PDA

View Full Version : Failed Head Butt



Marchioly
30-04-14, 07:04
Had a game where I was AR (hence posting here) Blue and Red players 5 m away hug and start "dance". Blue decides to escalate and performs a head-butt; too useless and fails to connect Red's head. Red then retaliates with a beautiful left hook, fails to connect.
Flag out, get Ref attention at next stoppage, and describe situation clearly and concisely
Ref seems to struggle with my description and seems to want to not hear me.
I offer (I know, should wait to be asked) that I would go with RC & YC
Ref declines and says let's go back to original restart (no PK...)

Do you consider a miss as good as a hit with punches etc

Do I just silently agree with the outrage on the sidelines and carry on (as I did) Rule no 1 of AR: don't make the Ref look an ass

comments please

Drift
30-04-14, 07:04
I have AR'd before for a mate and there was an attempted kick by a player. He didn't connect but I judged there was intent there to injury/hurt someone so my words were:

"4 gold has been tackled to the ground, whilst there he has attempted to kick the black tackler. He didn't connect, but there was definite intent in the kick and it wasn't just a twitch."

The referee took this and gave a YC based on the pictures.


At the end of the day I would not like it if my AR gave me a RC and YC recommendation without me asking for it, especially as I am wearing a microphone and this will come through on the DVD. What were your exact words?

The Fat
30-04-14, 11:04
Had a game where I was AR (hence posting here) Blue and Red players 5 m away hug and start "dance". Blue decides to escalate and performs a head-butt; too useless and fails to connect Red's head. Red then retaliates with a beautiful left hook, fails to connect.
Flag out, get Ref attention at next stoppage, and describe situation clearly and concisely
Ref seems to struggle with my description and seems to want to not hear me.
I offer (I know, should wait to be asked) that I would go with RC & YC
Ref declines and says let's go back to original restart (no PK...)

Do you consider a miss as good as a hit with punches etc

Do I just silently agree with the outrage on the sidelines and carry on (as I did) Rule no 1 of AR: don't make the Ref look an ass

comments please

So the two players are hanging on to each other. One doesn't head-butt the other and one doesn't punch the other. What are you going to write in your report and what are you expecting the ref to write in his RC Report?

ctrainor
30-04-14, 13:04
it would be the AR who did the report if the ref chose to act on his recommendations wouldn't it?

Blue Smartie
30-04-14, 13:04
Hi Marchioly, unfortunately you don't have an offence as law 10 only refers to "punch / strike etc." not "tried to". [And before anyone jumps in, don't recommend a RC for unsportsmanlike conduct in this case].

As The Fat says, if you take this off the field you have nothing for the paperwork and you (or your referee) will look an ass at the disciplinary panel. If the game turns on this then you could end up with protests to championship committees and it all gets horribly messy.

You don't have to let it go though and you were quite right to bring it to the referee's attention, but do it so he can give the players a warning and cool things down at that next stoppage - ideally through comms.

Jarrod Burton
30-04-14, 14:04
So Blue Smartie, a player who evades a stomp or a punch in the head actually reduces the sanction against the player who committed the action? By that logic a punch isn't a punch until it connects - so 5 punches thrown with no connection is just a PK? Surely a player throwing a punch or trying to stomp should be punished not on the final results but rather the intent of their actions.

Dixie
30-04-14, 14:04
Marchioli, welcome to the forums - what a great question to start with! As you've already seen, this is an area with little (if any) uniform interpretation. On the one hand, you have the refs who look at the description and decide that no offence is being reported, so nothing can be done. On the other, you have people who recognise that with a little less luck on the day, one of the players may have ended up in hospital, and that we should referee actions not outcomes.

Like all refs, you'll need to come off the fence and choose a side here - but you'll also need to recognise that there are two sides to the coin. The ref on the day took the "no foul, no cry" approach. As he's the primary decision maker, you have to live with it.

didds
30-04-14, 15:04
I hear the points about what offense do you write on the form etc...

But I feel the game is twisting itself in knots.

"I'm sorry Mrs Bloggs that your husband will be a cabbage for the rest of his life. The previous 6 attempts by the opposition to stamp on his teammate's heads all missed and there was nothing i could do. Unfortunately they connected the 7th time with your husbands head."

didds

OB..
30-04-14, 15:04
Paul Ringer.

