PDA

View Full Version : Did the punch connect or not?



Account Deleted
28-06-05, 18:06
On the Lions tour we have had two interesting reactions from ef & TJ to punches thrown.

Early in the series (V The Maori) Lions Prop Sheridan was sin binned for throwing a punch that did not land. The coment from the TV was "he's lucky that it did not lan or it would have been RED"

Today the Manawatua no 3 threw a punch and the TJ said "I could not see if it landed or not so just a warning."

Now what should be the criteria?

Is an attempted punch dangerous play or is it only dangerous if a punch lands?

Also Is it not dangerous if it's a poor punch but dangerous if it's a "Mike Tyson" punch.

I know my view ( A punch is a punch however good bad or accurate) but am I right?

didds
28-06-05, 19:06
i agree entirely ATTR... why should a player receive a lesser "sentence" because he was _LUCKY_ enough not to connect?

didds

Mike Whittaker
28-06-05, 20:06
... and what would the offence be? Dangerous play I suppose? Not a punch if it doesn't land surely?

jamesc37
28-06-05, 22:06
... and what would the offence be? Dangerous play I suppose? Not a punch if it doesn't land surely?

yes i agree o wpuld say that just because he missed its still dangerous play. if it was me s the ref i would have sin binned him for dangerous play

OB..
28-06-05, 22:06
We could quiblle about whetrh or not a punch needs to land, but if it doesn't, what do you call it? I think the action of punching is what the laws aim to punish, whether it lands or not.

Howver not all punches are the same, and the circumstances can be significant. Let's retain the right to make a sensible judgement on all the circumstances.

jamesc37
28-06-05, 22:06
We could quiblle about whetrh or not a punch needs to land, but if it doesn't, what do you call it? I think the action of punching is what the laws aim to punish, whether it lands or not.

Howver not all punches are the same, and the circumstances can be significant. Let's retain the right to make a sensible judgement on all the circumstances.


good point.... lol

Mike Whittaker
28-06-05, 23:06
Sensible judgement or not OB, when it comes to completing the form for dismissal the use of the word 'punch' when no blow has landed would add unecessary complications in the disciplinary process....

madref
28-06-05, 23:06
Hi All

Difficult one this, but I think we have to look at intent.

Was it a haymaker or just a wave thats what I look for while refereeing, had an incident where last season where I sin binned a number 8 for a punch looking that missed, I think if he had connected he would have got a red.

So should I have red carded him anyway.

Interesting one as usual!

David

Account Deleted
29-06-05, 10:06
If you throw a punch whether it lands or not is for me irrelevant.

When I played Loose head we often took scrums down. The intent was to stop the drive or whatever (con a penalty out of the "stupid ref" etc) Our intent NEVER was to harm a player. However, what we did was, in hindsight, DANGEROUS. Our intent was irrelevent to the issue.

Where intend does play a part is in what action we take. For dangerous play we can:

Speak to the player

Yellow Card the player

Red Card the player

If an attepted punch was thrown with apparent force from behind an undefended player I would consider a Red card it is dangerous and clear intent is there for me.

If two guys have a bit of "handbags" after a maul (stil dangerous) I may just give them a verbal and get on with the game, stopping for a longer word at the next breakdown.

Clearly the spirit that the game is being played in will colour the outcome.

That's where our discretion comes into play.

However on the point of intent it does not change that satus of an incident from dangerous to safe.

Account Deleted
29-06-05, 11:06
Sensible judgement or not OB, when it comes to completing the form for dismissal the use of the word 'punch' when no blow has landed would add unecessary complications in the disciplinary process....


Would the following wording or something similar not be OK?

"..Following a maul in the 20th minute of the first half I saw Blue 6 throw a punch in the direction of White 4's head the punch was thrown from behind white 4. The punch was clearly delivered with a considerable force. Thankfully the aim of Blue 6 was not good and no contact was made. However, I my view there was a clear intent to cause injury to the defenceless play and I felt that the issuing of a red card and dismisal feromthe field of play was the correct action on my part."

Mike Whittaker
29-06-05, 11:06
Wording sounds fine to me... but then I am not a lawyer and do not sit on disciplinary committee!! I was being a bit pedantic but then at times we have to be.

The RFU dismissal form requires a box to be ticked for the law broken. Do you tick 10.4 (a) or not when the blow missed? under this law a player must not strike an opponent.. If not this law, which do you use?

OB..
29-06-05, 13:06
Mike - I have never before heard the distinction you are trying to draw. Chambers defines a punch as "a vigorous blow, or attempted blow, with the fist". If it is not a punch when it misses, what is it? Where so you get your view from?

I had a quick look at a couple of boxing sites, and they distinguish "punches thrown" from "punches connected".

As far as I am concerned a punch is the action of one player. It is only an offence it it is aimed at another person, but it does not have to connect.

Mike Whittaker
29-06-05, 14:06
Believe me OB... there is a great distinction between a punch which connects and one which doesn't.. speaking only as a recipient of either you will appreciate!!!!

Seriously though, I am only referring to the Law Of The Game, as written. And to the RFU dismissal form which requires completion.

Simple question.... Does a flaying fist which misses a person conflict with Law 10.4 (a) as written, or not? (That the bugger should walk we are all agreed... !!)

SimonSmith
29-06-05, 14:06
I speak from bitter experience.

Second year of refereeing in Hampshire. punch thrown from behind. It Missed. He walked. I actually attended the hearing, at which the defence boiled down to: he stamped on my friend, I threw the punch, and it missed.
Result? He walked.

OB..
29-06-05, 14:06
The Laws do not contain a definition of a punch, so normal usage must be assumed. To me that means a punch is a punch even if it misses.

However Law 10.4 (a) says: A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s)

That is a dog's dinner! Can you legally strike one your own team? Why the include word "including"?

Nonetheless it is clear that the definition of a punch is not applicable. "Striking an opponent" must mean making contact. If a punch does not make contact, you quote 10.4 (k) instead.

Mike Whittaker
29-06-05, 14:06
Agree with you OB that 10.4 (k) should be used with a missed punch to avoid the consequence which Simon experienced...

This way the fact that I disagree with you, in my thinking that a punch is only a punch if it lands, becomes totally irrelevant!! .. and we are both happy, I hope?

SimonSmith
29-06-05, 17:06
That is a dog's dinner! Can you legally strike one your own team?

Absolutely you can - and I advocate it.

Time for another Smith anecdote........

I was refereeing Trojans Seconds at Petersfield. Captain was the hooker, small guy, excellent skipper. Loose head prop would NOT shut up.

"Captain, if he doesn't shut it, we have a problem." (First time I spoke to the captain)
He calls over the prop:" Shut up or you're going off with a blood injury"
"But I'm not bleeding...."
"You f*cking will be after I've hit you."
Prop: "Ref, can he do that?"
Me: "Sorry, my hearing aid packed up there for a second."

Last I heard from him all game. Inspired captaincy!

Mike Whittaker
29-06-05, 23:06
That, Simon, reminds me of a game ( I won't mention the club as I go there too often) but one of the second rows hit his own hooker on the nose in a scrum.... Needless to say he was aiming for the opposition hooker but misjudged.

I remember taking some stick for not sending anybody off... but I hadn't a clue who had done it and it was only revealed after the game.... Goodness only knows what decision I did give... bound to have been wrong though.....

robertti
03-07-05, 15:07
I think whether it is a punch or not certainly does boil down to one's intention. If he deliberately tried to punch the fellow but missed thats more serious than when two players are handbagging and their arms swinging wildly and not hitting anything.

Another interesting application about what's been talked about is the second Lions test surely? There were at least 2 all in scuffles where no punches were thrown apparently according to Kaplan and Dickinson and so Cole did not yellow card anyone. But there was plenty of armwaving which could be classified as attempting to punch someone but if that was the case there'd be alot of people fronting the judiciary this week!

Attempting to Strike is an offence with far too many grey areas. So to reitterate what has already been said if you are to card a player for a punch gone wrong then use the offence of 'Misconduct Predujicial to Good Sportsmanship.' I like this law, it too is very vague and general and really can be justification for carding any player for any sort of negative offence, whatsoever.

Just another question following on from what has already been said. If on the field there is an all in push and shove match but noone actually throws any punches, if in the referees opinion a couple of players have inflamed the situation by running in from a long way out to join the push and shove or have done something worse than everyone else but still not a punch, do you think he/she can yellow card them?

Robert Burns
03-07-05, 16:07
I think whether it is a punch or not certainly does boil down to one's intention. If he deliberately tried to punch the fellow but missed thats more serious than when two players are handbagging and their arms swinging wildly and not hitting anything.

Another interesting application about what's been talked about is the second Lions test surely? There were at least 2 all in scuffles where no punches were thrown apparently according to Kaplan and Dickinson and so Cole did not yellow card anyone. But there was plenty of armwaving which could be classified as attempting to punch someone but if that was the case there'd be alot of people fronting the judiciary this week!

Attempting to Strike is an offence with far too many grey areas. So to reitterate what has already been said if you are to card a player for a punch gone wrong then use the offence of 'Misconduct Predujicial to Good Sportsmanship.' I like this law, it too is very vague and general and really can be justification for carding any player for any sort of negative offence, whatsoever.

Just another question following on from what has already been said. If on the field there is an all in push and shove match but noone actually throws any punches, if in the referees opinion a couple of players have inflamed the situation by running in from a long way out to join the push and shove or have done something worse than everyone else but still not a punch, do you think he/she can yellow card them?
absolutley, if you come in and join in (i.e. not pulling players away) your going to get at least a yellow.

Bryan
03-07-05, 18:07
This is like the "3rd man in" rule in the RFU's "Crimes Act" Sheet (the ARU has something similar). 2 players handbagging each other with punches landed and missed would both get yellows, but any 3rd player joining in with the intent to fight would get a Red in my books for further destructive play.

Mike Whittaker
04-07-05, 00:07
Always difficult to generalise on these...
The good ref manages each situation according to circumstances...

Local vets derby or county colts match... no single solution.

Davet
11-07-05, 15:07
Perhaps we should look at the Law of land for a guide.

Attempted murder carries a life sentance, just like succesful murder.

But as in all these things the tenor of the game, the circumstances etc are all relevant. It is possible that in one case an attempted punch may see the offender red carded, whilst in a completely different game a punch which connects may only get a PK against.

As far as the problem with the disciplinary hearing later, and which box to tick, that's not an issue for me at the time, it may even be that the sending off is indeed sufficient - but that the act of sending the player off rescues a game from potential disaster.

OB..
11-07-05, 22:07
I have just remembered a good example of a punch that did not connect (except that it was an elbow): Paul Ringer against England. He went for Horton with his elbow at throat level. Horton managed to duck. Ringer had already been involved in 5 instances of foul/reckless play, and got sent off (no yellow in those days).

Account Deleted
12-07-05, 17:07
He just noticed a bit of lose mascara and was just trying to remove it for young Mr Horton. :)