Unusual Incidents

[didds]

Each to your own, but I could never condone YCing the captain because his players don't listen to him!

There are multiple reasons why this may be the case, including the bloke with the title may be the only person in the club prepared to waste hours of his life trying to get a team out on friday night, and may have no authority on the pitch (rightly or wrongly).



didds

 

[didds]

... and if you YC the skipper because his front three all keep standing offside - that doesn't address those people standing offside. So next time they do it two minutes later who do you YC - the vice skipper?

And then having done that to two players both now in the bin and you ask "who is now skipper for the duration" and nobody sticks their hand up (because who would in these circumstances?!) what do you do then? abandon the game?

didds

 

[OB..]

If a significant portion of the team is breaking a law that you've team-warned the captain about, is there a case for YCing the captain?

I would describe that in my report as both a law error (no offence committed) and faulty management, for reasons eloquently explained by didds.

 

[TheBFG]

I've never heard of anything other than SOS for 2 technical YC's.

I had the same issue on Saturday, YC'd a centre after 12mins for 4th PK by the same side. 5 mins from the end, deliberate KO, PK given and a stern stare at the player. Assessor wanted to know why I didn't bin him? "Because it would have had to be a RC, the game didn't need it and as the result wasn't in question (home side 22-8 up) why cause more problems to side already imploding"?

As it was, a player moaned about the PK, moved it 10m forward, issued a "next player that shouts at me will leave the field" to the capt, side elect a scrum, ball is moved into mid-field, centre crashes the ball up, defending 5 screams, "he's got to release!!!!!!!!" :noyc: "se ya!"

 

[Rich_NL]

Fair enough, and very good points. Just a thought that occurred

 

[crossref]

an unusual one I had yesterday :
- red kick high
- blue catcher fumbles, and knocks the ball forward
- a blue team comes from behind him, and catches the ball before it hits the ground

It's a still knock on, obviously, or perhaps now it's a throw forward, but instinctively it kind of looked OK.

 

[Pegleg]

If a significant portion of the team is breaking a law that you've team-warned the captain about, is there a case for YCing the captain?

No.

To return the question to you. What law would you claim the captain has fallen foul of?

 

[DocY]

I had an incident on Saturday that could have been very interesting:

Green kick the ball into touch and it rolls very close to (almost underneath) the railing, black winger runs to collect it obviously wanting a QTI and a spectator shimmies down the railing and prods the ball with his foot.

The black player looked like he was on the verge of doing something regrettable to the spectator. Fortunately nothing came of it, I had a quick word with the black player and we had the lineout.

This left me with a couple of questions:
Would anyone consider taking any action against the spectator? I was of the opinion that he was outside the playing area, so he was fine to do it, even if he was being a dick.
Has anyone had a player attack a spectator before and what did you do?

 

[crossref]

I agree with you - if he's outside the playing areas, nothing you can do (other than perhaps roll your eyes, to try and make him feel like a dick!)

It's not infrequent to see players attack spectators who come on to the playing area (indeed often the players are praised for it)

A player leaving the pitch to attack a spectator - like Eric Cantona - I have never seen. If it happned it would surely deserve a RC.

 

[DocY]

A player leaving the pitch to attack a spectator - like Eric Cantona - I have never seen. If it happned it would surely deserve a RC.

He'd already be RC'd, IIRC. But either way, yes RC at a minimum and I wouldn't rule out Police being involved.

 

[SimonSmith]

If a spectator did that (aside from dealing with the player) I'd have real questions about my ability to continue the game safely.

 

[DocY]

Sorry in advance for opening a can of worms.

A pair of incidents that showed differing expectations of players around knock ons in goal.

Incident 1: the BC carries the ball into his opponents in goal, is tackled, loses the ball forward (and the defending team minored it). I gave a 5m scrum and nothing was said.
Incident 2: a grubber kick into in-goal. The chaser knocks it forwards and into TiG. The defending team were most unhappy with a 5m scrum saying it should be a DO.

I found their differing expectations quite interesting.

