PDA

View Full Version : Penalty or FK fo time wasting?



ex-lucy
09-07-07, 15:07
line out to green.
green are down to 7 in the poack due to a YC to their hooker.
Green try and bring on another hooker and take off their 6.
Referee refuses to allow this replacement "only for scrums".
(I didnt know that....)
So, green look at each other and wonder who is going to throw in.
Green 3 goes down and pulls his boot off to buy time while the other forwards decide plan of action.

ref awards a penalty on the 15m ....

was this a correct decision?

madref
09-07-07, 15:07
Hi

Sounds like ref managed it badly

David

Davet
09-07-07, 16:07
If a hooker is YCed then the side in question may, should they so woish pull off any other player, and bring on a hooker. They do NOT have to wait for a scrum.

However, if the do so, and have not waited for the scrum then the substitution becomes permanent. When the original hookers 10 mins are up he comes back - but could then be substituted by another replacement (but NOT the back rower that went off in exchange for the new hooker).

It sounds (since no-one actually seems to know the Law) like a grassroots game, and I would have hoped that the ref would have managed it rather more empathetically than he seemingly did.

ex-lucy
09-07-07, 16:07
davet, Oz v SA last saturday, Honiss in charge.

Bryan
09-07-07, 16:07
For context, this happened in the Trinations match this past weekend.

For starters:
i. The No 4 Official (George Ayoub) should have known better than to allow the South Africans to make a replacement at the Lineout! That being said, it would not surprise me if they were cheeky and tried to get him on without consulting the No 4, so apologies to George if this was the case!

ii. It was very clear that the South Africans had no back up plan, so when a FR player INTENTIONALLY goes down (it almost looked like he went down feigning injury, NOT a replacement for equipment) then by this point the referee is already frustrated with them trying to pull a fast one.

I thought it was good decision making by the referee, but I would have given only a FK than a PK. If i remember, the lineout occurred near halfway, and it was a South African ball, so it's not like they were trying to stop the aussies from playing quickly.

At that level, teams should be aware of the requirements for substitutions for FR players!

ex-lucy
09-07-07, 16:07
bryan, sorry, i think you are wrong ...

i. why cant SA make a replacement at the line out?
ii. time wasting is a FK ...

where is the empathy?
i think Honiss lost it ...

Bryan
09-07-07, 17:07
i. why cant SA make a replacement at the line out?


Law 3.13 (b)
After a front row player is sent off or during the time a front row player is temporarily suspended the referee, upon awarding the next scrum, will ask that player’s captain whether or not the team has another player on the field of play who is suitably trained to play in the front row. If not, the captain chooses any player from that team who then must leave the field of play and be replaced by a suitably trained front row player from the team’s replacements. The captain may do this immediately prior to the next scrum or after another player has been tried in the front row.

The replacement can only happen at the next SCRUM. If the hooker is binned and you have a lineout before a scrum, tough luck!


ii. time wasting is a FK ...
Agreed. He was harsh to give a PK for intentionally offending, but would have been correct under Law, but it's still a cop-out for what should have been only a FK. I had already said that in my previous post, so I don't know why you disagree with me.


where is the empathy?
Why would you be empathetic? For SA not knowing the Law? Because it was the Prop who tried being clever and intentionally taking the boot off? I fail to see where the empathy would apply here?

OB..
09-07-07, 19:07
I agreed with Honiss.

IMHO time wasting is things like passing the ball backwards and forwards several times before taking a drop-out, being much slower than usual in forming a lineout, not bothering to go and get the ball when it has been kicked dead, etc. Actions during the course of play.

In this case it was an attempt to get the referee to stop play. That is a further step up the cheating ladder.

You may criticise his judgement, but he was not wrong in law.

Davet
10-07-07, 10:07
Bryan

Totally wrong.
There is a serious error in Law.

3.13b is all very well - but all it means is that in the case of a YC then when the suspended FR player comes back on then his temporary replacement can leave.

It does NOT prevent a team making a perfectly standard, permanent, substitution during that 10 min.

YC - Hooker off.
Line-out - Back Row player subbed by new Hooker (Permanent change)
10 min later - Original hooker can come back - but instead is replaced by New back Rower, who comes onto pitch. (Original BR player cannot return)

Perfectly Legal.

To suggest otherwise is to say that NO sub can be made while a player is in the bin except at a scrum - which is clear nonsense.

If 4th official allowe the sub the he was right, if Honiss overruled him then Honiss was entirely wrong. Repeat - the substitution was fine - all it changes is what happens after the 10mins is up.

In the case as described, the Honiss compounded his own error by penalising the team who were struggling to cope with his idiosyncratic, and wrong, ruling.

