Walsh

[SimonSmith]

1. Manage what you see in front of you. Not all missed punches are the same kind of missed punch.

2. If it's a swing and a miss, then I might consider sending off, not for striking, but for Unsporting Behavior.

 

[didds]

This is what I was told when my RC for a kick at the head which missed, was thrown out.

which is - purely IMO - complete and utter balls and Phil - you were right, as I have mentioned in other threads.

didds

 

[Agustin]

IMHO this should have been a yellow card.

The TJ says "I can't see if [the punches] have hit, but they were definitely thrown."

Walsh replies "I'm going to go against ... 3 Black for punching."

Clearly the TJ and the ref are satisfied that 3 Black was throwing punches. What intent could he have had except to injure his opponent?

 

[SimonSmith]

Self defence? Protecting a team mate?

Punching isn't an automatic YC. There are very very few offences that are automatic anything.

I thought the management didn't make a mountain out of a foothill, got the message across and treated the players as grown ups. I'm not a huge Walsh fan, but I thought he delivered a nice message, and his handling of the captain was very good.

 

[Agustin]

Self defence? Protecting a team mate?

Aren't those examples of retaliation? Either way, neither applies in this case.

I thought he made a foothill (mole hill?) out of a mountain.

Suppose the next time there is a maul near the middle of the field, a Blue player decides he's frustrated with his opponent and throws punches like 3 Black did. Just a penalty again?

 

[Donal1988]

Suppose the next time there is a maul near the middle of the field, a Blue player decides he's frustrated with his opponent and throws punches like 3 Black did. Just a penalty again?

Thats a different situation and referee would manage the game as he saw it.

 

[Agustin]

Thats a different situation and referee would manage the game as he saw it.

That's what I mean, though. Suppose the same (or very similar) situation happens again, only this time it's Blue doing the punching. I think, by not giving a yellow card in the first instance, it becomes much harder to justify a card in the second instance.

 

[SimonSmith]

Disagree. He warned Blue about behavior.

I'm struggling to see why you're anchored on a YC. I haven't seen the game - did it degenerate into fists, or was the behavior in that regard good?

 

[Agustin]

Disagree. He warned Blue about behavior.

I'm struggling to see why you're anchored on a YC. I haven't seen the game - did it degenerate into fists, or was the behavior in that regard good?

If I understand correctly, you're saying that because he warned Blue, if Blue were to punch Black the way Black punched Blue you would give a YC?

Doesn't seem equitable, does it? I mean, one guy gets away with it but the other doesn't, just because he was the second one to do it?

I didn't see the rest of the game either. I don't know if it degenerated into fists. But that doesn't really matter because it's only one game - one data point.

 

[OB..]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that because he warned Blue, if Blue were to punch Black the way Black punched Blue you would give a YC?

Doesn't seem equitable, does it?

Why not? The player has committed two offences: the punch, and ignoring the warning.

 

[Dixie]

Why not? The player has committed two offences: the punch, and ignoring the warning.

You know me - I love to quibble. Can you just point me in the direction of the law that penalises ignoring the ref's warning?

Obviously, if the ref has been warning about a continuation of an existing offence (usually offside) or the potential to commit an offence in the immediate future, when the player ignores the warning he then gets penalised for the offence the ref couldn't stop him committing. But if the ref chooses to PK for ignoring the warning rather than for committing the substantive offence, upon what law does he hang his metaphorical hat?

 

[SimonSmith]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that because he warned Blue, if Blue were to punch Black the way Black punched Blue you would give a YC?

Doesn't seem equitable, does it? I mean, one guy gets away with it but the other doesn't, just because he was the second one to do it?

I didn't see the rest of the game either. I don't know if it degenerated into fists. But that doesn't really matter because it's only one game - one data point.

Yes - and your Advisers wil tell you the same thing when you're shooting for B grade.
It isn't about giving the same number of warnings to each team.

 

[OB..]

Dixie - dissent.

 

[Agustin]

OK... you'll have to trust me that I'm not just arguing for argument's sake, but because I truly don't understand.

It doesn't seem equitable to me to give one guy a penalty for punching, and another guy a YC, just because the second guy was warned.

It also doesn't seem wise to me to let the first guy off with just a penalty because I think it's asking for trouble, setting a dangerous precedent. Just like I don't think it's wise to set a low standard of compliance at the tackle or offside lines at the start of the game.

Simon - I appreciate what you are saying about the advisers. And if that's what I am hearing, I will go with it. But I'm one of those guys that likes to understand things; how they fit into the big picture.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Self defence? Protecting a team mate?

I friend of mine who works at SkyTV and was working at the match, told me that he was asked for the footage of the period leading up to the incident. The words, "looking for fingers near eyes" was mentioned, but he gave me no names.

He was unable to find anything.

 

[FlipFlop]

OK... you'll have to trust me that I'm not just arguing for argument's sake, but because I truly don't understand.

It doesn't seem equitable to me to give one guy a penalty for punching, and another guy a YC, just because the second guy was warned.

A fight involves 2 people. A PK can only go one way.

So at the first fight BOTH were warned, the most serious got the PK. Next time it is a YC - irrespective of who it is.

I see no problemn with that.

You seem to want both sides to have a PK before a YC. Personally I would view as that team that wasn't PK'ed was LUCKY - because the PK can only go one way.

Perhaps the way you should view it is: First incident - BOTH sides were PK'ed - with the actual kick going against teh most serious transgressor. Second time then is YC (both PK'ed, both warned....)

 

[Agustin]

A fight involves 2 people. A PK can only go one way.

So at the first fight BOTH were warned, the most serious got the PK. Next time it is a YC - irrespective of who it is.

I can dig this.

You seem to want both sides to have a PK before a YC.

Well my first choice would have been to give Black a YC in the first place.

But I hear what you're saying overall and it makes sense. Thank you!

 

[chief]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruoyweeM860

Look how differently Walsh handles this one. I wonder if he got a bit of a dressing down, he always lets fights to unpunished.

 

[andyscott]

Well having looked at the video, its a RC for me :norc:

However, if I had not of seen it, then,

On the report given to me by the AR, throwing punches couldnt see if any where landed, then its a YC for me. :noyc:

 

[dgilks]

In the Chiefs v Tahs match I would have gone for a YC. In the Reds v Highlanders game I thought that the Highlander players were more in the wrong. The level of retaliation and the fact that he was essentially third man in from 8 Blue would have had him (and possibly 5 Red) with a YC and the penalty against Blue for the second, and IMO more serious, offence. It is worth noting that under the ARU Law 10 recommended sanction any third man in is supposed to be an immediate RC.