Unconscious offending?

[Dixie]

I was watching a L.6 game over the weekend. Close match, two points between the teams, 30 minutes into the 2nd half. The ref was having a hard time keeping the breakdown clean, and had clearly decided to rein in all leeway and insist on quality. He had spoken to the captains - presumably to this effect.

At one ruck, just inside the White 22, White 6 is trying to hold up Blue 13 in a choke tackle, but other players arrive and the whole goes quickly to ground. Ref calls ruck, White 6 doesn't roll away and the ball is buried. Ref gives a PK whistle, and signals PK to Blue in front of the posts - a kick which will enable Blue to take the lead.

As everyone gets up from the ruck, it becomes clear that White 6 is away with the fairies - totally out of it. Ref calls time off, the player receives attention for at least 2 minutes, and is finally helped off the pitch with a replacement coming on. Ref blows time on, and changes his restart from the PK he initially awarded to a scrum, attacking ball.

Thoughts?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I pinged a player on Saturday for Not Rolling Away as he lay foetal like at the back of tackle area/ruck. After the PK blast players concerned in tuckle got up leaving Mr Foetus still in situ. He uncurled and got up after about 10 seconds or so.

Checked he was ok then carried on with PK! :biggrin:

When/after I had my nose smashed across my face in 1991 I ended up giving away a PK for holding on. As I was stood up on Bambi legs the opponent waiting to take the PK (former England full-back) helpfully said "is he going stand around bleeding all day or what?"

"F** **f you skinny ****" I managed to slobber with a mouth/nose full of snot/blood as I tottered away in Paul Ackford stylee.

 

[Daftmedic]

I may of considered changing my decision due to subsequent evidence

 

[viper492]

I think I would probably have done the same as the Ref in the OP. Treat it as a stoppage for an injured player being in the way of play rather than a penalty.

It doesn't make sense to me to penalise a player who clearly is seriously injured. The only time (not that it's relevant) anyone would complain seriously is if it was 30 seconds to go in a final and Blue were trailing by 2 points. My decision would still be scrum.

 

[Shelflife]

I wouldnt change the decision, didnt roll away ,denied the opposition opportunity to play the ball, Had something similar myself a season or two ago, player killed the ball I blew for pen and found out he was all over the place.

Whats to stop a player pretending to be KOd and killing the ball if he knows that you will not award the pen. Sure he might take no further part in the game but if its injury time and they are ahead by two points...............

 

[Taff]

Surely there's a massive difference between not rolling away, and .... not being able to roll away.

Sounds a good decision to me, if I'm honest. If the man doesn't know if it's New Year or New York, what do the moaners realistically expect him to do?

 

[Shelflife]

Surely there's a massive difference between not rolling away ... and not being able to roll away.

Sounds a good decision to me, if I'm honest.

But did he get injured after he killed the ball or before he killed the ball ??

 

[Browner]

At one ruck, just inside the White 22, White 6 is trying to hold up Blue 13 in a choke tackle, but other players arrive and the whole goes quickly to ground. Ref calls ruck

Assuming you mean maul, that then goes to ground???
A pet hate of mine is refs recategorising as a ruck when the ball is nowhere near the ground at a collapsed maul ...

 

[Phil E]

Surely there's a massive difference between not rolling away, and .... not being able to roll away.

If the player doesn't get himself in that position in the first place, then it doesn't matter!!
He should be rolling onto his own side of the ball.

 

[Andrew1974]

Assuming you mean maul, that then goes to ground???
A pet hate of mine is refs recategorising as a ruck when the ball is nowhere near the ground at a collapsed maul ...

But if it is a maul that goes to ground then why does he have to roll away....ball not recycled scrum to white, not a penalty/scrum to blue.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]6.A.4 THE DUTIES OF THE REFEREE IN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply
fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.[/LAWS]

If he can change his mind after awarding a try if there is subsequent evidence that it was not a try, why on earth should he not be able to do so for a penalty.

IMO, changing the decision from PK to scrum comes under applying the Laws fairly!

 

[Browner]

But if it is a maul that goes to ground then why does he have to roll away....ball not recycled scrum to white, not a penalty/scrum to blue.

My interpretation is ..... If the maul collapses to ground and
a) the ball is on then ground, then play can continue if the ball is available ( after a short 'breathe' )
B ) the ball is held off the ground then no player is required to release his grip, and a unplayable state now exists.

If this isn't yours, then say whysonot.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The ONLY laws that pertain to what happens after a maul has collapsed are these...