Bryan
10-07-07, 11:07
You're suggesting that SA were making a permanent replacement, while I am treating this as the case of bringing in a replacement for the FR player in the bin.

These are two different scenarios. How can you be sure South Africa were attempting to follow your scenario, and not mine? How can you be sure that the 4th official was not given the substitution card that said "Reason: replacement of FR player in the bin" and NOT "Reason: Tactical replacement"?

I am totally wrong if things happened as you describe them, but there's no way of knowing they did. If they were trying to replace an FR player who was in the bin, then my argument stands.

Please share where you are getting the information that South Africa were following the scenario that you describe? Otherwise, we won't know WHAT they were trying to do so either argument is valid.

ex-lucy
10-07-07, 12:07
OB.. / Bryan ..
The ball is dead at the line out.
the prop has a problem with his boot.
he takes it off.
he has a right to have it changed/retied when the ball is dead.
so why the penalty?

from the pen, yellow kick to touch for a line out.
prop still has his boot off. can he change/retie the boot now?
presumably, yes !
so what is the difference?

I am struggling here ... apparently, empathy is supposed to be one of my weaknesses, but i think i would have empathised with SA and warned the capt about time wasting first before penalties ..

as regards, was it a perm or temp replacement hooker, i dont think Honiss even asked what the situation was ...
he just said "no replacement at line out only at scrum"

Davet
10-07-07, 13:07
Bryan - If they tried to make a replacement at the lineout then it can ONLY have been a permanent one.

Doesn't much matter if that was the intent, that's what the effect would be.

Now - I expect things to be organised properly at an international, and if - as I understand it the 4th Official sanctioned the sub then my assumption is that it must have been a permanent replacement.

All that was required was for the officials to let SA know that the substitution was to be a permanent one - or they must wait for a scrum if they only wanted a temporary one.

To say bluntly that substitution was not allowed was simply wrong.

Empathy would mean asking the question - "Is he coming on permanantly?" if answer = yes then goto good else "then wait for scrum"

OB..
10-07-07, 14:07
OB.. / Bryan ..
The ball is dead at the line out.
the prop has a problem with his boot.
he takes it off.
he has a right to have it changed/retied when the ball is dead.
so why the penalty?
So you believe it was a coincidence? I doubt it, and the referee apparently had no doubt.


from the pen, yellow kick to touch for a line out.
prop still has his boot off. can he change/retie the boot now?
presumably, yes !
so what is the difference?
About 40-50 metres?

OB..
10-07-07, 14:07
Empathy would mean asking the question - "Is he coming on permanantly?" if answer = yes then goto good else "then wait for scrum"
Agreed. Empathy is usually better than pedantry.

ex-lucy
11-07-07, 10:07
i spoke with my mate who is a level 4/5 referee .. he had no doubt that the referee was correct about both decisions ...

he would have been informed by 4th official via earpiece that it was not a perm replacement and thus his retort that 'not a scrum' was correct.

also, the penalty against the prop was correct. "At that level they know what they are doing" .. after a discussion about empathy and talking to captain about time wasting he said he would have done this at the next line out. The cheating was so obvious to deserve a penalty there and then.

i stand corrected !!
i just think at level 10, i would have found it difficult to do this .. he replied ... smile ... smile .. smile ... your demeanour at that decision and previously will allow you the leeway.

as with a few other similar decisions there seems to be a definite gap on this bored (and elsewhere) between the level 7s and above and 8s and below ... as regards management.
sometimes as in the case above it is strict intepretation and 'bang' penalty for cheating and also for backchat ... other times it is more tolerant e.g. at rucks/ tackles and thus chatting to players and captains about future options ...

to me hands in rucks is cheating and worse than backchat.... as it may lead to frustration and flair ups and thus foul play so i guess it is up to me to get my head around what is required here...

what do other level 9s and 10s etc think ?

Davet
11-07-07, 12:07
I suspect that the difference is that I would have told them it was to be a permanent replacement - not asked them. The empathy bit would be -If that's not waht you want then get off the park, quick.

It's all hearsay at the moment - I do not know if they wanted a permanent replacement and Ayoub was Ok to let him on, or if they said that it was a sin-bin replacement.

I would have expected Honiss to check with the team, rather than simply get him off.

At whatever level then game management is best done with friendly intent and an undersatnding that in a physical and confrontational sport tempers get heated at times. My approach is that players are basically well-intentioned. As the game progresses one or two of them might earn a revised opinion. As the level of my faith in them shrinks, my response to them hardens, rapidly if required.

