Yellow Card?

[Browner]

[LAWS]10.4 (l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent. Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]

Not mandatory, just an optional sanction?

Its as Optional as any Law !

This Law serves to discourage brawls from starting it cements the referees position as the only 'official' distributor of sanctions.

I'm aware top flight rugby is mostly ignoring it nowadays, but at grassroots it remains valuable. (At least to me it does)

 

[OB..]

Its as Optional as any Law !

This Law serves to discourage brawls from starting it cements the referees position as the only 'official' distributor of sanctions.

I'm aware top flight rugby is mostly ignoring it nowadays, but at grassroots it remains valuable. (At least to me it does)

Yes, the law gives the referee the option of exercising his judgement as to who he should penalise, the original offender of the retaliator.

 

[Pegleg]

[LAWS]10.4 (l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent. Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]Not mandatory, just an optional sanction?

Indeed. That was sort of the point. As I posted:


"Compare with the reversal of a Penalty following retaliation. The law book says retaliation earns a reversal of a penalty. Do we always do so? NO! Sometimes we judge the original offence was worse than the retaliation and that the original offence stands. "Wrong" in law but good management."

 

[OB..]

Compare with the reversal of a Penalty following retaliation. The law book says retaliation earns a reversal of a penalty.

Not necessarily. Whether it does or not is indeed a matter of management, but that is NOT contrary to law.

 

[Pegleg]

Not necessarily. Whether it does or not is indeed a matter of management, but that is NOT contrary to law.

The law book does say it. Whether or not we apply it the law book is clear. It's the law not convention.So yes it is contrary to Law.

That said, did you not notice the use of inverted commas?

 

[menace]

Indeed. That was sort of the point. As I posted:


"Compare with the reversal of a Penalty following retaliation. The law book says retaliation earns a reversal of a penalty. Do we always do so? NO! Sometimes we judge the original offence was worse than the retaliation and that the original offence stands. "Wrong" in law but good management."

Not necessarily. Whether it does or not is indeed a matter of management, but that is NOT contrary to law.

The law book does say it. Whether or not we apply it the law book is clear. It's the law not convention.So yes it is contrary to Law.

That said, did you not notice the use of inverted commas?

I think you're both right arguing it's a management thing.

Doesn't it only become a retaliation penalty when such retaliation is 'dangerous' to the opposition? That to me is the judgmental part that I assume OB is talking about that would NOT make any sort of retaliation a PK in law.

 

[Pegleg]

I agree we are. Which is why I'm finding it difficult to understand OB's posts. The point is strict application of the laws is, in general, not advised. Which is why many of us are not comfortable with prescriptive justice. I specifically used "wrong" for a pretty obvious reason.



Regarding your comment that some retaliation may not be "dangerous to an opponent"

Striking a player is considered dangerous play so the law would seem to indicated that any use of force. The laws specifically mention:

Punching or striking with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s); Stamping or trampling; Kicking and Tripping are all considered "dangerous play" according to the law book. surely that pretty much means that any retaliation is "dangerous to an opponent".

 

[menace]

Regarding your comment that some retaliation may not be "dangerous to an opponent"

Striking a player is considered dangerous play so the law would seem to indicated that any use of force. The laws specifically mention:

Punching or striking with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s); Stamping or trampling; Kicking and Tripping are all considered "dangerous play" according to the law book. surely that pretty much means that any retaliation is "dangerous to an opponent".

I don't agree with you. IMO, you are now stretching the definitions on dangerous to try and force it to fit your argument.
I can see some of those things occurring without being dangerous. For eg - handbags is technically striking but we don't always penalise it because we don't think it's dangerous play.

 

[Pegleg]

The laws of the game do not agree with you. striking an opponent is dangerous play. It is there is black and white. We may regard a little bit of "handbags" as being only worth a word to both players with no further action. But both (all) the players are guilty of dangerous play (10.4(a)) We often don't penalise "handbags" because it is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other and all it needs it a quick word to both Players.

Let's look at too scenarios.

Two player deliver a couple of fairly innocuous punches at each other. Action? "grow up the pair of you!" and play on.


One player delivers a couple of fairly innocuous punches at an opponent Action?Penalty kick and warning / card.

Same level of punch in both scenarios. Both are dangerous play. We don't ignore the single player punching because to use your words " we don't think it's dangerous play".

In other word we manage foul play, as with all offences, I feel you are mixing cause and effect. We don't penalise the two prats because we can't ping both.

 

[The Fat]

A player could retaliate by grabbing an opponent by the jersey and pulling/dragging him a few steps. I wouldn't call that dangerous play.