[LAWS]17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

(f) When the ball in a maul becomes unplayable, the referee does not allow prolonged
wrestling for it. A scrum is ordered.

(g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting,
the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.[/LAWS]

Whether the ball is held on the ground of off the ground is irrelevant.

1. A collapsed maul does not become a ruck.

2. There is no requirement for the ball carrier to release at a collapsed maul

3. There is no requirement for any player to release the ball carrier and/or roll away from a collapsed maul

If this is not how you are ruling it, then you need to justify why in Law.

 

[beckett50]

I was watching a L.6 game over the weekend. Close match, two points between the teams, 30 minutes into the 2nd half. The ref was having a hard time keeping the breakdown clean, and had clearly decided to rein in all leeway and insist on quality. He had spoken to the captains - presumably to this effect.

At one ruck, just inside the White 22, White 6 is trying to hold up Blue 13 in a choke tackle, but other players arrive and the whole goes quickly to ground. Ref calls ruck, White 6 doesn't roll away and the ball is buried. Ref gives a PK whistle, and signals PK to Blue in front of the posts - a kick which will enable Blue to take the lead.

As everyone gets up from the ruck, it becomes clear that White 6 is away with the fairies - totally out of it. Ref calls time off, the player receives attention for at least 2 minutes, and is finally helped off the pitch with a replacement coming on. Ref blows time on, and changes his restart from the PK he initially awarded to a scrum, attacking ball.

Thoughts?

FWIW, it sounds like a maul had formed and that the ball was trapped; so unsuccessful end to a maul. Semantics perhaps?

As to the original question; it depends upon how you sell the decision to the players.

 

[Dixie]

Assuming you mean maul, that then goes to ground???
A pet hate of mine is refs recategorising as a ruck when the ball is nowhere near the ground at a collapsed maul ...

Actually, I meant Ruck. That is what was called, and (from recollection) correctly so, as it was the tackler's team mates who drove it backwards. Browner's assumption was unwarranted, as was his suggestion that the ref on the day had fallen into his pet hate trap.

As to the original question; it depends upon how you sell the decision to the players.

Awarding the decision will change the outcome. Revoking it changes it again. However you do it, I think that will be a very tough sell to the side that ends up losing.

A thought for the debate as a whole: those who would rescind the penalty and restart with a scrum seem to rely on the fact that the offence was not deliberate, evidenced by the player's inability to engage in conscious thought. But Law 10.4 deals with deliberate offending, while this is a Law 16 offence. The implication is that no deliberate action is required. Phil E grasps this, when he points out that White 6 should have made sure he fell on the other side of the ball. Against that, however, is the impression I got that White 6 took his blow to the head when his team mates arrived to drive the thing on.

 

[Phil E]

Against that, however, is the impression I got that White 6 took his blow to the head when his team mates arrived to drive the thing on.

So penalty against White for dangerous play?
Same difference.

 

[crossref]

I agree with Dixie - it doesn't have to be deliberate : it's not actually that uncommon to PK a player for not rolling away, even when it's pretty obvious that he is trapped and can't roll away. The argument is that he needs to avoid getting into that position in the first place. (and also that if being trapped was an excuse, players would be getting themselves trapped fives times a game)

the fact that white was not only unable to roll away, but also knocked out provides a lot of grounds for sympathy, but not really for reversing the PK.

 

[didds]

it's not actually that uncommon to PK a player for not rolling away, even when it's pretty obvious that he is trapped and can't roll away

safety
quity/enjoyment
law

??

If he is unconcious he needs to be looked after not penalised.
If he is stuck there because a microsecond after he completed the tackle he was swamped by ruckers and really truly couldn't now roll away/get to his feet - he should receive some empathy not get penalised.

then finally we come to the law.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

We had it is a Welsh premiership game recently. Player - accidentally - knocked out making a tackle landing like a sack of spuds on top of the tackler. Physio and doc running on as soon as they see him fall. The ref saw it differently and not only gave a kickable penalty but gave him a YC into the bargin.

Extreemly poor empathy. People were calling for the game to stop before the penalty came. Only the ref seemed not to notice. He was given a "bit of advice" from his assessor after the game.

 

[didds]

I'd bloody hope so. In this day and age of concussion etc - another R4 program about sports concussion yesterday ... its ion iplayer and was broadcast at 11.30am - it really doesn't sell the message that concussion is a priority if YCs are being waved about in these circumstances. Very little may happen at these levels which is not deliberate - but this is clearly one of them.


didds