Hands in is against the Laws - but its not always "cheating" on occasion there are grey areas - timing can be key. If the 7 gets in and has hands on before the opposition arrive and form a ruck... he may feel he hads the ball off the floor, and thus continues to play it - you may see it otherwise.

Clearly you are right (you are the ref), but was he "cheating"?

Each case on its merits.

I seem to be saying that a lot, lately.

beckett50
11-07-07, 19:07
If a hooker is YCed then the side in question may, should they so woish pull off any other player, and bring on a hooker. They do NOT have to wait for a scrum.

However, if the do so, and have not waited for the scrum then the substitution becomes permanent. When the original hookers 10 mins are up he comes back - but could then be substituted by another replacement (but NOT the back rower that went off in exchange for the new hooker).

It sounds (since no-one actually seems to know the Law) like a grassroots game, and I would have hoped that the ref would have managed it rather more empathetically than he seemingly did.

Davet, sorry but you incorrect in your assuption here. Green can only bring on a temporary replacement for the carded player at the next scrum. Theory being that there needs to be a ST&E FR player to scrum, but anyone can take a throw-in.

I would agree that the referee should have managed the situation better, but would have thought the sanction should be a FK for delaying the throw - rather than the PK awarded.

Bryan
11-07-07, 22:07
Beckett, what Dave is saying is legal and credible:

55 Minutes: Red 2 Sin Binned
58 Minutes: Red awarded Lineout, and Red substitutes Red 6 and brings on Red 16
60 Minutes: Red awarded Scrum. Referee asks if there are any suitably trained FR players on the field; Red 16 is now hooker.
65 Minutes: Red 2 returns to field of play, and Red 16 is substituted for Red 18, who plays blindside flanker.


At this point, Red 6 and Red 16 have been substituted OFF and can no longer return to the field of play except to replace a Blood-bin player or (only in the case of Red 16) an injured FR player.

This would be credible if there was a lineout BEFORE a scrum, and it was late in the match, but it's still entirely possible.

Davet
12-07-07, 09:07
Beckett50 - as Bryan explained, I am fully aware of how the Law works. That's why I am talking about permanent vs temporary replacement. If you want to bring on a hoooker just for the time your no 2 is in the Bin, then you have to wait for the scrum. If you want to permanently replace him then ter is nothing to stop you substituting another player with a hooker before the scrum.

The discussion following that is to do with whether or not the SA admin squad tried to get their player on as such a permanent replacement, which would have been legal, or as a replacement under sin-bin rules, which was not legal.

That then leads on to a discussion about how to manage the situation in a game, and how the management at different levels, from International to Old Bogcastrians 3rds, might vary; and what would be an empathetic way of dealing with it at each level.

My basic contecntion is that Honiss dealt with it poorly - but then I tend to find Honiss generally a non-empathetic ref. I always get the feeling that his natural home would be as a minor public servant telling people "You can't park 'ere!"; and sporting a pencil moustache and a flat peaked cap with a shiny badge. Anybody remember "On the Buses?"

Emmet Murphy
12-07-07, 12:07
If a team was to bring on a temporary FR replacement while another FR player was in the bin would they have to make it clear to the ref that he was coming on temporarily? I'm thinking in terms of matches down towards my end of the spectrum (level 12!)

Dixie
12-07-07, 13:07
If a team was to bring on a temporary FR replacement while another FR player was in the bin would they have to make it clear to the ref that he was coming on temporarily? I'm thinking in terms of matches down towards my end of the spectrum (level 12!)

Emmett, it doesn't often happen, but assuming it's the first scrum following your binning of a FR player, and the side in question brings on a FR player and takes off a different player, I think you can assume it's temporary. Doesn't hurt to ask, though - but in practice, the skipper would probably have asked you about his options anyway. In my experience, the coaching complement on the sidelines is pretty thin at L.12.

Davet
12-07-07, 13:07
They may not even decide then. The new FR player (say 16) can be swapped off for the original (say 2) after 10min, or or they may decide after the 10min to keep 2 off. You just need to say when the 10min is up - the team will then either bring him back or not. If not it then becomes a permanent change.

Though of course if 16 got binned, or a blood injury, then 2 could come back then.

The interesting question then is: could that 2nd swap become "permanent" or must 2 leave the field after 10 mins? And what if the blood could not be stopped? Or if 16 was able to return, but the side now preferred to have 2 back again?

Emmet Murphy
12-07-07, 13:07
Emmett, it doesn't often happen, but assuming it's the first scrum following your binning of a FR player, and the side in question brings on a FR player and takes off a different player, I think you can assume it's temporary. Doesn't hurt to ask, though - but in practice, the skipper would probably have asked you about his options anyway. In my experience, the coaching complement on the sidelines is pretty thin at L.12.

I'm thinking more about a scenario where you've binned a prop and then five minutes later his side are awarded a line-out. They ask to make a change and take - for argument's sake - their number 6 off and on trots number 17 who takes up a position in the line-out. Play continues and when the prop's 10 minutes are up the number 17 goes off and the 6 tries to return.

Would your advice be that when a team has a FR player in the bin and they make a change while he is in the bin to ask the captain if it is permanent?

OB..
12-07-07, 15:07
Emmet - if a FR player is being brought on temporarily, then another player has to go off temporarily The ref needs to be notified of this so that he can let both players back on when the sin bin ends. The referee is expected to ask.

Dixie
12-07-07, 16:07
I'm thinking more about a scenario where you've binned a prop and then five minutes later his side are awarded a line-out. They ask to make a change and take - for argument's sake - their number 6 off and on trots number 17 who takes up a position in the line-out. Play continues and when the prop's 10 minutes are up the number 17 goes off and the 6 tries to return.

Would your advice be that when a team has a FR player in the bin and they make a change while he is in the bin to ask the captain if it is permanent?

Much of Davet's previous postings on this is relevant. The option of a temporary replacement for a binned front rower only arises at the next scrum. If they are making a switch at the lineout and you suspect they may not intend it to be permanent, you should confirm their intention. Their options are clear at a line-out: permanent replacement of 17 for 6, or no replacement. Best to manage it at this stage, because you don't need the hassle of trying to sort it out later. If it's a friendly, there may be no harm done. But in a league match, even L.12 sides get very particular - especially if No. 6 then goes on to score the winning try after you've incorrectly allowed him back on to try to be fair to the side that didn't know the Laws.

Emmet Murphy
12-07-07, 18:07
OK ... Thanks for clearing that up for me guys - much appreciated :)

beckett50
13-07-07, 09:07
Davet I apoplogise for any misunderstanding that may have arisen from my speed reading of the previous threads. Of course I know that you knew:hap:

Lesson learned :)

Davet
13-07-07, 09:07
Beckett - 's OK - I tend to use this board in snatched minutes at work - and if the day here is one of those days then I may get a bit testy all round at times.

Normally I'm a man of very simple needs - all I want is for people to listen attentivley, obey instantly, and sign the contract I put in front of them without any stupid questions about costs or terms of service.

Is that SO much to ask?

beckett50
13-07-07, 10:07
Oh to be able to understand a client's mind:Nerv: :cry:

mkottke
14-07-07, 01:07
Normally I'm a man of very simple needs - all I want is for people to listen attentivley, obey instantly, and sign the contract I put in front of them without any stupid questions about costs or terms of service.

Is that SO much to ask?

So you are saying is that just like your customers, you want your players to be blind and dumb. Baa, it's friday - drink now!

Account Deleted
31-10-07, 10:10
Very interesting to see personal attacks likening Mr Honis to a "hitler / blakey from on the busses " type character.

I did think we were not to act in this way on this site!

Dixie
31-10-07, 11:10
ATTR - are you posting on multiple sites? Just done a search of this thread, and the only mention of either Honniss, Hitler or Blakey appears in your post -which comes three-and-a-half months after the previous one, and obviously pre-dates the RWC (where I imagine any criticism of Honniss might have arisen).

Account Deleted
31-10-07, 11:10
My basic contecntion is that Honiss dealt with it poorly - but then I tend to find Honiss generally a non-empathetic ref. I always get the feeling that his natural home would be as a minor public servant telling people "You can't park 'ere!"; and sporting a pencil moustache and a flat peaked cap with a shiny badge. Anybody remember "On the Buses?"


Clearly Blakey from "OTB" at the stil or facial hair a throw back to mr Hitler.

So same site and a clear personal jibe.

Dixie
31-10-07, 11:10
I can't spell Honiss, so failed to spot that. Sorry for impugning your posting management:nono:

Yes, it shows him as a stereotypical jobsworth traffic-warden type. I think that's a long way from a Hitler characterisation though - except in a taste for moustaches, which Honiss clearly doesn't share. As a note on the style of the ref's management, I would view it as harsh, probably inaccurate, but not moderable.

Gareth-Lee Smith
31-10-07, 12:10
I think you've mistaken 'pencil' for 'postage stamp', because that's no reference to Hitler.

It's still only remarking on his refereeing, not personal qualities.

Account Deleted
31-10-07, 23:10
The Blakey character and many others during the 1960s & early 1970s had a silly moustache and a totalitarian attitude that ridiculed the dictatorial authority figure and was widely seen as a dig at the former German chancellor.

Still whether or not you read the "Little Hitler" parody or not there is still a slur on a fellow ref.