn't release and gives away a PK.

White SH hovers waiting for the ball to take the tap. Red puts ball down gets to his feet and "accidentally" kicks the ball away as he retires to his goal.

No hesitation, YC and PK on the 5m. During Red #8s 10 min in the bin White scored twice.

I was the Red coach and #8 got an earful.

 

[thepercy]

In a couple of recent threads there has been some debate as to whether a card should/should not be issued.

To some it seems that the card as an additional punishment for the evildoer. To others it's a game management tool.

Yellow cards seem to be more in dispute than reds. What are the criteria? I strongly agree with OB in that cards should be at the discretion of the referee on an event by event basis, not an automatic based on the crime.

I think yellow cards get overused and reserve it for the player who needs time off to chill and think about how he's playing the game. Reactionary type fouls such as the panicky fullback who throws the ball into touch or the player who knocks the opponent's pass down won't get a card from me.

In a lower level women's collegiate gam on Saturday, I gave a yellow for a reactionary type play. At Gold penalty, Green 7 tackles gold Quick Tapper without retiring, 8m from try line. I gave a warning for a very similar penalty, 20m out, 5 min prior.

 

[OB..]

Law reference? :shrug: :wink:

Why does there need to be a specific law reference? A PT is down to the referee's judgement. I can see the argument that a lot can go wrong in an 80m sprint. I am reminded of our second row, who broke clear but was tripped on the 25 (as it was then). He looked up in amazement as the PT was awarded: "I'd never have made it that far!"

 

[beckett50]

A good question.

There are times when (like a red card) you KNOW when a YC is warranted; and there are others where it is an escalation tool from the ATP sanction steps.

 

[FlipFlop]

I've give a PT for a deliberate knock on in almost the exact same scenario - except the ball was 55m from the try line. No cover defence, winger had inside support as well. Deliberate knock on, and winger had skinned his opposite number a few times before, and was clearly the quickest man on the pitch. Not dropped the ball all day either!

Only 1 dissenting voice - the coach of the team it was against, who's only argument against (in the club house) was the distance. And he fully admitted it was "likely" to be a try. Assessor said he was surprised I gave it, as most would not have done, but he said it was spot on decision. Our discussion focused on if I should have YCed the winger for the deliberate Knock on.

 

[Browner]

Why does there need to be a specific law reference? A PT is down to the referee's judgement. I can see the argument that a lot can go wrong in an 80m sprint. I am reminded of our second row, who broke clear but was tripped on the 25 (as it was then). He looked up in amazement as the PT was awarded: "I'd never have made it that far!"

This

....... overlap leaving Red's flying winger .

.

Meets my interpretation of " probable" ( in the absence of covering defenders)

 

[Browner]

I've give a PT for a deliberate knock on in almost the exact same scenario - except the ball was 55m from the try line. No cover defence, winger had inside support as well. Deliberate knock on, and winger had skinned his opposite number a few times before, and was clearly the quickest man on the pitch. Not dropped the ball all day either!

Only 1 dissenting voice - the coach of the team it was against, who's only argument against (in the club house) was the distance. And he fully admitted it was "likely" to be a try. Assessor said he was surprised I gave it, as most would not have done, but he said it was spot on decision. Our discussion focused on if I should have YCed the winger for the deliberate Knock on.

​I would, post #11.

In assessing mathmatically, does...... Likely = probably ?

 

[RobLev]

YC only, as 80m is too far for a PT..

Why is 80m too far for a PT? Are you saying that it is not probable that the winger would get to the other end without dropping the ball - because there's nothing in the scenario as posed that suggests that anyone has an earthly of catching him?