Browner
30-04-14, 15:04
I hear the points about what offense do you write on the form etc...

But I feel the game is twisting itself in knots.

"I'm sorry Mrs Bloggs that your husband will be a cabbage for the rest of his life. The previous 6 attempts by the opposition to stamp on his teammate's heads all missed and there was nothing i could do. Unfortunately they connected the 7th time with your husbands head."

didds

A deliberately exaggerated example makes your point well didds, the problem with the alternate approach is that its unworkable and unrealistic , unless the Horwill defence becomes the norm !

I believe the primary skill of a good referee is judgement, and in many cases s/he needs to consider the temperature of the match and the intent of players which are all factors in foul play assessment.

We can all find extremes to examine law interpretation, but all referees have to operate their own acceptability barometer.

Personally I've rarely had an assessor comment that I'm too harsh or lenient, so I'm comfortable with my measurements....but its not a maths equation

thepercy
30-04-14, 16:04
So the two players are hanging on to each other. One doesn't head-butt the other and one doesn't punch the other. What are you going to write in your report and what are you expecting the ref to write in his RC Report?

If one was in this situation, they could write "As AR I was 5 meters from the foul play situation as follows; Blue 6, and Red 7, persisted to push and wrestle each other, away from the ball. I shouted, 'STOP, Leave Him!' Then Blue 6 attempted to head-butt Red 7, red 7 evaded and contact was not made, then Red 7 attempted to punch Blue 6 in the head, blue 6 avoided the punch and no contact was made. Blue 6 was in violation of 10.4.F, 10.4.L, 10.4.M and 10.2.A and was sent off. Red 7 was in violation of 10.4.F, 10.4.L, 10.4.M and 10.2.A and was cautioned and temporarily suspended. This type of thuggery has no place in our game."

didds
30-04-14, 18:04
We can all find extremes to examine law interpretation, but all referees have to operate their own acceptability barometer.

That all understood.

A stamp to the head that fortuitously misses its target is never acceptable i would humbly suggest.

Ditto a head but.

I mate of mine was headbutted the other week. The police's opinion is that if it caused a broken nose - its Section 20 GBH.

"In England and Wales, a person guilty of an offense under section 20 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months".

WADR I don't think there is really any "acceptability barometer" needed is there in this case?

didds

didds
30-04-14, 18:04
Interestingly enough... if a headbutt did not brak the nose but created (as would be likely ) lots of bruising and black eys etc... that woud "only" by ABH.

"In England and Wales, a person guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months"

So, no difference in terms of maximum sentences between GBH Section 20 (i.e. not pre meditated but "a reaction") and ABH it seems ...


didds

Browner
01-05-14, 01:05
Interestingly enough... if a headbutt did not brak the nose but created (as would be likely ) lots of bruising and black eys etc... that woud "only" by ABH.

"In England and Wales, a person guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months"

So, no difference in terms of maximum sentences between GBH Section 20 (i.e. not pre meditated but "a reaction") and ABH it seems ...


didds
I think everyone knows that things happen on a rugby pitch that arent tolerated on the street, I'm not sure whether or not you're advocating police involvement more often than has happened historically?

buff
01-05-14, 02:05
Where would you be in law, if, having been informed of a serious attempt at a punch in the head, you chose not to act, then the offender tried again, connected and did serious damage to the victim?

Jarrod Burton
01-05-14, 04:05
There are other instances in the law where the action of the offender is the determinant of the on-field sanction rather than the self-preservation reaction of the victim - tip tackles and tackling in the air - clarifications for both tips and tackling in the air (if this new soooooper secret email is true) outline the sanctions based on the action, not the result - how often do you see a player get dropped on their shoulders/head and be (mostly) ok and the red still gets shown? Why should this not be the same as a punch/stomp/headbutt attempt - after all if a police officer sees two blokes swinging at each other I'd be hoping that they didn't wait until one connected to actually step in.

