PDA

View Full Version : Sorry to be a party pooper



FightOrFlight
04-11-14, 22:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyr0Bpsozqg

This is no try for me and a fairly big blown call by the referee.

The thing that caught my attention when I first watched the video was the fact an attacking player is not wearing a jersey. This was before the tap was taken....I was then stunned to see said player score the try and the referee award it.

Try scorer is not properly attired to play (As he has no jersey on) and the referee should have a) noticed and told him to put a jersey on or, b) disallowed the try and penalised the attackers for a player improperly attired.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-11-14, 23:11
I recall Jean Deysel (you know DrSTU's boyfriend) running around half naked for about 5 minutes during a S15/Currie Cup game for the Sharks/Natal last year. The referee didn't penalise him AFAIK although he didn't score.

crossref
04-11-14, 23:11
Clever PK though

talbazar
05-11-14, 00:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyr0Bpsozqg

This is no try for me and a fairly big blown call by the referee.

The thing that caught my attention when I first watched the video was the fact an attacking player is not wearing a jersey. This was before the tap was taken....I was then stunned to see said player score the try and the referee award it.

Try scorer is not properly attired to play (As he has no jersey on) and the referee should have a) noticed and told him to put a jersey on or, b) disallowed the try and penalised the attackers for a player improperly attired.

Agreed the ref should probably have told the player to wear is jersey before the PK is taken. AKA "manage it".
Now, what is the materiality of the scoring player not wearing a jersey?
In other words: did that player remove his jersey on purpose before the play or did he lose it in the previous ruck and didn't have/take time to put it back on?
Come back to the referee's goal: find a reason not to blow the whistle....


Clever PK though
Yup, and funny that was tried by the Barbarians against Australia (without a score though...

FightOrFlight
05-11-14, 00:11
Agreed the ref should probably have told the player to wear is jersey before the PK is taken. AKA "manage it".
Now, what is the materiality of the scoring player not wearing a jersey?
In other words: did that player remove his jersey on purpose before the play or did he lose it in the previous ruck and didn't have/take time to put it back on?
Come back to the referee's goal: find a reason not to blow the whistle.......

He has his jersey tucked in the back of his shorts.

Having no jersey gives him an advantage over other players as he cannot be gripped by the jersey and he is also hard to identify for the referee given that he has no jersey or number and thus no colour etc. He is committing an offence under "fitness to play" laws and scores a try while doing so.....more than material IMO.

crossref
05-11-14, 00:11
What sort of game was it? Level etc,

That sort of move is always going to work better against amateurs than internationals..

Drift
05-11-14, 00:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyr0Bpsozqg

This is no try for me and a fairly big blown call by the referee.

The thing that caught my attention when I first watched the video was the fact an attacking player is not wearing a jersey. This was before the tap was taken....I was then stunned to see said player score the try and the referee award it.

Try scorer is not properly attired to play (As he has no jersey on) and the referee should have a) noticed and told him to put a jersey on or, b) disallowed the try and penalised the attackers for a player improperly attired.

In the grand scheme of things not having a shirt on isn't the worst thing ever. He may have had it ripped off in the previous passage of play, also if you look at the referee he doesn't look at the player at all in the lead up (the player is always behind his back) so I going to give the referee the benefit of the doubt here.

If you are PKing that where is your game empathy?

FightOrFlight
05-11-14, 01:11
In the grand scheme of things not having a shirt on isn't the worst thing ever. He may have had it ripped off in the previous passage of play, also if you look at the referee he doesn't look at the player at all in the lead up (the player is always behind his back) so I going to give the referee the benefit of the doubt here.

If you are PKing that where is your game empathy?

If he knocked it on just as he was touching it down would you let it go out of game empathy? If a player was clearly offside from the kick would you let it go? If challenged by the defenders on this what possible explanation can the referee give for awarding the try and flouting law? The day you start "letting it go" out of empathy is the day you compromise your standards and set yourself on a slippery slope.

It is not ripped off as he has it in his hand at the start and chooses not to put it back on, instead tucking it in his shorts.

I would argue not having a shirt is a big enough deal. Opposition cannot tackle on your jersey....it is harder to wrap a sweaty body without the friction of a jersey AND particularly relevant in this incident in close quarters opposition players cannot readily tell if you are friend or foe.

talbazar
05-11-14, 07:11
If he knocked it on just as he was touching it down would you let it go out of game empathy? If a player was clearly offside from the kick would you let it go? If challenged by the defenders on this what possible explanation can the referee give for awarding the try and flouting law? The day you start "letting it go" out of empathy is the day you compromise your standards and set yourself on a slippery slope.

It is not ripped off as he has it in his hand at the start and chooses not to put it back on, instead tucking it in his shorts.

I would argue not having a shirt is a big enough deal. Opposition cannot tackle on your jersey....it is harder to wrap a sweaty body without the friction of a jersey AND particularly relevant in this incident in close quarters opposition players cannot readily tell if you are friend or foe.

Are you, by any chance, a player/coach/supporter of the team conceding the try in this video? :sarc:

Simon Thomas
05-11-14, 07:11
Buzzer had gone, they had been stuffed, and last play of match - empathy on the day should prevail.

RobLev
05-11-14, 09:11
Buzzer had gone, they had been stuffed, and last play of match - empathy on the day should prevail.

Just a thought; if they'd taken the time to permit the player to replace his jersey, would the try have been scored, or would the defence have been sufficiently organised to deal with what came? If not, then the problem isn't so much with the lack of jersey, but with intentionally not replacing it so as to be able to take the move quickly.

FlipFlop
05-11-14, 09:11
Jersey not on is immaterial. At no time was the player able to be tackled (he leaps in the air to catch the ball, then fell to ground to score the try).

Yes he could have put it on and didn't, but it had no effect. If that match had carried on, a quick word, and move on.

Phil E
05-11-14, 10:11
Pick your battles.
Clear, obvious and expected.

To penalise the shirtless player 'in that situation' is none of the above, and merely highlights you as a pedantic jobsworth who is only interested in demonstrating his knowledge of the law; rather than facilitating a game of rugby.

Bunniksider
05-11-14, 10:11
I saw the same penalty move done succesfully in a L8 league match last year. It was at Dukinfield and by Dukinfield but I'm not 100% sure of the oppo, Oswestry I think. No shirt issues to worry about

crossref
05-11-14, 11:11
Aside : I love the way we are discussing whether a jersey is material

didds
05-11-14, 11:11
Yep - Hawera Athletic used this playing at home in the early 1990s - the in-goal's were a full 22m-ish (bloody big anyway!) and often visiting teams wouldn't defend deep in the in-goal but on the line. With such a deep in-goal it was almost a guaranteed score with no deep defender.

didds

RobLev
05-11-14, 14:11
Jersey not on is immaterial. At no time was the player able to be tackled (he leaps in the air to catch the ball, then fell to ground to score the try).

Yes he could have put it on and didn't, but it had no effect. If that match had carried on, a quick word, and move on.

True, the shirtlessness seems appropriately immaterial; but was the fact that the penalty could only be taken quickly if he didn't replace his shirt material?

DrSTU
05-11-14, 14:11
Yep, didn't score but did gain possession of the ball and attack before being tackled. No pk against him.

FightOrFlight
05-11-14, 17:11
Jersey not on is immaterial. At no time was the player able to be tackled (he leaps in the air to catch the ball, then fell to ground to score the try).

Yes he could have put it on and didn't, but it had no effect. If that match had carried on, a quick word, and move on.


Pick your battles.
Clear, obvious and expected.

To penalise the shirtless player 'in that situation' is none of the above, and merely highlights you as a pedantic jobsworth who is only interested in demonstrating his knowledge of the law; rather than facilitating a game of rugby.

It is very material or could have been in so far as the defenders cannot tell if the player is friend or foe. A defender looking to catch the ball will be looking for opposition colours approaching not some shirtless streaker.

I was having a chat with my old games master at a schools blitz today. He is a top level assessor for the IRFU and has done some Rabo assessment too. I played him the clip on my phone and he said that had that happened in an All Ireland League game or the Rabo it would have been a critical incident and raised with the referee afterwards.
He then told me that about 10 years ago in the AIL where there was an incident sounding similar to the Sharks one there but the shirtless guy scored a try. The referee in question was down graded for the remainder of the season for allowing it.

Dixie
05-11-14, 20:11
It is very material or could have been in so far as the defenders cannot tell if the player is friend or foe. A defender looking to catch the ball will be looking for opposition colours approaching not some shirtless streaker.

I was having a chat with my old games master at a schools blitz today. He is a top level assessor for the IRFU and has done some Rabo assessment too. I played him the clip on my phone and he said that had that happened in an All Ireland League game or the Rabo it would have been a critical incident and raised with the referee afterwards.
He then told me that about 10 years ago in the AIL where there was an incident sounding similar to the Sharks one there but the shirtless guy scored a try. The referee in question was down graded for the remainder of the season for allowing it.

So: what law are you going to quote? There is no law of the game requiring a player to wear any clothing at all. The best you can do is a definition of players' clothing in the preamble to Law 4. There is no sanction offered for wearing incorrect clothing, other than being required by the referee to remove it, and a penalty for failing to do so. Nor is there any requirement for HOW the player is to wear his jersey. It would be possible to argue that by having it tucked into the back of his shorts, the player was indeed wearing it. But the most interesting thing for me is Law 4.5(b):

b) The referee has power to decide at any time, before or during the match, that part of a player’s clothing is dangerous or illegal. If the referee decides that clothing is dangerous or illegal the referee must order the player to remove it. The player must not take part in the
match until the items of clothing are removed.

So if the referee saw blood on the jersey, he should order it to be removed, and prevent the player from taking part until the jersey is gone. Nothing in that law requires it to be replaced.

As Phil E observes: pick your fights. This one is not worth hanging your reputation on.

chbg
05-11-14, 21:11
"A player wears a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots" (Law 4 Definitions) is often taken to imply that these items must be worn ... as opposed to "Additional Items of Clothing" (4.1) which "may" be worn.

thepercy
05-11-14, 21:11
"A player wears a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots" (Law 4 Definitions) is often taken to imply that these items must be worn ... as opposed to "Additional Items of Clothing" (4.1) which "may" be worn.

Sorry ladies, the law requires that I check to ensure you are all wearing underwear.

Pegleg
05-11-14, 22:11
Pick your battles.
Clear, obvious and expected.

To penalise the shirtless player 'in that situation' is none of the above, and merely highlights you as a pedantic jobsworth who is only interested in demonstrating his knowledge of the law; rather than facilitating a game of rugby.

Spot on.

ChrisR
06-11-14, 13:11
3066

F.O Flight, making his international refereeing debut, shocks the rugby world by binning All Blacks skipper Richie McCaw at the coin toss for not having his shirt tucked in his shorts.

"This isn't soccer", he was heard to say,

Camquin
06-11-14, 13:11
Do we have to check all the players are wearing underwear?

Camquin

SimonSmith
06-11-14, 14:11
I delegate that to the Assessor

cf Womble/scores

Dixie
06-11-14, 16:11
"A player wears a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots" (Law 4 Definitions) is often taken to imply that these items must be worn ... as opposed to "Additional Items of Clothing" (4.1) which "may" be worn.

Back in my playing days, I was tackled a few metre short of the line and my boot came off. The ball was recycled through two phases and came back to me on the wing, where I scored - with only one boot on. I contend that any referee disallowing that score and instead penalising me for being improperly dressed would rightly be spoken to firmly by his Society, and demoted until he could differentiate the irrationally picky from the essence of a refereeing decision. By the way, Moses was the ref on the day, and he awarded the try without mention of my lack of sandal!

Mat 04
06-11-14, 20:11
It is very material or could have been in so far as the defenders cannot tell if the player is friend or foe. A defender looking to catch the ball will be looking for opposition colours approaching not some shirtless streaker.

I agree. Would anybody be calling it pedantic if the topless player had an abrasion on his chest? A small cut? An open wound perhaps? It is a slippery slope and it is far better and safer to ensure that players are deterred from taking part when not properly attired.

I can see that this player hasn't come into contact with any players while topless but I would disallow the try nonetheless. In this case I would have explained why I came to that decision and allowed them to restart with the original penalty.

Three people are at fault in this video. One player for not putting his jersey back on, another for restarting play in view of that and the referee for allowing the try.

crossref
06-11-14, 20:11
For those who disallow the try, what's the restart?

Simon Thomas
06-11-14, 21:11
I delegate that to the Assessor

cf Womble/scores

Not in our job description Mr Smith :chin: