Yellow card but we want a quick tap.

[Ciaran Trainor]

Just watched an incident in the junior World Cup where ref stopped play for a ruck offence close to the line then blew again and called a defender out to receive a card.
Attacking scrum half had wanted the quick tap but was prevented thus allowing the defence time to realign.
Just wondered if anyone has said in a game that they were coming back for the card but allowed play to develop after you had blown for the original offence.
I have come back and carded people after playing advantage.

 

[crossref]

We have had a discussion about this before.
It's very tricky to allow the quick tap, if they score immediately then everything works well, but if the player in question makes a try saving tackle.. That's awkward. Or if he commits a second YC offence what r then. ...

I think you could allow a quick tap when it's really clear they are going to score from it. Otherwise issue the card

 

[Ian_Cook]

We have had a discussion about this before.
It's very tricky to allow the quick tap, if they score immediately then everything works well, but if the player in question makes a try saving tackle.. That's awkward. Or if he commits a second YC offence what r then. ...

I think you could allow a quick tap when it's really clear they are going to score from it. Otherwise issue the card

You can't second guess what might or might not happen.

If the player has not been carded then, while there is a slim chance he might make a try saving tackle, there is also the lost opportunity which means that if you stop play to card him the non-infringing team might not score at all from that play/possession when they otherwise might have.... Its a real Joseph Heller scenario.


I believe that if a player commits a YC offence and the non-infringing team takes a quick tap, you are quite within your rights to play on, and whether a try is scored or nothing comes of it, come back for the card. The place of the mark (IMO) is for whatever happened when play ended, not the mark for the original PK. e.g,

- the team takes a QT and scores, award the try, YC the infringing player and continue with the conversion and restart on halfway.

- the team takes a QT and the ball carrier is tackled into touch 2m out. YC the infringing player and play the lineout 5m out, defending team to throw.

 

[Drift]

I did this in a game earlier in the year and was being watched by one of the ARU coaches. I slowed down the play and, admittedly got it wrong, but gave the final warning to the red captain.
His feedback was, if you are stopping the game in that place you have to give the card, however there is also nothing wrong with allowing the quick tap and then giving a card if a try is scored from the quick tap.

 

[crossref]

Let's say it's a very clear YC offence so that every player on the pitch, and coach watching, knows that it is deserved.

There is a risk when you allow the quick tap that they don't score and play now continues for two or three minutes. All the players thinking that the player in question has got away without a card. This could lead to them taking matters into their own hands and/or feeling resentment against you.

Then three minutes later when play stops and you finally issue the YC it may be difficult to carry off plausibly.

It's not risk free to allow the tap.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Let's say it's a very clear YC offence so that every player on the pitch, and coach watching, knows that it is deserved.

There is a risk when you allow the quick tap that they don't score and play now continues for two or three minutes. All the players thinking that the player in question has got away without a card. This could lead to them taking matters into their own hands and/or feeling resentment against you.

Then three minutes later when play stops and you finally issue the YC it may be difficult to carry off plausibly.

It's not risk free to allow the tap.

The remember, the non-infringing team chose to play on with a QT.

White 7 player commits YC offence, Blue 9 taps and goes..... after what happens, happens....

Talking to White skipper "Captain, I allowed Blue to take the tap, but I was always coming back for the YC for your 7 regardless of what happened next"

If your game management skills are up to it, you'll have no troble selling this.

 

[Phil E]

The remember, the non-infringing team chose to play on with a QT.

White 7 player commits YC offence, Blue 9 taps and goes..... after what happens, happens....

Talking to White skipper "Captain, I allowed Blue to take the tap, but I was always coming back for the YC for your 7 regardless of what happened next"

If your game management skills are up to it, you'll have no troble selling this.

This works for me.
Their decision to go quick, knowing (if they have any game awareness) that a YC is in the offing.

 

[TheBFG]

I make a point of eyeballing/speaking to the ball carrier (#9) "are you going?" if he says "yes" we play on and we're coming back for the card, simples! Any sign of players taking the law into their own hands can soon be managed with a shout of "he's going!"

 

[Dickie E]

This works for me.
Their decision to go quick, knowing (if they have any game awareness) that a YC is in the offing.

So are you saying that a QT negates a card?

 

[Browner]

Let's say it's a very clear YC offence so that every player on the pitch, and coach watching, knows that it is deserved.

There is a risk when you allow the quick tap that they don't score and play now continues for two or three minutes. All the players thinking that the player in question has got away without a card. This could lead to them taking matters into their own hands and/or feeling resentment against you.

Then three minutes later when play stops and you finally issue the YC it may be difficult to carry off plausibly.

It's not risk free to allow the tap.

Presumably youve already ID'd the culprit, so howabout a shout of " white 6 - card pending"

That way everyone is on notice ?

 

[Phil E]

So are you saying that a QT negates a card?

No, that's not what I said at all....you really are turning into Browner!

I said that I agree with Ian. Let the play go and then come back for the card.

 

[tim White]

"I've seen it-I'll deal with him at the next stoppage, play on."

 

[didds]

Totallyb agree with the play on - card later thoughts.

If the YC-pending player commits another YC offence durting the phase of play following the QT... is that now a red?

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Totallyb agree with the play on - card later thoughts.

If the YC-pending player commits another YC offence durting the phase of play following the QT... is that now a red?

didds

A YC player knows he's on a caution when he comes back on, so I it would be a bit unfair to do what you are asking unless you made it absolutely clear to him that he was going for the first infringement once play stopped.

 

[Browner]

Didds,
It doesn't matter how "Absolutely Clear" it could be made to the player, Law doesn't currently permit any 'second offence' counting in the situation you describe, as the player hasn't been cautioned and temporarily suspended previously.

[LAWS].[FONT=fs_blakeregular](b)
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who then commits a second cautionable offence within the Foul Play Law must be sent-off.[/FONT] [/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

No, that's not what I said at all....you really are turning into Browner!

I said that I agree with Ian. Let the play go and then come back for the card.

keep your hair on.

This staement needed clarifying because it is worded poorly:

Their decision to go quick, knowing (if they have any game awareness) that a YC is in the offing.

 

[didds]

cheers guys - it was a query not an assertion

and I now have an answer to my query

didds

 

[Phil E]

keep your hair on.

This staement needed clarifying because it is worded poorly:

But you totally ignored the sentence before it, saying that what Ian had described worked for me......and I haven't got any hair!

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I think my game management at my level is up to it and selling the decision whether a try is scored or not however I do have one problem.
Say red six has committed the offence but blue take the quick tap and you say red six card pending.
What if red six then intercepts and scores?
Allow the try then card him?
Can of worms I think.

 

[Blackberry]

This is an event which can be understood and accepted before players even come onto a pitch. If the rugby community say "If we take the advantage of a quick tap we are also accepting the possibility of a to-be -carded player having an impact before the next stoppage".

Simples. Put it on our websites and move on to the issues that really count... now, where do I get those all black promotion-inducing boots?