The Fat
01-05-14, 05:05
I think some are missing my earlier point about giving a RC for a non-headbutt or the non-punch. I didn't say the ref could take no action. He could YC both players and when they return, remind them that ANY subsequent YC offence will automatically be a RC.
Most players who get a YC do not reoffend in the same match. You can YC a player for throwing hay-makers even if none connect but is it a RC offence? I would guess that the judiciary would throw it out.
You can only referee what is in front of you and cannot be expected to know what a certain player's intentions are. When you turn up at your game, you don't know that the home team prop has just found out that his wife has been having it off with the oppo hooker and is intent on stomping on his nuts at some stage of the game.

Dickie E
01-05-14, 06:05
If I'd been the ref I too may have declined your card suggestions but I would have made a big fuss with both players and captains. If its OK for the AR to not make the ref look a dick, this should be reciprocated.

Taff
01-05-14, 09:05
it would be the AR who did the report if the ref chose to act on his recommendations wouldn't it?But the OP was the AR.

I understood (mainly from here admittedly) that you sanction the action - not the outcome. The fact is one tried to headbut and one threw a punch. OK, neither connect - but that was more through luck than judgement.

I don't know if I'm correct or not, but in this case I think a stern word with both might suffice. Depending on the tone of the game (eg if it had been simmering for a while) possibly 2 x :noyc: but a :norc: feels a bit "harsh" to me. I could be wrong, but that feels right to me.

didds
01-05-14, 09:05
I think everyone knows that things happen on a rugby pitch that arent tolerated on the street, I'm not sure whether or not you're advocating police involvement more often than has happened historically?

I see no reason why something that is "assault" (whether also meaning ABH/GBH) on the street is not in a game of rugby, aside from the rugby leagalised assaults eg tackling, that would otherwise normally be an assault etc.

Kicking, headbutting, gouging, punching etc - none of these are legal in a game iof rugby. I see no reason why they should not be treated as illegal by police etc if they happen in a game. I don't buy the carp excuse that "participants know it may happen" either - I know if I got for a late drink in a city centre area on a Friday night "it may happen" ... but that wouldn't reduce the potential for prosecution if it did.


didds

FlipFlop
01-05-14, 10:05
Didds - the RFU has a legal document, which sets out what you legally accept when you step onto the pitch. I have not read all of it, but it sets out that some action, even if illegal in Rugby, are no longer illegal in the eyes of the law.

If you think this is strange - think about boxing - two people punching in a way that if it happened in the street, would be criminal behaviour.

The RFU document is available to be read in the RFU Library (or certainly used to be), which can be accessed by any member on request to the Museum of Rugby.

The Fat
01-05-14, 10:05
If one was in this situation, they could write "As AR I was 5 meters from the foul play situation as follows; Blue 6, and Red 7, persisted to push and wrestle each other, away from the ball. I shouted, 'STOP, Leave Him!' Then Blue 6 attempted to head-butt Red 7, red 7 evaded and contact was not made, then Red 7 attempted to punch Blue 6 in the head, blue 6 avoided the punch and no contact was made. Blue 6 was in violation of 10.4.F, 10.4.L, 10.4.M and 10.2.A and was sent off. Red 7 was in violation of 10.4.F, 10.4.L, 10.4.M and 10.2.A and was cautioned and temporarily suspended. This type of thuggery has no place in our game."

The judiciary chairman may then ask you, "So as AR you witnessed a player from each team guilty of the same offences, those being 10.4(f), 10.4(l), 10.4(m) and 10.2(a), and yet you recommended a YC for one and a RC for the other. How do you reconcile your recommendation? Can you be sure that, based on your view that the intent of both player's actions should result in punishment, the head-butt would have caused more injury, had it connected, than the punch?"

Now personally, had I been the AR, I would have described what had happened in the correct sequence with colour/number/action and then waited for the ref to consider and respond. Had the ref then asked for my recommendation, I would have said caution and YC for each player.

crossref
01-05-14, 10:05
Didds - the RFU has a legal document, which sets out what you legally accept when you step onto the pitch. I have not read all of it, but it sets out that some action, even if illegal in Rugby, are no longer illegal in the eyes of the law.

.

the RFU may have its opinions -- but the RFU does not determine what actions are legal or illegal in Criminal Law.

Dixie
01-05-14, 10:05
Didds - the RFU has a legal document, which sets out what you legally accept when you step onto the pitch. I have not read all of it, but it sets out that some action, even if illegal in Rugby, are no longer illegal in the eyes of the law.

If you think this is strange - think about boxing - two people punching in a way that if it happened in the street, would be criminal behaviour. Flipflop, I haven't seen the documetn you mention, but I imagine that it takes as its starting point the fact that people playing contact sports consent to a degree of contact. It is the extent of that degree that is important, though, and that extent is probably itself informed by the laws of the game in question.

You mention boxing. It is fully in accordance with the laws of boxing to punch your opponent in the face as hard as you can. By stepping int the ring, you consent to that degree of violence being inflicted upon you, and you very reasonably expect to be free from prosecution in the event that your own punch hurts your opponent. But if you take off you glove and hit just as hard, I suggest your immunity disappears because the opponent has not consented to being hit with an unmuffled fist. Indeed, I suspect bare-knuckle fighting is not a legal sport in the UK.

In rugby, one consents to being assaulted by an opponent in a prescribed manner; shoulder first, followed by a wrap. If the tackler gets it wrong and executes a shoulder charge instead, with or without intent, that is a deviation that is not acceptable in the laws of the game, but is not sufficiently wide of the accepted mark to make the action actionable (as it were). But if the tackler puts in a studs-up drop-kick, that is probably actionable as being too wide of the degree of violence accepted by stepping onto the pitch. Ditto the haymaker.

As to whether such unacceptable assaults should result in more police intervention, I leave that entirely to the aggrieved party. The offender has rendered himself liable to prosecution by his illegal action. If the aggrieved party decides that no real purpose is served by lodging a police complaint, I am not going to argue him out of that position. But equally, if he feels that the offender needs to be brought to justice, I'm not going to argue him out of that either.

ChrisR
01-05-14, 11:05
I agree with the following posts:

1. As an AR, describe the actions but leave the sanctions to the referee unless asked.

2. The temper of the game and two players can influence the sanctions.

3. YCs for a cooling off period seem right for what was described. RC is a heavy hammer.

thepercy
01-05-14, 15:05
The judiciary chairman may then ask you, "So as AR you witnessed a player from each team guilty of the same offences, those being 10.4(f), 10.4(l), 10.4(m) and 10.2(a), and yet you recommended a YC for one and a RC for the other. How do you reconcile your recommendation? Can you be sure that, based on your view that the intent of both player's actions should result in punishment, the head-butt would have caused more injury, had it connected, than the punch?"

Now personally, had I been the AR, I would have described what had happened in the correct sequence with colour/number/action and then waited for the ref to consider and respond. Had the ref then asked for my recommendation, I would have said caution and YC for each player.

That seems reasonable, no sanction, no penalty, no admonishment, does not seem reasonable IMO. A head-butt is almost always a Red for me, a defensive/reactive punch after a head-butt might be yellow. It certainly is subjective.

didds
01-05-14, 16:05
Didds - the RFU has a legal document, which sets out what you legally accept when you step onto the pitch. I have not read all of it, but it sets out that some action, even if illegal in Rugby, are no longer illegal in the eyes of the law.

If you think this is strange - think about boxing - two people punching in a way that if it happened in the street, would be criminal behaviour.

The RFU document is available to be read in the RFU Library (or certainly used to be), which can be accessed by any member on request to the Museum of Rugby.


I don;t doubt there is a document - but I don;t follow what you say above?

of course there are actions in game of rugby that are "legal" within the confines of the game - a tackle being an obvious example. Perform a rugby tackle on someone in the high street and that IS assault. When we play rugby we accept that this otherwise illegal act is legal having chosen to participate in a game.

Meanwhile, punching, kicking, stamping, headbutting, elbowing etc is not legal in rugby. Neither is it legal in the high street. Participants in a game of rugby are not accepting that being assaulted in these manners is part of the game.

I am however struggling to think of any sort of assault that would happen in a game of rugby that is illegal in a game, but legal on the high street.


didds

Browner
01-05-14, 16:05
I see no reason why something that is "assault" ................. should not be treated as illegal by police etc if they happen in a game.

didds

Are you saying that the Police should be involved in all Assault ?.......crikey..... if so, the sport 'would' have a connundrum (it requires aggression yet wont accept a spill over) or are you confining the view to only the more serious 'Bodily Harm's ?

didds
01-05-14, 17:05
There is a tenet in law that permits what would be assault in the high street is permitted within games where that action is accepted and legal within that game and thus participants can expect it to happen. One of the lawyers here can probably tell us chapter and verse.

hence the example of a tackle which is assault outside of the remit of playing and training for rugby.

So tackling someone playing rugby is not assault.

Without this legal nuance, boxing would be finished, along with martial arts and other contact sports.

However, headbutting etc is not legal within rugby, is not thus something that could be expected to happen when playing, and as such remains assault.



I'm surprised this is so difficult to understand.

didds

didds
01-05-14, 17:05
Are you saying that the Police should be involved in all Assault ?.......crikey..... if so, the sport 'would' have a connundrum (it requires aggression yet wont accept a spill over) or are you confining the view to only the more serious 'Bodily Harm's ?


That presumably wouldm be up to

* the person attacked to report it
* the police to decide whether a successful prosection is likely and "in the public interest" or somesuch.

I was assaulted just over a year ago. the bloke was so drunk he was thouroughly ineffectual though he did rip my coat to shreds.

It was assault and in front of about 100 witnesses.

I didnt; report it to the police because I didn;t honestly think it was worthwhile pursuing. YMMV of course.

had be broken my nose it might have been a different matter.

In short the police only get involved on the whole if someone reports the assault. If there is a bit of "argy bargy" and/or "afters" and somebody wants to report such an assault they are perfectly at liberty to do so. The same as they are if it happens on a high street.

If of course you think that having a head stamped on, or a nose broken by a headbutt is not worthy of reporting when it happens to you, that is of course your prerogative.

didds

thepercy
01-05-14, 18:05
I don;t doubt there is a document - but I don;t follow what you say above?

of course there are actions in game of rugby that are "legal" within the confines of the game - a tackle being an obvious example. Perform a rugby tackle on someone in the high street and that IS assault. When we play rugby we accept that this otherwise illegal act is legal having chosen to participate in a game.

Meanwhile, punching, kicking, stamping, headbutting, elbowing etc is not legal in rugby. Neither is it legal in the high street. Participants in a game of rugby are not accepting that being assaulted in these manners is part of the game.

I am however struggling to think of any sort of assault that would happen in a game of rugby that is illegal in a game, but legal on the high street.


didds

Maybe, retaliation? Self-defense in the real world but not allowed in rugby.

Blackberry
01-05-14, 18:05
thepercy... good point!

And ddds, thanks for a very useful set of insights.

Browner
01-05-14, 18:05
That presumably wouldm be up to

* the person attacked to report it
* the police to decide whether a successful prosection is likely and "in the public interest" or somesuch.

I was assaulted just over a year ago. the bloke was so drunk he was thouroughly ineffectual though he did rip my coat to shreds.

It was assault and in front of about 100 witnesses.

I didnt; report it to the police because I didn;t honestly think it was worthwhile pursuing. YMMV of course.

had be broken my nose it might have been a different matter.

In short the police only get involved on the whole if someone reports the assault. If there is a bit of "argy bargy" and/or "afters" and somebody wants to report such an assault they are perfectly at liberty to do so. The same as they are if it happens on a high street.

If of course you think that having a head stamped on, or a nose broken by a headbutt is not worthy of reporting when it happens to you, that is of course your prerogative.

didds

OK, i hear your point.

OB..
01-05-14, 20:05
Volenti non fit injuria is the legal tag that says if you are aware of the risks, you can agree to accept them.
Volenti only applies to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing) consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing.Wikipedia

The defence has been raised (unsuccessfully) in cases concerning serious injuryThe Plaintiff (Claimant) was not volens to the risk of injury; he had only consented to the ordinary incidents of a game of rugby.Smoldon v Whitworth (spinal injury in a collapsed scrum)

If you want to get legal please note that we are talking about "battery", which requires physical contact. In the phrase "assault and battery", assault covers such things as an attempted head butt, because you make the other person fear the contact. On the high street an attempted head butt would constitute an assault.

didds
01-05-14, 21:05
Maybe, retaliation? Self-defense in the real world but not allowed in rugby.

good call.


and thanks for the legal niceties explained OB - cheers.

didds

RobLev
01-05-14, 22:05
Maybe, retaliation? Self-defense in the real world but not allowed in rugby.