 

[didds]

I think it just illustrates the confusion over this area.

didds

 

[crossref]

about three games ago I had a silmiar incident: grubber kick into the in goal, attacker knocked on and defender touched down.

although I would argue that the correct reading of the Law is that it's a drop-out, I also acknowledge that the the conventional decision is a 5m scrum, so that's what I gave [it's more important to referee conventionally than to be technically correct]

Naturally the defending captain queried the decision, feeling it was taken into the in-goal by attackers and subsequently made dead - so 22m drop out.

Through gritted teeth I said : 'well, you would think that was the case, but there's a specific Law for it when it's knocked on'
Gosh it hurt to say that

 

[DocY]

Through gritted teeth I said : 'well, you would think that was the case, but there's a specific Law for it'.
Gosh it hurt to say that

I went for a less specific - "No, if there's a knock on in goal, we take the scrum". It came up in the club house after the game, too. "Why would it be different to earlier when they knocked on in the tackle?" worked.

I specifically didn't want to mention the word 'law' at all, in case anyone had a lawbook on them!

 

[OB..]

although I would argue that the correct reading of the Law is that it's a drop-out, I also acknowledge that the the conventional decision is a 5m scrum, so that's what I gave [...]
there's a specific Law for it when it's knocked on'
Gosh it hurt to say that

How can it be a conventional decision when you accept that there is a specific law?
Given that there is a specific law, how can that be an incorrect reading of the law?

You may disagree with it, but well done for knowing and applying the law correctly.

 

[crossref]

How can it be a conventional decision when you accept that there is a specific law?
Given that there is a specific law, how can that be an incorrect reading of the law?.

without re-hashing it all again - but go one, one more time : in my view the specific Law is not to tell you that a scrum must happen - the specific Law is there to tell you WHERE the scrum happens (if there is one).

eg - if the attacker knocks on, regathers and touches down, then we have a scrum. It can't be at the place of the knock on and the Law tell you where it would be (5m out).


To insist that there always must be a scrum (ie no advantage is possible) is, to me, simply a widespread misunderstanding of the Law.

 

[Guyseep]

I had a similar incident that caused some confusion.

Blue grubbers into the Red in goal. Blue winger and Red full back chase the ball and both slide to touch it down. The ball is touched by one of them and goes dead past the dead ball line. It definitely wasn't grounded as the ball popped upwards as both of them made contact.

As I was chasing from behind the play I couldn't be certain who knocked it out so I awarded the 22 drop out. I wasn't sure if it was a knock on by Blue or Red knocked it dead.

There does seem to be quite the imbalance in the law that in the scenario mentioned above Red gets the ball in both instances but one is a 5m scrum to Red and the other is a 22m DO to Red. If it is a knock on by Blue, it can be argued that Blue has committed the greater number of "faults" and a lesser sanction is given against them with the 5m scrum to Red. In this case a 5m scrum could be a disadvantage to Red if Blue has a dominant scrum.

 

[OB..]

without re-hashing it all again - but go one, one more time : in my view the specific Law is not to tell you that a scrum must happen - the specific Law is there to tell you WHERE the scrum happens (if there is one).

eg - if the attacker knocks on, regathers and touches down, then we have a scrum. It can't be at the place of the knock on and the Law tell you where it would be (5m out).


To insist that there always must be a scrum (ie no advantage is possible) is, to me, simply a widespread misunderstanding of the Law.

From the history of it, I am convinced that the whole point of that bit of law was to prevent the defence getting an unearned bonus in the shape of a drop-out.

However I agree there is no point in rehashing it yet again.

 

[Dickie E]

As I was chasing from behind the play I couldn't be certain who knocked it out so I awarded the 22 drop out. I wasn't sure if it was a knock on by Blue or Red knocked it dead.

Another rational restart could be a scrum to Blue. "sorry, lads, coldn't see what happened there so scrum to team going forward".

However, I wouldn't do that unless grounding was also a factor.

In your scenario I would go with scrum to Red.

A question: if the incident happened in FoP what would be the restart? Red & Blue chasing ball on 22. Both dive for it, someone gets a fingertip to it, and ball rolls into touch.