PDA

View Full Version : Cards after mass handbags, U17



Rushforth
20-09-14, 16:09
The coaches were happy, but I'm not 100% on the decision.

Orange v Yellow, half time score 5-5. Halfway through the second half the visitors had scored a penalty and two (unconverted) tries. With temperaure well above 20C and humidity above 80%, one player at around this time (unrelated to incident) apparently was replaced because he was feeling sick from the heat.

No prior 10.4-style aggression, but two players started fighting (more handbags) at the other side of the ruck, went to ground where they continued it, and unfortunately other players from nearby got involved despite my best efforts. I identified the initial two, as well as one who came in and delivered a stamp to the back of the opponent involved on the ground.

I was happy with giving the initial two both yellow cards, given that I had no idea what the initial flare had been.

However, with the player coming in late, perhaps I was too tolerant. I counted back from red and informed him that he was only getting yellow, since there were only a little more than 10 minutes remaining in the game. I should perhaps add that the side with the two YCs were the losing home side.

Since this player shook my hand in the tunnel, I would like to think that he has learned his lesson. Given that he was the last player in (i.e. easiest to remember), I also feel a RC would be unfair, considering that other players from both sides may well have done worse.

There was no further incident in the final minutes, and the home side even scored after full time from a quickly taken penalty after the visitors had first come offside around a ruck and then deliberately threw the ball forwards and into touch, with teams restored to 15v15.

Final result two tries to five. Was it right?

Final note: same home club, same kick-off time, seniors tomorrow. Would it be right under a similar scenario?

crossref
20-09-14, 18:09
Stamping on a defenceless player on the ground seems quite red to me...

Dixie
20-09-14, 19:09
Given that he was the last player in (i.e. easiest to remember), I also feel a RC would be unfair, considering that other players from both sides may well have done worse.
This is exactly the wrong way round. The two original guys had reasons for getting involved with each other. They may not be great reasons for having a dust-up on a rugby pitch, but they exist. The last man in - he just thought "nothing to do with me, but what the heck - I want some of that!"

You say you worked back from Red. I see absolutely no mitigating factors, and only aggravating ones.

Pegleg
20-09-14, 20:09
First two :noyc: and a cool down. The last one. WHAT WAS HE DOING? :rc:

didds
20-09-14, 20:09
Stamping on a defenceless player on the ground seems quite red to me...


Totally.

It seems a fair tempered game on the whole from what you say, but if 1 minute later somebody else had stamped someone in the head how on earth are you going to give THEM a RC?

Stamping is as foul play as you can get. Deffo RC.


didds

Rushforth
20-09-14, 20:09
This is exactly the wrong way round. The two original guys had reasons for getting involved with each other. They may not be great reasons for having a dust-up on a rugby pitch, but they exist. The last man in - he just thought "nothing to do with me, but what the heck - I want some of that!"

You say you worked back from Red. I see absolutely no mitigating factors, and only aggravating ones.

I fully understand what you (and others) are saying, which is why I asked the question.

My problem is that I felt I shoulda/coulda have issued half a dozen YCs on each side, and obviously for what was mostly "handbags". But no way to deal with that many. There had been "last men" just before him, from both sides.

You (all) have confirmed that I am too easy/kind. The stamp wasn't particularly nasty, and although this was the only flare-up in the entire match, unless someone argues - convincingly - that the circumstances as I have roughly described them above are mitigating, I won't be so easy "the next time".

Does anybody have a good way to phrase that (late) retaliation is unacceptable for a short pre-match briefing?

Pegleg
20-09-14, 21:09
Just keep it to "retaliation" is unacceptable, and leave it there.

Taff
20-09-14, 21:09
.... Stamping is as foul play as you can get. Deffo RC.
I would argue that it depends on what was stamped on - some are more "deffo" than others.

Eg I would suggest that a stamp on the head or neck or joints eg knees, ankles etc was more serious than a stamp on a flabby arse.

Come to think of it, didn't Wayne Barnes :noyc: a Leicester player today for "raking" a Bath player?

Browner
20-09-14, 22:09
Does anybody have a good way to phrase that (late) retaliation is unacceptable for a short pre-match briefing?

I never mention this in a PMB. Nor will i start.

If i interprete correctly, youre oozing too a tad too much empathy, yellow+almost match ending+ losing already ....... !!

OB..
20-09-14, 23:09
The description is of a RC offence: joining a scrap, and stamping on a player.

If you feel guilty about others getting away without cards, then deal with them. It is not a reason to be kind to the stamper.

FightOrFlight
21-09-14, 00:09
I identified the initial two, as well as one who came in and delivered a stamp to the back of the opponent involved on the ground.


Since this player shook my hand in the tunnel, I would like to think that he has learned his lesson. Given that he was the last player in (i.e .easiest to remember), I also feel a RC would be unfair, considering that other players from both sides may well have done worse.

Stamp to a player on the ground away from the ball is RC all day. I would sanction careless boot work around the ball too.

The issue here is that if that kid didn't learn his lesson he could do it again and next time he does what if he injures the other guys spine? I would be more likely to RC a youth player for dangerous play than I would a Senior. You RC a youth and it scares them a bit...they remember and wont do it again and so when the knocks get bigger then know what they should not do.
I think that this kid would run in and Michael Flatley another player again as he was only YCed and the other guy may not be so lucky as to walk away unhurt

menace
21-09-14, 13:09
In ARU land, our U19 variations have zero tolerance for punching/stamping.

10.5 (c) Players who punch or stamp other players must be sent-off (red card).

Therefore your 2 initial fighters and the stamping 3rd man in would have earnt themselves RCs.

The Fat
21-09-14, 14:09
In ARU land, our U19 variations have zero tolerance for punching/stamping.

10.5 (c) Players who punch or stamp other players must be sent-off (red card).

Therefore your 2 initial fighters and the stamping 3rd man in would have earnt themselves RCs.

Yep, that's the way we roll down under. Is this not the same up north in U19s and below?

As for mentioning it in the PMB, I really don't see the need.

The stamper would have gotten a RC from me in seniors as well

FightOrFlight
21-09-14, 14:09
Yep, that's the way we roll down under. Is this not the same up north in U19s and below?


Sadly you still have "ye olde rugby playres" in some parts of the North who value and good bit of shoeplay at the breakdown. At the start of my referee career I had an U13s coach tell me that if the "man" is going to lie on the wrong side he will get the treatment he deserves:wtf:......he was 12 and started crying afterwards.

It's a dying art but like all arts it has it's appreciators here and there.

Punching will get you a red at youth level In Ireland most days of the week....that's why there is only on average handbags at dawn or your run of the mill ballroom dancing routine after a ruck etc. Grow up boys!

Browner
21-09-14, 16:09
In ARU land, our U19 variations have zero tolerance for punching/stamping.

10.5 (c) Players who punch or stamp other players must be sent-off (red card).


Isn't this a player development plan in SA?
:)

Dixie
21-09-14, 16:09
My problem is that I felt I shoulda/coulda have issued half a dozen YCs on each side, and obviously for what was mostly "handbags". But no way to deal with that many.

It's a difficult scenario - mass brawl, one of you, worse if there are no numbers on the players - how do you keep track?

If the ref had a photographic memory, I'd expect him to yellow card (at least) everyone who ran in from a distance to join the fray adn threw a punch regardless of whether it was effective). If there are simply too many to keep track of, you card the ones you are sure of - others may have been lucky, but that's not to argue that it's unfair on the ones you caught. Think of it like a line of speeding cars - players rushing in convoy to a game, for which they are late. Every one is exceeding the speed limit, so can't moan about being fined. If they subsequently discover that one of the party was not fined, it's not a reason to avoid their own sanction.

Sometimes, the brawl is simply too big. In such cases, particularly near the end of the game, think about stopping the game. Lots of players have lots of grievances with other people who have hit them - the risk of carrying on can sometimes be excessive.

Rushforth
21-09-14, 17:09
Sometimes, the brawl is simply too big. In such cases, particularly near the end of the game, think about stopping the game. Lots of players have lots of grievances with other people who have hit them - the risk of carrying on can sometimes be excessive.

Absolutely. However, there had been no prior niggle in this particular case, and there was non in the final 13 minutes either.

Today I was told by an older player from the same club who is also a U19 international that the initial miscreant from his side was "not a surprise". I didn't ask for details about "who did what first", obviously.

I don't mind being stricter - had I given a red card the only thing I would have minded is filing the report - and individuals coming in late only have themselves to blame if they cop a "team red" for being last man to join. That said, I don't want to stop the game for the rest of the players, the majority of whom didn't take part at all, or were trying to placate.

In the absence of a To3 officials - let alone television evidence - it isn't easy to ping the right people. Lesson learned: ping big-time for taking the law into their own hands!

Dixie
21-09-14, 18:09
In the absence of a To3 officials - let alone television evidence - it isn't easy to ping the right people.

Spot on. But never let yourself restart with a scrum after a mass brawl. I had one several years ago at U.16, in which the home team was unnumbered. I got the initial miscreants, and was just retreating to open the field of view when I saw a large, dark-haired guy rush in and throw a haymaker - struck a glancing blow and fell to ground under his own momentum, far side of the melee. A dark head reappeared and I kept sight of him, gave him a RC to universal hoots of derision. Offered him the opportunity to point out the true culprit - he declined and took his punishment for the team. Accepted in the write-up that I probably carded the wrong player, and the club banned the correct guy.

Had I bottled the card, the game would unfairly have continued 15 v 15 and in the absence of a RC report for the discipline committee to consider, it's unlikely that the true culprit would have been banned. Not an approach I recommend, but in extremis be prepared to go out on a limb sometimes in the interests of overall equity.

beckett50
21-09-14, 21:09
Agree with all that has gone before.

As has oft been said, you know a :rc: when you see it. In OP it was stated "I worked down from Red...". As referees we don't have the luxury of knowing the past discipline record of any player on the park, so we can't take the angelic looks and pleads as gospel. Give what you see and go with your gut in terms of cards.

ChrisR
21-09-14, 21:09
I don't like to see RCs for scrapping coz what we usually see is the retaliation. As much as I preach "Don't retaliate" sometimes you just gotta and take your medicine.

However, coming in late with the boot isn't excusable and RC is a no-brainer.

matty1194
21-09-14, 21:09
From the OP - my BOLD / BRACKETS


No prior 10.4-style aggression, but two players started fighting (more handbags) at the other side of the ruck, went to ground where they continued it, and unfortunately other players from nearby got involved despite my best efforts. I identified the initial two, as well as one who came in and delivered a stamp to the back of the opponent involved on the ground.

I was happy with giving the initial two both yellow cards (GOOD MAN), given that I had no idea what the initial flare had been.
However, with the player coming in late, perhaps I was too tolerant (DEFINATLY). I counted back from red and informed him that he was only getting yellow, since there were only a little more than 10 minutes remaining in the game (TIME LEFT IN GAME SHOULD NEVER BE A FACTOR - IF IT HAPPENED IN THE 1ST MINUTE or the 80TH MINUTE YOU SHOULD SANCTION ACCORDINLY).

Final note: same home club, same kick-off time, seniors tomorrow. Would it be right under a similar scenario? (ONLY YOU WILL KNOW
THAT - HOWEVER TREAT EACH SITUATION AS INDIVIDUAL)

-------------------------------


I would argue that it depends on what was stamped on - some are more "deffo" than others.
Eg I would suggest that a stamp on the head or neck or joints eg knees, ankles etc was more serious than a stamp on a flabby arse.
Come to think of it, didn't Wayne Barnes a Leicester player today for "raking" a Bath player?

Barnsey actually RC'd the replacement 9 for excessive use of the boot, in the replays you can see the ball clearly away in the hands in the background and the 9 still "rucking" away.

Taff
21-09-14, 21:09
.... But never let yourself restart with a scrum after a mass brawl.
I know what you're saying but what if you genuinely don't know what caused the mass brawl?

Do you PK the first punch? Do you PK the retaliation? My point is that if you genuinely didn't see what happened, and both sides have offended a scrum may be the fairest way to restart.

matty1194
21-09-14, 22:09
Taff mate, think it through logically and we get the correct outcome as you have alrready answered your own question.


I know what you're saying but what if you genuinely don't know what caused the mass brawl?

Do you PK the first punch? Do you PK the retaliation? My point is that if you genuinely didn't see what happened, and both sides have offended a scrum may be the fairest way to restart.

My bold and underlined bit - yes we as referee's may of missed what started the brawl but if you have seen the first punch then the retaliation then their is your answer.

You award the PK to the first team then reverse it for the retaliation. It is not our problem if players can not control themselves, if we allow them to take matters into their own hand's then we run the risk of being made redundant!

Browner
22-09-14, 04:09
Taff mate, think it through logically and we get the correct outcome as you have alrready answered your own question.



My bold and underlined bit - yes we as referee's may of missed what started the brawl but if you have seen the first punch then the retaliation then their is your answer.

You award the PK to the first team then reverse it for the retaliation. It is not our problem if players can not control themselves, if we allow them to take matters into their own hand's then we run the risk of being made redundant!

The retaliation Law is a brawl prevention/disuassion law. Its only purpose being to avoid escalation of events....use ' reverse PK' as often as you can.

OB..
22-09-14, 11:09
If you hear a noise behind you and turn round to find two players punching each other, you have no idea who threw the first punch and who retaliated. Your decision should not depend on the lottery of who you saw first (and even that may not be clear). A scrum restart is fairest.

However it is a potential flashpoint, so take your time in dealing with the miscreants, and talking to the captains. Give a stern warning to the packs that the scrum will ba a no-tolerance affair. I have seen this approach work well.

Browner
22-09-14, 12:09
If you hear a noise behind you and turn round to find two players punching each other, you have no idea who threw the first punch and who retaliated. Your decision should not depend on the lottery of who you saw first (and even that may not be clear). A scrum restart is fairest.

However it is a potential flashpoint, so take your time in dealing with the miscreants, and talking to the captains. Give a stern warning to the packs that the scrum will ba a no-tolerance affair. I have seen this approach work well.

Not for me OB.
Following the scrap, both players are leaving the pitch for 'at least' 10. One will have started it (PK) and one will have retaliated (PK) ...given.

I'm definately giving a PK against one of them under exactly the same 'assessment' criteria ( which might incorporate king solomon judgement methodology or even best guess) that I would use to award the feed at your suggested scrum.

Neither captain can complain if the decision ( or your scrum feed) goes against them , but PK highlights how serious I take the offence, which scrum feed doesn't.

Pegleg
22-09-14, 13:09
I'm not happy to guess who to give the PK to or to give it to the side defending etc. Two yellows (or reds is appropriate) and stern talk to the captains, with a "Go and speak to your players please" speech that should allow a calm down period and then a scrum with ZERO tolerance and ping the first offence you see.

Rushforth
22-09-14, 14:09
Neither captain can complain if the decision ( or your scrum feed) goes against them , but PK highlights how serious I take the offence, which scrum feed doesn't.

I see your point, but if I've just sent two men off for 10 minutes each, that the offence is serious should be obvious.

Browner
22-09-14, 14:09
I see your point, but if I've just sent two men off for 10 minutes each, that the offence is serious should be obvious.

It is, so dont undermine/reduce the seriousness by restarting with a 'minor infringement restart' event ??

Browner
22-09-14, 14:09
I'm not happy to guess who to give the PK to or to give it to the side defending etc. Two yellows (or reds is appropriate) and stern talk to the captains, with a "Go and speak to your players please" speech that should allow a calm down period and then a scrum with ZERO tolerance and ping the first offence you see.

Who are you happy to give the feed to? Why?

Pegleg
22-09-14, 15:09
Law 20.4 (d).

OB..
22-09-14, 15:09
It is, so dont undermine/reduce the seriousness by restarting with a 'minor infringement restart' event ??

If you send the right message via the captains, the seriousneas of it is not undermined.

Like others, I am more uncomfortable with the idea of using invalid criteria in awarding a PK.

Browner
22-09-14, 16:09
Law 20.4 (d).


.

Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

But ALL foul play punching IS covered by Law 10.4 , so you don't use this unless you classify 'not being sure' of the catalyst action , as an "irregularity"

I might try this next time...........

"I'm minded to RC both if I don't get told who started that " check for king solomonesk reactions!

Or....

"OK captains - I'm unsure who started that , but they are both off.
Foul play.
"You now get 1st chance to agree who started it so i can award the PK , if you can't agree then I'll decide , based solely on my judgement of fact when I first caught sight of them brawling"

"Ok, my player started it sir"
Thank you Red capt, do you agree Blue capt?
" yes sir they did start it sir"

" thank you captains , always easier when we agree, PK to Blue ( punch signal to hand followed by punch signal to other hand) , reversed for retaliation PK to Red !

Honestly always pays !
(Wink)






:-)

Pegleg
22-09-14, 18:09
But ALL foul play punching IS covered by Law 10.4 , so you don't use this unless you classify 'not being sure' of the catalyst action , as an "irregularity"

I might try this next time...........

"I'm minded to RC both if I don't get told who started that " check for king solomonesk reactions!

Or....

"OK captains - I'm unsure who started that , but they are both off.
Foul play.
"You now get 1st chance to agree who started it so i can award the PK , if you can't agree then I'll decide , based solely on my judgement of fact when I first caught sight of them brawling"

"Ok, my player started it sir"
Thank you Red capt, do you agree Blue capt?
" yes sir they did start it sir"

" thank you captains , always easier when we agree, PK to Blue ( punch signal to hand followed by punch signal to other hand) , reversed for retaliation PK to Red !

Honestly always pays !
(Wink)

:-)

The irregularity is that you do not know who the "guilty party" is. So you're guessing - rarely pays. I'll stick with a scrum and justify it with the law as quoted.

Taff
22-09-14, 22:09
If you hear a noise behind you and turn round to find two players punching each other, you have no idea who threw the first punch and who retaliated. Your decision should not depend on the lottery of who you saw first (and even that may not be clear). A scrum restart is fairest.

However it is a potential flashpoint, so take your time in dealing with the miscreants, and talking to the captains. Give a stern warning to the packs that the scrum will ba a no-tolerance affair. I have seen this approach work well.
Exactly as I see it. Possibly a tactical cool down water break may be called for as well. :biggrin:


Who are you happy to give the feed to? Why?
Personally? Scrum to the side in possession. Failing that the side last in possession and failing even that, the attacking side.

This was after the 2 boxers had been given either a :noyc: or a :norc:

Chris_j
23-09-14, 22:09
Surely each retaliation results in a turnover penalty. The final 10.4(l) offence dictates who it is awarded to. Who started it is irrelevant in determining the PK recipient. You only need to see the final act for that. Who gets the cards is a different matter.

Rushforth
24-09-14, 00:09
Surely each retaliation results in a turnover penalty. The final 10.4(l) offence dictates who it is awarded to. Who started it is irrelevant in determining the PK recipient. You only need to see the final act for that. Who gets the cards is a different matter.

Yes, absolutely, but the discussion has moved on to what to do when a couple of players are fighting with the referee having no idea who started it, the rest of the players having continued to play rather than join the brawl or handbags.

In my case, I identified the two initial miscreants, but not which of them started it and which retaliated. I also identified the last twit in, so at least there was no doubt as to who should get the penalty.

I can live with my decision to be lenient and give only three yellow cards; I counted back from red for the last one. I believe there is concensus on the final 10.4(l) - which is what I wrote down as opposed to the physical offence of (b).

That said, I would appreciate guidelines - or rather consistency - on what to do in this other case. I can live with a scrum, and although I've not restarted with a scrum after a yellow card myself yet am interested in the side-discussion.