Incidentally, if a player throws and lands a punch, he's getting a card from me. I don't think it is up to me to determine if the punch was hard enough to hurt or injure the guy getting punched. So two guys wrestling and jersey pulling and growling at each other will probably just get a chat. If one or both lands a punch or multiple punches, he's going to the bin.

 

[Browner]

Penalising the retaliator, IS the expectation of Law - otherwise why does Law say so.( note....there isnt any exception or offence comparison/measurement written into it )

If you never get retaliatory action then you never get mass brawling, which I assume was the intention of the law makers when deciding to create a retaliation law.

Materiality is a useful management tool, on ALL aspects of play.

 

[Pinky]

Did it again yesterday. High tackle (3rd) but ball quickly recycled so called advantage and played on. Score after 2 more phases and as the kicker lines it up the captain says to me "will you card the next high tackle?" I said "no" in fact I was going to card this one. Blew for HT after the kick - "Captain and 3, please!" - you know the drill.

 

[Pegleg]

A player could retaliate by grabbing an opponent by the jersey and pulling/dragging him a few steps. I wouldn't call that dangerous play.

Incidentally, if a player throws and lands a punch, he's getting a card from me. I don't think it is up to me to determine if the punch was hard enough to hurt or injure the guy getting punched. So two guys wrestling and jersey pulling and growling at each other will probably just get a chat. If one or both lands a punch or multiple punches, he's going to the bin.

Player pulls the offender back a few steps. You do nothing all hell breaks loose (nothing dangerous at all!?). As Browner puts it it helps prevent mass brawls - not always but it is a tool.

A littl common sense is required here. ANY physical contact that is out side of the law has the potential to be dangerous. Not always in the act itself but some times in the chain of events that ensue.

The whole point I made was that with ALL (almost) the law book the referee is give the tools of management and material effect. Problems can easily occur when well meaning administrators say "You must issue a Red / yellow card" or "you must do....". Nigel Owens and all the top refs realise this only to well.

So, back to the original issue, the fact that there was no compulsion to issue a card (the try was scored removing the PT situation for an "intentional" offence) Nigel was able to correctly say "you were lucky" whether his choice of words were right or wrong is debatable. What I say will not work for others and what works for Browner would backfire if I tried using them. It works for Nigel so where's the problem?

 

[The Fat]

Player pulls the offender back a few steps. You do nothing all hell breaks loose (nothing dangerous at all!?). As Browner puts it it helps prevent mass brawls - not always but it is a tool.

A littl common sense is required here. ANY physical contact that is out side of the law has the potential to be dangerous. Not always in the act itself but some times in the chain of events that ensue.

The whole point I made was that with ALL (almost) the law book the referee is give the tools of management and material effect. Problems can easily occur when well meaning administrators say "You must issue a Red / yellow card" or "you must do....". Nigel Owens and all the top refs realise this only to well.

So, back to the original issue, the fact that there was no compulsion to issue a card (the try was scored removing the PT situation for an "intentional" offence) Nigel was able to correctly say "you were lucky" whether his choice of words were right or wrong is debatable. What I say will not work for others and what works for Browner would backfire if I tried using them. It works for Nigel so where's the problem?

I didn't say do nothing. I said the ref might chat him. I thought we were giving examples of retaliation that didn't necessarily involve being something dangerous.

Nigel tells a player he has committed a YC offence but because a try was scored he is cancelling the card.
Sorry, but that is the part, that I have stated 3 or 4 times, I have a problem with. Obviously you don't. I'm happy to leave it at that.

 

[menace]

The laws of the game do not agree with you. striking an opponent is dangerous play. It is there is black and white. We may regard a little bit of "handbags" as being only worth a word to both players with no further action. But both (all) the players are guilty of dangerous play (10.4(a)) We often don't penalise "handbags" because it is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other and all it needs it a quick word to both Players.

Let's look at too scenarios.

Two player deliver a couple of fairly innocuous punches at each other. Action? "grow up the pair of you!" and play on.


One player delivers a couple of fairly innocuous punches at an opponent Action?Penalty kick and warning / card.

Same level of punch in both scenarios. Both are dangerous play. We don't ignore the single player punching because to use your words " we don't think it's dangerous play".

In other word we manage foul play, as with all offences, I feel you are mixing cause and effect. We don't penalise the two prats because we can't ping both.

Player pulls the offender back a few steps. You do nothing all hell breaks loose (nothing dangerous at all!?). As Browner puts it it helps prevent mass brawls - not always but it is a tool.

A littl common sense is required here. ANY physical contact that is out side of the law has the potential to be dangerous. Not always in the act itself but some times in the chain of events that ensue.

The whole point I made was that with ALL (almost) the law book the referee is give the tools of management and material effect. Problems can easily occur when well meaning administrators say "You must issue a Red / yellow card" or "you must do....". Nigel Owens and all the top refs realise this only to well.

So, back to the original issue, the fact that there was no compulsion to issue a card (the try was scored removing the PT situation for an "intentional" offence) Nigel was able to correctly say "you were lucky" whether his choice of words were right or wrong is debatable. What I say will not work for others and what works for Browner would backfire if I tried using them. It works for Nigel so where's the problem?

I too have moved on from the OP and merely talking retaliation point you were making.

Dangerous play is not a black and white thing that you're vehemently making it out to be in regards to retaliation and the law, yet you're appropriately supporting using the retaliation law as a management tool? You're confusing the sh!t out of me as to where you stand. But I'll move on as you seem hell bent on maintaining that any and all retaliation is dangerous and should be PKd in law but happy that it doesn't and I don't have enough brain cells to keep up anymore.

 

[OB..]

Compare with the reversal of a Penalty following retaliation. The law book says retaliation earns a reversal of a penalty.

Penalising the retaliator, IS the expectation of Law - otherwise why does Law say so.( note....there isnt any exception or offence comparison/measurement written into it )

The law does not mention reversal, nor does it say the sanction is mandatory.

It makes the issue clear: the referee can award a penalty for retaliation if he thinks it appropriate, and the players know that retaliation cannot be used as an excuse for foul play.

If nobody is arguing that the sanction is mandatory, what is the point of this discussion?

 

[Pegleg]

Is browners point not that, since retaliation must come after an original offence, penalising it must involve the reversal of the original. However, and I can't be bothered to go back through this thread, the point being paid is that the expectation is that retaliation will result in a reversal UNLESS there is a good reason not to. The nature of the original offence / management etc will affect that.

Now to try one last time to explain the rest:

There are certain "MUSTS" in the laws / directives:-

Tip tackle directives state that certain end results MUST see a card issued.

An INTENTIONAL offence leading to a PT MUST see a card issued.

A collapsed scrum MUST be pinged or reset (well at some levels anyway).

Unless there is the inclusion of the word "MUST" a referee can manage the situation. Play on with a word / ping then warn /YC or RC. HE has a choice.

Nigel in the OP incident was not bound by a "MUST", so he chose to manage the offence in his way. further he chose to articulate to the player how luck he had been in a way that got the message over ie he managed the situation.

What is wrong with that?

To deal with Menaces last post. I fail to see many acts or retaliation that do not come under the heading of dangerous play. Perhaps in your neck of the woods they refuse to have tea the the "nasty man" after the game. Pushy and shoving can be just as dangerous as a punch. In fact there is record of a player dislocating an ankle after being pushed. So who knows what the outcome might be.

If you read properly you will see I don not say they should all be penalised just like we do not peanlise every incident UNLESS it is mandatory we MANAGE the game. Thankfully the law makers have left most decisions in the hands of the referee.

 

[Pegleg]

Menace perhaps you'd like to answer the question:

Let's look at too scenarios.

Two player deliver a couple of fairly innocuous punches at each other. Action? "grow up the pair of you!" and play on.


One player delivers a couple of fairly innocuous punches at an opponent Action?Penalty kick and warning / card.

Same level of punch in both scenarios. Both are dangerous play. We don't ignore the single player punching because to use your words " we don't think it's dangerous play"

What would you do in those two scenarios? In the second would you do nothing because a few innocuous punches were not, in your mind, danergous?

 

[Pegleg]

]
Nigel tells a player he has committed a YC offence but because a try was scored he is cancelling the card.
Sorry, but that is the part, that I have stated 3 or 4 times, I have a problem with. Obviously you don't. I'm happy to leave it at that.

He did not say he was "cancelling" anything that is your interpretation. What he WAS saying is that IT would have been a MANDATORY card IF they try had not been scored so a PT became the call.

There is a big difference between the two which you can't or will not see.

 

[Browner]

The law does not mention reversal, nor does it say the sanction is mandatory.

It makes the issue clear: the referee can award a penalty for retaliation if he thinks it appropriate, and the players know that retaliation cannot be used as an excuse for foul play.

So,
if im understanding you correctly OB,
If the retaliation is > original offence , then reverse, if < or = then retain original PK.

?