PDA

View Full Version : Citing Commissioner



Browner
29-05-15, 15:05
Given the "Final say" powers of a Citing Commissioner to override match day referees , where can you find the list of such highly qualified persons in RFU ?

& what is the pathway toward being appointed ?

(Rumour memory says one CC jumped from being a L5/6/7 club coach straight to being a CC, )

Jacko
29-05-15, 15:05
Given the "Final say" powers of a Citing Commissioner to override match day referees , where can you find the list of such highly qualified persons in RFU ?

& what is the pathway toward being appointed ?

(Rumour memory says one CC jumped from being a L5/6/7 club coach straight to being a CC, )

No list I'm aware of.
They're appointed by the Head of Discipline I believe.
No idea whether there's a pathway. I think they appoint people who they think would be good at it (due to relevant experience) and train them up. It's the sort of role which you can shadow an experienced colleague very easily.

Pegleg
29-05-15, 15:05
Given the "Final say" powers of a Citing Commissioner to override match day referees...


Who says they have a power of "final say"? Surely they are an additional resource to support the referee.

Browner
29-05-15, 15:05
Who says they have a power of "final say"? Surely they are an additional resource to support the referee.

Nope.

World Rugby Reg 17.10.2
. A Citing Commissioners decision on whether a Player should be cited ...... is final

Jacko
29-05-15, 15:05
Who says they have a power of "final say"? Surely they are an additional resource to support the referee.

Good point on them not being "final say". There have been citings which have been dismissed at disciplinary hearings, so they are a more final say. And there have been disciplinary hearings which have been overturned on appeal - even more final!
They are just another part of the process.

Pegleg
29-05-15, 15:05
Nope.

World Rugby Reg 17.10.2


Obviously only a citing officer can submit a citing. However, Only the ref can issue a red card. That has far greater implications (removal from the game itself!) than a citing. There are things a ref does / can not see that the citing officer can "mop up" etc.

It seems you have an issue with the process. I wonder why?

Dixie
29-05-15, 16:05
Obviously only a citing officer can submit a citing. Does anyone know if this is correct at all levels of the pro game? Certainly at the lower levels in England, anyone may cite anyone else for breaches of discipline. I suspect this does taper off as we go higher (otherwise there would be a million citings every time Richie McCaw played, almost all of them for just being too darned good), but where is the point at which only the citing commissioner can make the citing?

Dixie
29-05-15, 16:05
It seems you have an issue with the process. I wonder why? I think it's a fair point. The thread arose from a suggestion that Yuan Huget had escaped a citing for a deliberate stamp on an opponent's face, with the only rationale anyone can think of being the wish not to damage French chances in the RWC. If a citing commissioner is dependent for his income on the national federation, there may be a perception of undue influence even if none exists. And as fifa shows, an opaque process is usually there for a reason - and the reason is rarely innocuous. Who are these people, who pays them and on what criteria are they selected? If all that is transparent, the muttering would stop, or else the obvious conflicts would be addressed.

Browner
29-05-15, 16:05
It seems you have an issue with the process. I wonder why?

I know that a referee will have been subjected to a vast amount of coaching and assessment training and match decision review/analysis and all his decisions are publically displayed during the game

CC ????

Browner
29-05-15, 17:05
Does anyone know if this is correct at all levels of the pro game? Certainly at the lower levels in England, anyone may cite anyone else for breaches of discipline........but where is the point at which only the citing commissioner can make the citing?

L2 based on my reading ( but I'm happy to be corrected)

Seems there are various different levels
WR Regs
Union - RFU then have L1-2 regs
Non Pro - RFU then have separate L3-12 regs ( its not anyone, its club officers who have a submission remit )

SimonSmith
29-05-15, 18:05
In America, and concerned party may submit a citation for any incident that was unseen by the referee. If the referee saw it, then there can be no citation.

Only a CC may trump a referee's judgment.

17.11 I think (I know because as DC I have had to dismiss citings because the referee had seen the event in question)

crossref
29-05-15, 20:05
I heard about a case where a parent contacted the RFU to complain about how a referee had handled a violent incident at a youth game.
The RFU didn't dismiss this this as being outwith any protocol (which no doubt it was) they looked into it. ...

Pegleg
29-05-15, 21:05
I know that a referee will have been subjected to a vast amount of coaching and assessment training and match decision review/analysis and all his decisions are publically displayed during the game

CC ????

A CC can cite and the DC will reach a verdict. A "poor" call will result in the citing being dismissed. If a CC keeps getting his citings dismissed, I'm sure that his position would be "reviewed".

Any such "poor" call does not imbalance the game as the player has not been sent from the field. So his impact is far smaller than that of a referee. Is it not?

You have still not explained why you think they "override" referees.

Pegleg
29-05-15, 21:05
Does anyone know if this is correct at all levels of the pro game? Certainly at the lower levels in England, anyone may cite anyone else for breaches of discipline. I suspect this does taper off as we go higher (otherwise there would be a million citings every time Richie McCaw played, almost all of them for just being too darned good), but where is the point at which only the citing commissioner can make the citing?