Retaliation != self-defense, in the real world or the rugby field.

L'irlandais
17-09-14, 19:09
Paul Ringer.Bit before I got involved in Rugby... This ESPN article (http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/story/163532.html) says it was an elbow to the face (in the tackle) after the ball was gone. Would it have made any difference, if he'd elbowed the ball carrier in the face, had the tackle NOT been late? I don't think so.

Browner
18-09-14, 09:09
Bit before I got involved in Rugby... This ESPN article (http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/story/163532.html) says it was an elbow to the face (in the tackle) after the ball was gone. Would it have made any difference, if he'd elbowed the ball carrier in the face, had the tackle NOT been late? I don't think so.

35 penalties ( id love to know how long the ball was actually in play during this battle, my guess 16 mins ! )

Oh........ the good old days !

shnipvanwinkel
22-01-18, 16:01
the RFU may have its opinions -- but the RFU does not determine what actions are legal or illegal in Criminal Law.

Technically no: if players assent to certain conduct by prior agreement then there is no recourse in law, as the reasonable person requirement would be that of a reasonable person in that situation.

crossref
22-01-18, 21:01
Technically no: if players assent to certain conduct by prior agreement then there is no recourse in law, as the reasonable person requirement would be that of a reasonable person in that situation.

that's essentially true (I think it's a bit trickier and more subtle than the way you expressed it) - but that's because it's the way the Law works - it's not because the RFU have decreed it to be so.

OB..
23-01-18, 11:01
that's essentially true (I think it's a bit trickier and more subtle than the way you expressed it) - but that's because it's the way the Law works - it's not because the RFU have decreed it to be so.
The defence is "volenti non fit injuria", which clearly applies to boxing, for example. However it has been rejected in a number of rugby injury cases because the cause of the injury was not deemed to be a normal part of playing rugby.

Danny Hearn broke his neck trying to tackle Ian Macrae, but everyone agreed it was just a very sad accident (the two are actually good friends these days). However in the cases of Ben Smoldon and Richard Vowles, the broken neck was deemed to be the referee's fault because he allowed unsafe scrummaging.

crossref
23-01-18, 11:01
Indeed
While noting that was a civil law matter, which is different again from the criminal law !

Richard smith
01-03-18, 18:03
A Headbutt, FAiled or not is still a headbutt and therefore in my lawbook a breach of law 9 7 (A)

Pinky
02-03-18, 00:03
A Headbutt, FAiled or not is still a headbutt and therefore in my lawbook a breach of law 9 7 (A)

Richard, probably not 9 7, but may well be 9.11 reckless or dangerous to others and is definitely 9.26 against the spirit of good sportsmanship.

Richard smith
02-03-18, 14:03
Richard, probably not 9 7, but may well be 9.11 reckless or dangerous to others and is definitely 9.26 against the spirit of good sportsmanship.
ONly had a quick look at the lawbook before posting my reply, so accept that my quoting of law may well have been flawed :scot:

tim White
04-03-18, 10:03
Joined late; Failed head butt = yellow card to calm down, stern warning -and again when they come back on. BUT ask yourself what provoked it.

Richard smith
04-03-18, 13:03
Joined late; Failed head butt = yellow card to calm down, stern warning -and again when they come back on. BUT ask yourself what provoked it.
If you see what provokes the failed headbut then go deal with that. If you don't, then react to what you've seen

tim White
04-03-18, 17:03
Deal with both.

Zebra1922
04-03-18, 18:03
Deal with both.

I think the point being made was if you did not see what caused the reaction you cannot penalize it, regardless what the players tell you about what went on. You can/should only referee what you see.

Richard smith
04-03-18, 22:03
Deal with both.
You can only deal with what caused the failed head but if you see it :scot: