Yellow Card?

[RobLev]

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.

The Fat; would you say that a referee should always YC any act of foul play that has the potential to prevent a probable try being scored?

I ask because unless that is your view, you must accept that there are such acts of foul play that would be mandatory YC offences but that would not attract a YC if a try is scored.

Take three scenarios; in each one Blue #9 throws out a pass to his wing half way into Yellow's 22, and Yellow #14 deliberately knocks the ball on. There are no Yellow defenders outside or behind Y14, so if the ball gets to the wing it'll be an unopposed score.

In the first scenario, the pass is a good one, and it is probable that without Y14's intervention B11 would have taken the pass and scored. Deliberate foul play preventing a probable score; PT and mandatory YC for Y14 (12.1(f) and 10.2(a)). Agreed?

In the second scenario, B11 mistimes his run so that it's clear to the referee that he'd never have got to the pass - it would have flown into touch - if it hadn't been knocked on; Y14's intervention doesn't prevent a probable try, so no PT. YC for Y14 isn't mandatory (10.2(a)). Would you YC Y14?

In the third scenario, B11 again mistimes his run; this time however the deliberate knock on puts the ball straight into B11's hands and he runs in to score. Clearly no PT - a try has been scored - but would you YC Y14 for the knock-on which created that try?

 

[Pegleg]

Well said Roblev.

 

[OB..]

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

?

I call that "using his judgement". I don't think it can be reduced to mathematics. It depends on all the circumstances.

 

[The Fat]

The Fat; would you say that a referee should always YC any act of foul play that has the potential to prevent a probable try being scored?

No. In cases where the foul play prevented a probable try, the law only makes the YC mandatory if the foul play was intentional.


I ask because unless that is your view, you must accept that there are such acts of foul play that would be mandatory YC offences but that would not attract a YC if a try is scored.

Why? If a player commits an offence that deserves a YC, why should the try being scored automatically cancel the need to issue the card? Blue 4 puts a blatant and dangerous high shot on Red 10, who is attacking on blue's 22, but Red 10 manages to pass the ball on to Red 14 who then beats two more blue defenders before scoring in the corner. The referee awards the try. Why should the ref not YC Blue 4 just because a try was scored? He committed an offence worthy of a yellow card. Try scored or not, he should get the card.

The Laws tell us what we MUST do if an intentional act of foul play prevents a try that probably would have been scored. Nowhere in the LoTG are we told that a try being scored automatically means we don't have to follow through with a YC for an offence committed in the lead up to a try.


Take three scenarios; in each one Blue #9 throws out a pass to his wing half way into Yellow's 22, and Yellow #14 deliberately knocks the ball on. There are no Yellow defenders outside or behind Y14, so if the ball gets to the wing it'll be an unopposed score.

In the first scenario, the pass is a good one, and it is probable that without Y14's intervention B11 would have taken the pass and scored. Deliberate foul play preventing a probable score; PT and mandatory YC for Y14 (12.1(f) and 10.2(a)). Agreed?

Agreed.


In the second scenario, B11 mistimes his run so that it's clear to the referee that he'd never have got to the pass - it would have flown into touch - if it hadn't been knocked on; Y14's intervention doesn't prevent a probable try, so no PT. YC for Y14 isn't mandatory (10.2(a)). Would you YC Y14?

That would be up to referee's discretion. As you say, the YC is not mandatory but we have all seen referees issue YCs for deliberate knock-ons. We have also seen plenty of times when the ref has not issued a YC for a deliberate knock-on. There were two occasions in Saturday's SA v ABs game (Matfield & De Villiers) where Wayne Barnes penalised intentional knock-ons but kept the cards in his pocket.
Personally, in your 2nd scenario, I probably wouldn't give Y14 a YC but I'll ask you a question. What if you had penalised Y14 earlier in the game for an intentional knock-on? Would that change your mind?


In the third scenario, B11 again mistimes his run; this time however the deliberate knock on puts the ball straight into B11's hands and he runs in to score. Clearly no PT - a try has been scored - but would you YC Y14 for the knock-on which created that try?

Advantage blue. Try.

The argument that has been going round and round in circles here centre on Nigel Owens saying to the SA tackler, "I'm not going to give you a YC because a try was scored", or words to that effect.
Pegleg argues that the YC is not mandatory because the act of foul play didn't prevent the try. Pegleg is, IMO, only focussing on this incident from a possible PT situation.

Now let's move away from scenarios involving PTs.

The point I have been trying to make is that when an act of foul play (i.e. dangerous) occurs ANYWHERE in the lead up to a try, the fact that a try is scored should not absolve the infringing player from his act of foul/dangerous play.
I have posted several links to videos to illustrate this.
I am arguing that Nigel Owens' choice of words were poor. They give the tackler the impression that he has just got away with an offence that should have got a YC. As I said earlier, NO could simply have said to the player, "Be careful. The tackle was high".

I will see if I can find a video of the incident so others can judge if they think the attempted tackle was high and dangerous. Then people can assess, that if the tackle had taken place anywhere else on the field, would they have deemed it worthy of a YC.

 

[The Fat]

Here is the video. Watch from 41 seconds.

This high tackle would get a YC from me anywhere on the field.
Look at the cause and effect the high shot has on how the ball carrier's body is twisted and lands. Dangerous tackle?
Others thoughts? Then answer the following question.
If this tackle occurred 30m out and the ball went back to a supporting gold player, who then ran 30m to score, if you thought the original tackle deserved a YC, would you not issue the card on the basis that a try was scored?

 

[Pegleg]

The Fat I'm focusing on that point because that is the point that Owens is making.

In his view it was not a card offence (so no card was "cancelled") This is the point you seem so unable to grasp. We all have different triggers, and management of the game is one of them, when issuing a card. Nigel made his call and I don't have an issue with it. Would I have handled it in a different way? Who knows? With hindsight and a comfortable TV view my assessment may have been very different from his. But them which one of us is an IRB referee? Not me.

Had the try not been scored Owens would have given a PT and that would have lead to a MANDATORY card.

Now you can disagree and say that you felt it to be a YC offence and that is fair enough but don't say that Nigel "cancelled" the card because of the try. That is not true!

For Nigel's choice of word to have been "poor" you need to provide evidence that his management failed. If his actions / wording achieved the desired effect he wording was acceptable.

 

[The Fat]

I'm off to find a softer brick wall. My head hurts from banging it against this one.

 

[Pegleg]

Well:

try to answer the points you might just see what you are missing.

try not to assume Nigel's thinking.

You can disagree with his call (it was not a yellow). No problem. But please don't try to tell us what he was thinking. Re his wording, so he used wording that would not sit well in your mouth. Big deal! We all word things in our own way. What wording works for one does not for another. That's life.


You think it was yellow, Great bully for you. Nigel disagrees with you. Fair enough there's room for both opinions, especially as you saw different views of the incident. But don't assume the role of a mind reader.

 

[The Fat]

Well:

try to answer the points you might just see what you are missing.

try not to assume Nigel's thinking.

You can disagree with his call (it was not a yellow). No problem. But please don't try to tell us what he was thinking. Re his wording, so he used wording that would not sit well in your mouth. Big deal! We all word things in our own way. What wording works for one does not for another. That's life.


You think it was yellow, Great bully for you. Nigel disagrees with you. Fair enough there's room for both opinions, especially as you saw different views of the incident. But don't assume the role of a mind reader.

I don't think I'm missing any points. And I'm not pretending to read NO's mind (you are the one who enlightened us earlier as to Nigel's thought processes).

I know you are saying that NO didn't think the tackle was worthy of a card. I can see that you are saying that if the ref didn't think the tackle, in itself, was worthy of a card then none was cancelled. I'm not reading anybody's mind, just stating the fact that NO's comment was odd. "I'm not giving you a card because a try was scored". If he didn't think the tackle was worth a card, why mention a card at all? A try was scored so no need to enter into the area of why a PT was not needed. Nigel Owens could have said nothing at all.
The fact is he did say something. It included reference to a YC. I didn't need to read/misread his thoughts.
FFS, let's move on.
Bully for me.

 

[OB..]

I don't think I'm missing any points. And I'm not pretending to read NO's mind (you are the one who enlightened us earlier as to Nigel's thought processes).

I know you are saying that NO didn't think the tackle was worthy of a card. I can see that you are saying that if the ref didn't think the tackle, in itself, was worthy of a card then none was cancelled. I'm not reading anybody's mind, just stating the fact that NO's comment was odd. "I'm not giving you a card because a try was scored". If he didn't think the tackle was worth a card, why mention a card at all? A try was scored so no need to enter into the area of why a PT was not needed. Nigel Owens could have said nothing at all.
The fact is he did say something. It included reference to a YC. I didn't need to read/misread his thoughts.
FFS, let's move on.
Bully for me.

I agree.

 

[Browner]

I thought you were off 'padded wall searching' !?!?!?

 

[Pegleg]

And I'm not pretending to read NO's mind

Really? Your post 12 says different.

NO says that he is not going to card the high tackler only because a try was scored

HJe did not say that, you have assumed it from the words he actually used.

 

[TheBFG]

anyway NO aside.

As a rule I don't give the YC for a tech offence that I'm playing advantage for that then results in a try!

That said I had this discussion with a fellow ref the other week....... "blah blah, playing advantage for player in at the side, scrum half says 'yes please sir', I give him the mark, he taps and gives it to a moose traveling at pace (ish) who crashes over, TRY SCORED!" I catch the captains eye of the defending side, "good job they scored or he'd have been in the bin" and he nods and dishes out the obligatory bollocking.

Fellow ref agrees that's what he would have done, "too much of a double whammy to bin too". BUT "what would you have done if the attacking SH had said, 'yes please sir' then realised it wasn't on"???? Bin the player for in at the side??? :chin:

 

[thepercy]

anyway NO aside.

As a rule I don't give the YC for a tech offence that I'm playing advantage for that then results in a try!

That said I had this discussion with a fellow ref the other week....... "blah blah, playing advantage for player in at the side, scrum half says 'yes please sir', I give him the mark, he taps and gives it to a moose traveling at pace (ish) who crashes over, TRY SCORED!" I catch the captains eye of the defending side, "good job they scored or he'd have been in the bin" and he nods and dishes out the obligatory bollocking.

Fellow ref agrees that's what he would have done, "too much of a double whammy to bin too". BUT "what would you have done if the attacking SH had said, 'yes please sir' then realised it wasn't on"???? Bin the player for in at the side??? :chin:

So, NO, maybe should have said "You were lucky, if he hadn't scored a try, I would have been forced to issue a yellow." But he said what he said because it sounded good on the telly.

 

[Browner]

anyway NO aside.

As a rule I don't give the YC for a tech offence that I'm playing advantage for that then results in a try!

That said I had this discussion with a fellow ref the other week....... "blah blah, playing advantage for player in at the side, scrum half says 'yes please sir', I give him the mark, he taps and gives it to a moose traveling at pace (ish) who crashes over, TRY SCORED!" I catch the captains eye of the defending side, "good job they scored or he'd have been in the bin" and he nods and dishes out the obligatory bollocking.

Fellow ref agrees that's what he would have done, "too much of a double whammy to bin too". BUT "what would you have done if the attacking SH had said, 'yes please sir' then realised it wasn't on"???? Bin the player for in at the side??? :chin:

Not all in at the side offences are automatically YCs, but if this one was? then I believe the elite guys are now operating under the "see out the advantage and then go back & bin the offender "


As an aside..... Would anyone ever use 10.4(p) to curtail the 'moose on the hoof' or is this ignored below L x? ( but routinely used in juniors?)

??

 

[SimonSmith]

HJe did not say that, you have assumed it from the words he actually used.

"I didn't say that. I know that those were the words I used, but that wasn't actually what I said"

I'll try that at home tonight and let you know how it works out for me

 

[Pegleg]

"I didn't say that. I know that those were the words I used, but that wasn't actually what I said"

I'll try that at home tonight and let you know how it works out for me

Well you'd be a bit stupid to say that would you not. The fat is making things up. Why? who knows. The point is they were not the words that Nigel used.

 

[SimonSmith]

You should recalibrate your ironymeter

 

[The Fat]

This is getting ridiculous.
My post #12 merely states that if NO says "I'm not giving you a YC because a try was scored", I think we can fairly safely say that if a try had not been scored, the tackler would have got a YC. There is no mind reading required where as you start your own post #13 with, "Nigel does not like (along with many of us) to be forced to give cards by law. So the compulsory card following a PT sits uncomfortably with him He would prefer to work on the "You know when it's a red" principle." It would seem that you are the mind reader here.
That's it for me on this thread unless someone posts something valid and worthy of discussion. Too old to waste any more time arguing.
Cheers

Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post

And I'm not pretending to read NO's mind


Pegleg:
Really? Your post 12 says different.







Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post

NO says that he is not going to card the high tackler only because a try was scored

Pegleg:
HJe did not say that, you have assumed it from the words he actually used.

 

[Pegleg]

I'm not mind reading I have discussed these things with Nigel on many occasions. You are deciding what his word mean you are inferring from the word he uses that which you chose to do. Namely had a try not been scored the try was the only factor is the lack of a card) . I'm telling you that is not his way. He did not issue a card because he felt he could manage the situation better and he was not bound but the Law forcing him to give a card. It's not a difficult principle.

We can argue as to whether the offence warranted a card. I would not have questioned another ref who was to issue a card in the same situation. Just as I respect Nigel's call. He will take the context of the game / player attitude etc in making his call. Things he could not have considered had a PT been awarded. That is what he is there to do.

Now you can argue his wording was poor. Fair enough. I would agree that for some of us, me included, they would not have been the best words to use. But they fit with his style and the players seemed pretty much ok with them. If fact the only place I've read / heard any issue with them is hear are primarily from you! The rest of the rugby word seems to have no issue. Even here in south Wales where opinion is split , Nigel is very much a "Marmite" character people either love or hate him, no one is questioning his actions.

1; Intentional offence leading to PT - Card compulsory

2; Intentional offence but Try scored any way - Judge the offence on its merit etc. Card not compulsory.

Had it been #1 Nigel would have carded the offender.

As it was #2 Nigel made a judgment which differs from yours. Get over it.