Clubs here seems to be able to alert the CC to "offences" he then make the call whether to cite or not. Other places may well have different regulations.

However, Browner's claim that the CC somehow "overrides" the ref is nonsense. As pointed out, the DC can dismiss ( overrule) either a red card or a citing. So both the ref and citing commisioner are in a position to be overruled rather than to overrule.

Ian_Cook
29-05-15, 23:05
Clubs here seems to be able to alert the CC to "offences" he then make the call whether to cite or not. Other places may well have different regulations.

Only at Level 1 and Level 2

From RFU Regulation 19 - Appendix 4

6. A Club participating in a match may refer any incidents in the match to the Citing Commissioner that they want him/her to consider, within the timescales set out below:

Premiership: 4 hours of conclusion of the match
Championship: 8 hours of conclusion of the match

Below Level 2 the clubs report Citings to their CB or the RFU Head of Discipline

Levels 3-12 of the Game
1. A citing complaint can only be made by Clubs participating in the relevant match.
2. A citing may be initiated where there is an allegation that a Player committed an act of illegal/Foul Play but was not awarded a red card for that act

4.1 All evidence supporting the citing shall be received by the Constituent Body or the RFU Head of Discipline at least 2 days before the hearing. However, in the interests of ensuring the fairness of the proceedings the Chairman of the Disciplinary Panel appointed to deal with the matter has discretion to vary this provision


However, Browner's claim that the CC somehow "overrides" the ref is nonsense. As pointed out, the DC can dismiss ( overrule) either a red card or a citing. So both the ref and citing commisioner are in a position to be overruled rather than to overrule.

Yes.

The CC is just another link in the disciplinary chain. Sometimes their decision is at odds with the referee's decision and they report such opinion to a higher authority. If the referee awards a RC, the CC has no power to overrule that!

Sometimes, they see incidents that all the match officials missed and report them accordingly.

CCs do not have any kind of "final say"

Browner
30-05-15, 06:05
Any such "poor" call does not imbalance the game as the player has not been sent from the field. So his impact is far smaller than that of a referee. Is it not?

You have still not explained why you think they "override" referees.

I'm not talking about unbalancing the game, the referee considered the DH incident and deemed it not worthy of a even a YC.
The CC ( who was it? Does anyone know? ) then decides it is so severe its above above a Level 1 citing , and that eff kmectively overrides the referee decision to send the player to a hearing.

Who are these highly influential CC people? What experience/traing do they have? Evidence are they any more qualified to opinionise about foul play severity than say ..... Austin Healey, or an experienced referee , or you ???

winchesterref
30-05-15, 07:05
Easy to see what Browner means. He might not have worded it well, but it seems like he's now often disagreed with "just because".

Pegleg
30-05-15, 08:05
I'm not talking about unbalancing the game, the referee considered the DH incident and deemed it not worthy of a even a YC.
The CC ( who was it? Does anyone know? ) then decides it is so severe its above above a Level 1 citing , and that eff kmectively overrides the referee decision to send the player to a hearing.

Who are these highly influential CC people? What experience/traing do they have? Evidence are they any more qualified to opinionise about foul play severity than say ..... Austin Healey, or an experienced referee , or you ???


Now we are getting to it.

The point of a CC is that they have the benefit of watching TV angles "at leisure" to see what is not allways evident to the referee in real time. A safety net or back stop if you like. We all know we see things on video and realise we did not make the right call during the game. either due to the angle of our view (and unless our positioning was poor we have to just accept that) or possible we simply miss it in the speed of the game ( again we are only human) Nothing about "overruling" a referee.

CCs tend, here at least to be former referees, England may have different criteria. So here, at least, they know a RED card when they see one.

Regarding the specific DH case. It will be easy for you to find out who the CC was. It will be a mater of record.Perhaps you would be advised to check to see who he was and ehat his credentials are?

What is their "Influence? They are not judge and jury, that role belongs to the DC. They are merely a second line of "policeman" working to support the ref in his dificult task.

The DC decided that Haartley's offence was worthy of a red card. Did they "overrule" the ref? Possibly. They may have concluded that his judgement was in error. alternatively they may have concluded that from his angle his call was fair enough but from the other angles is was a red card.

Pegleg
30-05-15, 09:05
Only at Level 1 and Level 2

From RFU Regulation 19 - Appendix 4

6. A Club participating in a match may refer any incidents in the match to the Citing Commissioner that they want him/her to consider, within the timescales set out below:

Premiership: 4 hours of conclusion of the match
Championship: 8 hours of conclusion of the match

Below Level 2 the clubs report Citings to their CB or the RFU Head of Discipline

Levels 3-12 of the Game
1. A citing complaint can only be made by Clubs participating in the relevant match.
2. A citing may be initiated where there is an allegation that a Player committed an act of illegal/Foul Play but was not awarded a red card for that act

4.1 All evidence supporting the citing shall be received by the Constituent Body or the RFU Head of Discipline at least 2 days before the hearing. However, in the interests of ensuring the fairness of the proceedings the Chairman of the Disciplinary Panel appointed to deal with the matter has discretion to vary this provision



Yes.

The CC is just another link in the disciplinary chain. Sometimes their decision is at odds with the referee's decision and they report such opinion to a higher authority. If the referee awards a RC, the CC has no power to overrule that!

Sometimes, they see incidents that all the match officials missed and report them accordingly.

CCs do not have any kind of "final say"


Just checked our (WRU) reg and citings can be made by:

A Player may be cited for an act of foul play by:
(a)
a Club involved in the relevant match;
(b)
a match official involved in the relevant match; or
(c)
a member of the WRU Board of Directors.


We do not have the resources to appoint CCs in the semi pro and community game. I understand that in the Pro 12 then it is only the CC though the side can ask him to "take a look".

So it does vary from country to country.

Ian_Cook
30-05-15, 10:05
The DC decided that Haartley's offence was worthy of a red card. Did they "overrule" the ref? Possibly. They may have concluded that his judgement was in error. alternatively they may have concluded that from his angle his call was fair enough but from the other angles is was a red card.


100%.

I have lost count of the number of times in the last two or three seasons that players have been YC for a tip tackle and subsequently cited. Just in last weekend's Waratahs v Crusaders match the Latu/Skelton Tip Tackle on Whitelock

Latu got a YC
Skelton got nothing
The CC cited them both and they both got suspended

This is the system WORKING to remove thugs from the playing field

As to the head butting incident with Hartley, while it was not a "big" headbutt, it was also not one of those spur of the moment "in the heat of the contest" actions, it was premeditated. He walked directly towards Jamie George and intentionally made head to head contact. In my book, this is a RC all day long.


ETA:

Here is a list of some of the Aviva Premiership CC's from last season (2013/14). I haven't yet found a list for this season

Bruce Reece-Russel - was the RFU Disciplinary manager 13 years until 2012

John Byett - Team Manager at Hamphire RFU

Shaun Gallagher - RFU Citing Officer since 2012

Tony Lanaway - RFU Citing Officer since 2010

Matt Bayliss - former Gloucester player and international referee, now and RFU and WR Citing Offcier,

Budge Pountney - former Northampton Saints player and Scotland international. RFU Citing Officer since 2005

Simon Thomas
30-05-15, 10:05
Who are these highly influential CC people? What experience/traing do they have? Evidence are they any more qualified to opinionise about foul play severity than say ..... Austin Healey, or an experienced referee , or you ???

For example three of the RFU Elite Rugby Citing Officers are Mike Rafter, Wade Dooley and Danny Grewcock - all three England Internationals and the latter two Lions. All three well known by their peers for their "robust and physical play" as we used to call it. I contend significantly better "qualified to opinion about foul play severity" at the elite level than a qualified community referee or you". As for being better than Austin (or Stu Barnes) well that is a no brainier.

Citing Officer training and appraisal will be part of the Elite protocol and performance feedback structures that all Elite Match Officials are engaged with.

In the above postings no one has mentioned the role of a Society (or Federation or Group) appointed Match Observer / Ref Coach / Adviser who have full Citing powers under RFU disciplinary Regs, and do occasionally use them. I have done so three times in the last five seasons.

Ian_Cook
30-05-15, 11:05
Simon, are the guys I listed in my last post still serving as Citing Offciers (the were last season)?

I'm sure I read somewhere that Matt Baylss was recently honoured by the RFU for long service, and Bruce Reece-Russel has been around ten RFU for a long time

Pegleg
30-05-15, 13:05
In the above postings no one has mentioned the role of a Society (or Federation or Group) appointed Match Observer / Ref Coach / Adviser who have full Citing powers under RFU disciplinary Regs, and do occasionally use them. I have done so three times in the last five seasons.

Post 19
"(b)
a match official involved in the relevant match"

This covers assessors (advisors etc) appointed to WRU juristiction games."

Simon Thomas
30-05-15, 13:05
Simon, are the guys I listed in my last post still serving as Citing Offciers (the were last season)?

I'm sure I read somewhere that Matt Baylss was recently honoured by the RFU for long service, and Bruce Reece-Russel has been around ten RFU for a long time

Not sure about Matt Bayliss but as BR2 is a Hampshire man, I have known him well for many years. He was Head of RFU Disciplinary for many years until he retired. He and the good Judge (another Hamphire and Navy man) worked very hard over the years to set up the framework system for what we now have and it was BR2 who was on the working party with Jonnie Johnson who wrote the initial proposal for Citing Officers back in the day. I had a long chat with Jonnie about those days at the London 125 Dinner last year.

Budge has been coaching and DOR at Totton College as a centre of rugby excellence for a couple of years and threatens to do the ELRA. I know John Byett quite well, and he is an ex player at County level, as was his son. He has been a Team Manager at L5 Club, Hampshire U20 & County XV and touring England teams and is an RFU Ambassador doing a lot of work with emerging nations. Both well qualified to be CCs.

Simon Thomas
30-05-15, 13:05
Post 19
"(b)
a match official involved in the relevant match"

This covers assessors (advisors etc) appointed to WRU juristiction games."



Apologies but I had not read your post when I typed my first one. I need to get back up to speed on this forum.

Browner
30-05-15, 13:05
For example three of the RFU Elite Rugby Citing Officers are Mike Rafter, Wade Dooley and Danny Grewcock - all three England Internationals and the latter two Lions.

All three well known by their peers for their "robust and physical play" as we used to call it. I contend significantly better "qualified to opinion about foul play severity" at the elite level than a qualified community referee or you"


Your contention Simon, is noted.

I'm not a Northampton supporter, nor a fan of DH petulances, but I don't see his stupid but relatively minor contact extending beyond the "almost Red Card" threshold of a Level 1 citing.

A former international players ability to 'dish it out when he decided' is almost irrelevant in making him a better judge of foul play severity, ( it could be argued that it does the exact opposite) notwithstanding that, by that measure alone DH is a future Citing Commissioner !

Is there a published formal pathway? Or is there some other invitation route ?

Dickie E
30-05-15, 22:05
For example three of the RFU Elite Rugby Citing Officers are Mike Rafter, Wade Dooley and Danny Grewcock - all three England Internationals and the latter two Lions. All three well known by their peers for their "robust and physical play" as we used to call it.

Poachers turned gamekeepers. I like it.

Dickie E
30-05-15, 22:05
Is there a published formal pathway? Or is there some other invitation route ?

Might be similar to becoming a FIFA luminary :)

Ian_Cook
31-05-15, 00:05
but I don't see his stupid but relatively minor contact extending beyond the "almost Red Card" threshold of a Level 1 citing.

I would really rather not pick an argument with you given your history of ignoring the advice of people who are far more experienced than you are, but I am not going to allow to go unchallenged, your contention that the head butt for which Hartley was cited, was in any way a minor contact, not on a forum for referees at least.

What part of "making intentional head contact with an opponent's head" eludes you? There is no such thing as a "minor head-butt". What Hartley did was premeditated and intentional. It was not a spur-of-the-moment reaction to something his opponent did when they were face to face in conflict and in the heat of battle. Hartley walked right up to his opponent and made intentional head-to-head contact. That is a RC all day long every, day of the week on any pitch where I am in the middle with the whistle, because a head butt cannot be construed as intending anything besides harm and injury to to your opponent. This is especially so given the current focus on concussion in the game.

Given the fact the you have recently railed against players attacking their opponents' heads in rucks mauls and tackles (and rightly so IMO) I find your attitude to this particular incident to be completely at odds with that prior stance!

SimonSmith
31-05-15, 00:05
I posted something similar to the USA Referees Facebook page.

if you let that go, where is the line that demarcates an OK butt from an RC butt?

Dickie E
31-05-15, 03:05
I would really rather not pick an argument with you given your history of ignoring the advice of people who are far more experienced than you are,

This is argumentum ad hominem and is poor form. But I guess you're looking for any reason for a blue

Dickie E
31-05-15, 03:05
but I don't see his stupid but relatively minor contact extending beyond the "almost Red Card" threshold of a Level 1 citing.



That wasn't a headbutt, THIS is a headbutt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaK3C1f8z3U

Tend to agree head contact relatively minor. No injury sustained, just a bit of forehead to forehead contact in post-try jubilation. RC but nothing further IMO.

Simon Thomas
31-05-15, 06:05
Is there a published formal pathway? Or is there some other invitation route ?

No formal pathway that I am aware of. Same as for TMO and timekeeper. I suspect there is a role definition and candidate criteria paper within the Elite Disciplinary team.

Ian_Cook
31-05-15, 10:05
This is argumentum ad hominem and is poor form.

Actually, its just a statement of fact.


But I guess you're looking for any reason for a blue

No, I am simply not allowing certain statements to go unchallenged. If this was Planet Rugby, I wouldn't bother because such statements would be lost in the general background noise.


Tend to agree head contact relatively minor. No injury sustained, just a bit of forehead to forehead contact in post-try jubilation. RC but nothing further IMO.

So you agree its a RC at least? OK, then proceed from there.

A RC is, for all intents an purposes, an automatic citing and as such any player RC must face a Judiciary Hearing; this is mandated in WR regulations

WR Regulation 17.14.5 The Host Union’s or Tournament Organiser’s nominated officer shall supply the Player Ordered Off with a copy of the referee's report and, where applicable, the assistant referee's report and any other relevant evidence as soon as reasonably practicable and shall advise the Player:

(a) of the date, place and time of the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer hearing at which the disciplinary proceedings will be heard;

(b) of the identity of the Disciplinary Committee members or Judicial Officer;

Once this happens, there are only three possible ways that no further action can be taken against the player...

1. The player is found not guilty
2. The charge against the player is reduced to a YC offence
3. The player is found guilty but the judiciary decide no further action is to be taken.

Since we both agree this is a RC offence, it would in this instance rule out #1 and #2, which leaves only #3

When the Judiciary find the player guilty, at this point, before considering what suspension (if any) to impose, they will look at his prior record.

17.19 Sanctions and Core Sanctioning Process
17.19.1 In any case where a Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers an incident(s) of Foul Play has occurred, it/he may decide to impose a sanction in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 17.19. When imposing sanctions, all Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers dealing with an Ordering Off and/or citing shall apply the IRB’s sanctions for Foul Play set out in Appendix 1 and do so in accordance with this Regulation 17.19.

Aggravating Factors
17.19.4 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall identify any relevant off-field aggravating factors and determine what additional period of suspension, if any, above the applicable entry point for the offence should apply to the case in question. Aggravating factors include:

(a) the Player’s status generally as an offender of the Laws of the
Game4

4 The Player’s disciplinary record in all competitions and (as appropriate) in other sports during his playing career from the age of 18 shall be considered by a Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer. In any case in which the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer establishes that the Player has previously been found by a Judicial Officer and/or Disciplinary Committee to have committed any act of Foul Play and/or Misconduct then the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer in imposing any sanction on the Player may in fixing that sanction take account of such offending as an aggravating factor.)

The upshot of this is that as soon as the player is found guilty, regardless of how severe (or not) the Judiciary think the charged offence was, the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the player's previous disciplinary record, MUST come into play.

In Hartley's case, even if the judiciary did agree with your position that the offence of it self warranted no further sanction (and they clearly did not), they would find themselves faced with a player who has served 50 weeks in suspensions for acts of foul play that include biting, eye gouging, punching, striking and verbally abusing a referee.

Do you seriously believe they still could have taken no further action with such a player?

Dickie E
31-05-15, 10:05
Do you seriously believe they still could have taken no further action with such a player?

I make no comment regarding the player. My comment is solely on the incident.

Pegleg
31-05-15, 11:05
This is argumentum ad hominem and is poor form. But I guess you're looking for any reason for a blue

Nonsense! The argument being put forward by Browner is so full of holes you could strain cabbage in it! If you put an argument forward expect it to be challenged and possibly riddiculed!

Pegleg
31-05-15, 11:05
Actually, its just a statement of fact.



No, I am simply not allowing certain statements to go unchallenged. If this was Planet Rugby, I wouldn't bother because such statements would be lost in the general background noise.



So you agree its a RC at least? OK, then proceed from there.

A RC is, for all intents an purposes, an automatic citing and as such any player RC must face a Judiciary Hearing; this is mandated in WR regulations

WR Regulation 17.14.5 The Host Union’s or Tournament Organiser’s nominated officer shall supply the Player Ordered Off with a copy of the referee's report and, where applicable, the assistant referee's report and any other relevant evidence as soon as reasonably practicable and shall advise the Player:

(a) of the date, place and time of the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer hearing at which the disciplinary proceedings will be heard;

(b) of the identity of the Disciplinary Committee members or Judicial Officer;

Once this happens, there are only three possible ways that no further action can be taken against the player...

1. The player is found not guilty
2. The charge against the player is reduced to a YC offence
3. The player is found guilty but the judiciary decide no further action is to be taken.

Since we both agree this is a RC offence, it would in this instance rule out #1 and #2, which leaves only #3

When the Judiciary find the player guilty, at this point, before considering what suspension (if any) to impose, they will look at his prior record.

17.19 Sanctions and Core Sanctioning Process
17.19.1 In any case where a Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers an incident(s) of Foul Play has occurred, it/he may decide to impose a sanction in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 17.19. When imposing sanctions, all Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers dealing with an Ordering Off and/or citing shall apply the IRB’s sanctions for Foul Play set out in Appendix 1 and do so in accordance with this Regulation 17.19.

Aggravating Factors
17.19.4 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall identify any relevant off-field aggravating factors and determine what additional period of suspension, if any, above the applicable entry point for the offence should apply to the case in question. Aggravating factors include:

(a) the Player’s status generally as an offender of the Laws of the
Game4

4 The Player’s disciplinary record in all competitions and (as appropriate) in other sports during his playing career from the age of 18 shall be considered by a Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer. In any case in which the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer establishes that the Player has previously been found by a Judicial Officer and/or Disciplinary Committee to have committed any act of Foul Play and/or Misconduct then the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer in imposing any sanction on the Player may in fixing that sanction take account of such offending as an aggravating factor.)

The upshot of this is that as soon as the player is found guilty, regardless of how severe (or not) the Judiciary think the charged offence was, the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the player's previous disciplinary record, MUST come into play.

In Hartley's case, even if the judiciary did agree with your position that the offence of it self warranted no further sanction (and they clearly did not), they would find themselves faced with a player who has served 50 weeks in suspensions for acts of foul play that include biting, eye gouging, punching, striking and verbally abusing a referee.

Do you seriously believe they still could have taken no further action with such a player?


Spot on! As soon as some one acknowleges that it was a red card then a DC has to follow. By all logic you accept that the citing is also correct.

The fact that there is a DC hearing porves that the CC is NOT the judge and jury and nor is he "overruling the referee".

Well said Ian!

Pegleg
31-05-15, 11:05
I make no comment regarding the player. My comment is solely on the incident.


But the procedure demands that the DC does:

"Aggravating Factors
17.19.4 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall identify any relevant off-field aggravating factors and determine what additional period of suspension, if any, above the applicable entry point for the offence should apply to the case in question. Aggravating factors include:

(a) the Player’s status generally as an offender of the Laws..."

Question

So was the player Guilty of a RC offence Yes or No?

(Your) Answer

YES

Question

Are there any aggravation factors (including does the player "have form")?

Answer

In the case of this player YES!


But irrespective that process and the questions have to be asked as soon as it is felt that there is a case to answer as to wether or not it was a RC offence. Which, of course, you both (Dickie & Browner [Level one citing]) felt it was.

Dickie E
31-05-15, 12:05
Nonsense!

Really? You don't see this as playing the man:


given your history of ignoring the advice of people who are far more experienced than you are,

winchesterref
31-05-15, 15:05
So is it one CC or more that look at the incident?

What makes this a RC and not Huget on Brown in the 6N? One man's opinion?

The whole thing seems full of holes and grey areas.

OB..
31-05-15, 16:05
So is it one CC or more that look at the incident?Just one, I believe.


What makes this a RC and not Huget on Brown in the 6N? One man's opinion?If that one man is the referee, yes. THE CC is always going to have to convince the Disciplinary Panel.


The whole thing seems full of holes and grey areas.It is an art, not a science You judge rather than measure.

Browner
31-05-15, 17:05
Referees either accept that there are various degrees of severity for the variety of Foul Play offences, or they don't.

Law provides PK+Admonish, YC or RC as an on field toolbox for a referee.

Citing exists as a aftermatch mop up for offences either
- not seen, or
- not dealt with correctly.
By the referee.

Within Citing referral, you have various options including
- dismiss no case to answer
- Level 1 issued
Or
forwarding to a full Hearing ( at which previous Records are taken into consideration)

Clearly deciding how serious is serious is the crux of this subject.
If the game wants only one sanction outcome for each offence, then it needs to specify the same.

JJ10
31-05-15, 20:05
Interesting....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/32953649

Looks like Huget may not escape after all.

Pegleg
31-05-15, 23:05
Really? You don't see this as playing the man:


No. I see it as timely & valid advice.

Pegleg
31-05-15, 23:05
Referees either accept that there are various degrees of severity for the variety of Foul Play offences, or they don't.

Law provides PK+Admonish, YC or RC as an on field toolbox for a referee.

Citing exists as a aftermatch mop up for offences either
- not seen, or
- not dealt with correctly.
By the referee.

Within Citing referral, you have various options including
- dismiss no case to answer
- Level 1 issued
Or
forwarding to a full Hearing ( at which previous Records are taken into consideration)

Clearly deciding how serious is serious is the crux of this subject.
If the game wants only one sanction outcome for each offence, then it needs to specify the same.

None of which supports you original point. Although the bit underlined is not accurate. Not seen from the same angle since the referee may not have the view the full incident. The ref may make a perfectly valid call from the evidence available. The CC may have a better view.

Dickie E
01-06-15, 00:06
None of which supports you original point. Although the bit underlined is not accurate. Not seen from the same angle since the referee may not have the view the full incident. The ref may make a perfectly valid call from the evidence available. The CC may have a better view.

You are missing Browner's point (I suspect maliciously).

A push to the chest is "striking". A sucker punch to the head from behind is "striking". One is more serious than the other.

Likewise forehead to forehead contact like this:3233 is less serious than a full blown Liverpool kiss.

But I'm sure you're aware of that.

Browner
01-06-15, 02:06
JonesP92"- What makes this a RC and not Huget on Brown in the 6N? One man's opinion?


If that one man is the referee, yes.THE CC is always going to have to convince the Disciplinary Panel.


Does a CC have to justify why a L1 citing ( as per RFU regs severity test ) isn't the appropriate sanction?

If not, then his unilateral-subjective opinion seems to be overweighted.

Ian_Cook
01-06-15, 02:06
You are missing Browner's point (I suspect maliciously).

"This is argumentum ad hominem and is poor form. But I guess you're looking for any reason for a blue"

Both Pegleg and I understand perfectly well what Browner's point is, we just completely disagree with it.


A push to the chest is "striking". A sucker punch to the head from behind is "striking". One is more serious than the other.

Well, actually, pushing a player is not striking at all...

Law 7 Mode of Play PLAYING A MATCH

Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

Striking is covered by its own Law clause

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick



Likewise forehead to forehead contact like this:3233 is less serious than a full blown Liverpool kiss.

But I'm sure you're aware of that.

What I am aware of is that two players going head-on-head with each other in a testosterone-fuelled pissing contest is not what happened; one player walking up straight up and intentionally banging his head into an opponents head IS what happened.

Yes, I agree that what Hartley did, as head-butts go was pretty mild, but the more important issue is that it was a contravention of the spirit of the game.

Browner
01-06-15, 04:06
I'm interested in how other referees see this subject, how do you decide on which sanction to give ( and I'm aware there are other variables such as context and game temperature and actual opponent injury etc).

But if you accept that sanctions are on an escalated scale of severity, then use the format below to think about what sanction you give in your matches for what you see

I'm well aware that whoever goes first is usually first to get shot at (!) but here goes.

Ps ...If you've major differences (such as Ian Cooke's general view that its always a RC for all deliberate Head strikes irrespective of severity of contact) , then feel free to say so, you can't offend me with different personal benchmarking.



Law 10.4
what sanction ?????

Classification = Accident / BoDoubt / Intentional / Intentional. / Intent to injure
Type of contact = Careless/ uncertain./ Deliberate/ Reckless /malicious

Strike
Fist. = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC. / RC
Arm = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC / RC
Elbow = PK / +admon / YC / YC/RC / RC
Head = PK / +admon / YC / YC /RC / RC
Knee = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC / RC
Foot = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC / RC

Citing = no / no / no. / Level 1 or Hearing in worst cases./ Hearing

Ian_Cook
01-06-15, 04:06
IPs ...If you've major differences such as Ian Cooke's general view that its always a RC for all deliberate Head strikes irrespective of severity of contact, then feel free to say so, you can't offend me with different personal benchmarking.


If you are going to post my view, I ask that you get it correct!

Browner
01-06-15, 05:06
. If you are going to post my view, I ask that you get it correct!


There is no such thing as a "minor head-butt".



. Ian Cooke's general view that its always a RC for all deliberate Head strikes irrespective of severity of contact)

???????

Ian_Cook
01-06-15, 07:06
What do you mean by "head strike"? If this is your own terminology for what everyone else calls a "head -butt" then that is fine. I consider any intentional head-butt as a RC offence.

However, if you are going to try to muddy the waters by bringing in unintended consequences of playing the game carelessly or negligibly, then count me out


But if you accept that sanctions are on an escalated scale of severity, then use the format below to think about what sanction you give in your matches for what you see

Falls at the first hurdle.

I accept that sanctions for the same offence for those offences that occur as a part of the normal playing of a match (e.g. late tackles, early tackles, high tackles, tackles, tackles without the ball, tripping etc) can vary depending on the severity of the offence. If a player strikes an opponents head as a result of one of these offences, then the severity of the sanction is going to depend on my view of the overall offence, not just the head strike.

However, I do NOT accept there are various levels of sanctions for certain classes of offence which are premeditated and intentionally committed. These are the Big Six...

Biting
Eye Gouging
Striking the opponent's head with a closed fist
Grabbing/ripping an opponent's genitalia
Head Butting
Threatening/Abusing a match official either physically or verbally

For every one of these offences, there is no "in game" excuse; there is no... "but ref, I was only trying to......". There is nothing that the player can claim he was doing (which he did illegally or carelessly) that resulted in him biting, eye-gouging, punching, bag-snatching or head-butting an opponent. If you do one of these things, then it was you intended to do, and you will be dismissed from the pitch every time if I have the whistle.

Now, if you disagree and you think there should be various levels of on-field sanctions for these, then explain to me how you judge the severity of a bag-snatch or a bite in terms of sanctions. What would be the difference, in your eyes, between a "severe" testicle grab (for which you might award a RC), a "moderate" testicle grab (for which you might award a YC), and a "mild" testicle grab (for which you might award just a PK)?

Dickie E
01-06-15, 07:06
if I have the whistle.



out of curiosity, when was the last time that happened?

Regarding Striking the opponent's head with a closed fist I see a world of difference between:

1. a player ineffectually trying to defend himself from several attackers by closing his eyes and wildly swinging his fist, and
2. a player runs in from 20 metres and strikes a defenceless opponent to the face multiple times and continues after the opponent has gone to ground.

Likewise, biting a finger that has been used as a fish hook different to biting the ear or nose of an opponent.

Squirrel grip - agree with you.

I have already differentiated the range of head contacts.

Ian_Cook
01-06-15, 09:06
out of curiosity, when was the last time that happened?.

2003 in a real match.

Just because I no longer actively referee does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion (I presume that is what you were hinting at).



Regarding Striking the opponent's head with a closed fist I see a world of difference between:

1. a player ineffectually trying to defend himself from several attackers by closing his eyes and wildly swinging his fist, and
2. a player runs in from 20 metres and strikes a defenceless opponent to the face multiple times and continues after the opponent has gone to ground.

So do I, but since your argument is a blatant strawman, it has no relevance to this discussion;

but I'll address it anyway

In your #1

► I would expect the attackers to all get RC if they are punching him,

► It is more likely that he is wildly swinging his arms to fend off the blows. There can be no intent if he is defending himself with his eyes closed!!!

In your #2

► that is always a RC

However, neither of your two scenarios have any relevance whatsoever to the Dylan Hartley situation. He was not defending himself against an opponent attacking him, he walked up to an opponent that was not near to him, after his own team had just scored, and in a premeditated act, intentionally head-butted him. That is a RC offence, all day, every day.

If it was not a RC offence, the Citing Officer would not have cited him.
If the JO had decided the citing was incorrect, he JO would have dismissed the charge.


Likewise, biting a finger that has been used as a fish hook different to biting the ear or nose of an opponent.


Squirrel grip - agree with you.

Its very hard to argue intent when a player with a finger in someone else's mouth gets it bitten.

Perhaps, as a parallel to that can you come up with a scenario where a defensive head-butt would be acceptable; NOT a retaliatory one, a defensive one?

I know it would be nice if all the foul play laws could be compartmentalised the way browner wants, with nice written instructions specified evenly across all of Law 10 as to what is a PK/YC/RC, but that is his fantasy; in real life it does not work that way.

If you have a look at Regulation 17 Appendix 1 sometime, you will see that individual types of offences are treated very differently.

Low End for Biting, Eye-Gouging and Bag-Snatching is 12 weeks; this is Top End for striking with a knee or kicking an opponent

Interestingly...

10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
LE 2 weeks
MR 5 weeks
TE 8+ weeks

10.4(a) Striking with head
LE 4 weeks
MR 10 weeks
TE 16+ weeks

Head-Butting carries twice the suspension range of punching
The LE for Head-Butting is almost MR of Punching.

You clearly cannot compare a punch with a head-butt.

crossref
01-06-15, 10:06
Head-Butting carries twice the suspension range of punching
The LE for Head-Butting is almost MR of Punching.

You clearly cannot compare a punch with a head-butt.

I imagine that the reasoning behind this is that a punch is a very instinctive action, while a headbutt is more calculated.

Ian_Cook
01-06-15, 10:06
I imagine that the reasoning behind this is that a punch is a very instinctive action, while a headbutt is more calculated.

Yes, and that is one reason why Hartley was correctly Cited, even if to some, the head-butt seemed "mild"

irishref
01-06-15, 10:06
Interesting....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/32953649

Looks like Huget may not escape after all.

Interesting but I can't see what they can actually do after the citing period has elapsed.

Pegleg
01-06-15, 10:06
You are missing Browner's point (I suspect maliciously).

A push to the chest is "striking". A sucker punch to the head from behind is "striking". One is more serious than the other.

Likewise forehead to forehead contact like this:3233 is less serious than a full blown Liverpool kiss.

But I'm sure you're aware of that.

I'm not missing his point at all. A pre-meditated head butt trumps a reaction incident. Within each example there are degrees of severity. T

But I'm sure you're aware of that!

Pegleg
01-06-15, 10:06
I'm interested in how other referees see this subject, how do you decide on which sanction to give ( and I'm aware there are other variables such as context and game temperature and actual opponent injury etc).

But if you accept that sanctions are on an escalated scale of severity, then use the format below to think about what sanction you give in your matches for what you see

I'm well aware that whoever goes first is usually first to get shot at (!) but here goes.

Ps ...If you've major differences (such as Ian Cooke's general view that its always a RC for all deliberate Head strikes irrespective of severity of contact) , then feel free to say so, you can't offend me with different personal benchmarking.



Law 10.4
what sanction ?????

Classification = Accident / BoDoubt / Intentional / Intentional. / Intent to injure
Type of contact = Careless/ uncertain./ Deliberate/ Reckless /malicious

Strike
Fist. = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC. / RC
Arm = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC / RC
Elbow = PK / +admon / YC / YC/RC / RC
Head = PK / +admon / YC / YC /RC / RC
Knee = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC / RC
Foot = PK / + admon / YC / YC/RC / RC

Citing = no / no / no. / Level 1 or Hearing in worst cases./ Hearing


For me if you strike a player with your head you are off. Whatever the classification. The DC can decide how long you are banned for. For all the others there is room for debate.

Head butts / Spitting Ref abuse are straight reds along with spear tackles as per the WR directives.

Dickie E
01-06-15, 11:06
Within each example there are degrees of severity.

We are in furious agreement