PDA

View Full Version : Bath v Gloucester



Woolfie
04-01-08, 21:01
Watching B v G & noticed Wayne Barnes is constantly referring to all the players by their first name. What does everyone think about that

Emmet Murphy
04-01-08, 22:01
I've noticed him doing that in other matches too ... personally I think it is one of those things that you can get away with at GP level; when refereeing at Community Levels it is probably ill-advised for obvious reasons.

KML1
04-01-08, 22:01
On a night like tonight, using numbers must go out of the window (wet and mud) and every other bit of management skill comes into it.

Barnsey isn't one for overdoing the names that but its working well for him this eve. Rather him than me tho! Looks dreadful. Think if it wasn't live on Sky, they'd have canned it earlier.

Woolfie
04-01-08, 22:01
good point about the numbers

OB..
04-01-08, 23:01
Actually he did use numbers of a few occasions. Did he not recognise the player, or could he just read the number for once?!

Should they call him "Wayne", or "ref"?

Even if the players are all good friends, using numbers formalises the relationship on the field, and avoids any appearance of bias towards mates.

He might be able to get away with it at GP matches, but what about, say, Japan v Georgia? Perhaps it is not a good habit to get into because in, say, Ireland v Wales he might get inconsistent.

What does he do if there are two Daves in the ruck?

Simon Griffiths
05-01-08, 00:01
Thought WB had a pretty good game, especially given the conditions. I can't see a problem with using names if the players are happy with it and you actually know them.

Another point from the match, and the main thing I wasn't so sure about, was the interpretation of the word 'immediately' with regards to playing the ball on the floor. A number of occassions a player would go down, then a few seconds later, after weighing up his options, would pop the ball up.

OB..
05-01-08, 01:01
I can't see a problem with using names if the players are happy with it and you actually know them.
Two big Ifs, and it means behaving differently for different games. If you mix the two approaches it tends to give a bad impression IMHO. I notice most referees do not do it.

There is another problem if you know the players and the opponents don't: they may not know which player you are talking to. Why risk the confusion?

Simon Griffiths
05-01-08, 02:01
I agree, very big 'ifs'. I don't use names when refereeing (for the reasons you list), even if I know both teams fairly well. The only time this changes is for either club training/team-run type matches, or festival style 7s tournaments. For training matches this can often be the only way to go as you'll be lucky if two people have the same colour top on, let alone numbers :biggrin: .

SimonSmith
05-01-08, 02:01
We've discussed this before.

If I'm asking players to cease and desist, it's number and color "Red 5, move away".

I do use the Captains' first names, but warn them - if we're on first name terms, I'm passing on advice that you would do well to listen to. If I have to descend to "Blue Captain", the sh!t just hit the fan - you need to make sure that you listen very carefully and take action.

It's a great escalation technique I think.

KML1
05-01-08, 09:01
I only call captains by name and then only sparingly.

However, as a slight aside and something for consideration, it's odd that as you move up the ladder, the fewer sides you get to meet so you do become more familiar with the players as individuals. We are encouraged to stay around and discuss things with those players after a match over a bottle of lucozade and even train with them where geography allows, so naturally the 'relationship' does change.

As someone who works in PR I pride myself in developing relationships with people and hopefully I can get the balance right when Saturday comes.

But fundamentally, as a rule and counsel for those in the community game, I wouldn't advise using names as much as WB did last night. You have to judge yourself, the game and the conditions each time and do what works best for you.

chopper15
05-01-08, 11:01
Just after start of 2nd half Bath loses ball forward around 22.

Ref signals advantage. . . Glouc. put in clearing kick. . . Ref. calls advantage over with ball still in flight . . .Bath catches ball just inside touch about half way and play continues. . . . as I recall it!

Premature call?

Perhaps on another thread the unwritten 'space/time contiuum' of the advantage law could be discussed ?



On a re-read, I'm afraid I got this copying lark a bit mixed up, so hope you get my drift!

And what a display by Bath? A very humbling experience for Gloucs. I would've thought


Ref, OB/Simon/KML
There is another problem if you know the players and the opponents don't: they may not know which player you are talking to. Why risk the confusion?

Would've thought this essential . . . first names in these circumstances is not so much PR but more a reflection on the user?!

Dixie
05-01-08, 11:01
Another point from the match, and the main thing I wasn't so sure about, was the interpretation of the word 'immediately' with regards to playing the ball on the floor. A number of occassions a player would go down, then a few seconds later, after weighing up his options, would pop the ball up.

You're thinking particularly of Mat Stevens's delightful pop to keep a move going, which was I think the longest such. It took me back to the old days - you got a lot of that in the '70's. I too wondered about immediacy, but then had a reality check.

Perception of time is difficult. I think the main reason you don't see the pop pass off the ground so much these days is that the #7s (and all other forwards) are so much quicker and fitter, while backs are coached to do the clearing up if they are closest to the breakdown. What surprised me was the amount of time Gloucester allowed Bath at the breakdown - it allowed Bath to execute a hugely impressive driving game from offloads and quick ruck ball. But they were never allowed a couple of seconds (count them!) - and Stevens got his pass away, I'd guess, within half a second of hitting the deck.

Davet
05-01-08, 11:01
I thought Barnes had an excellent game.

He can get with using first names, you (poss exception KLM1) and I cannot. The main reason we generally don't use first names is perception of bias. The other team and /or spectators may well think that becauyse we know them we favour them.

At GP level I don't think that's an issue - and everybody knows everybody else, or should do if they've done their homework on who the opposition is, and what individual players strengths and weaknesses are.

I think he allowed sufficient margins of leeway on a stinking night to allow a game to develop rather than a mess, and it was good game. Stevens's pop off the floor may not have been instantaneous but it was still pretty quick and no opposition player was able to challenge, so I thought that was well done.

The one decision that I didn't understand was the reset line-out apparantly because the wrong ball was used. It was a formed line-out, not a quick throw in, so why the worry about the ball?

In general I was very impressed with his constant, consistent and simple communication with the players.

He is an excellent referee.

Simon Thomas
05-01-08, 12:01
To expand on what KML said - Wayne Barnes is a full-time professional referee at the Elite end of the game not just in England, but internationally.
He meets many of these players on the pitch (and afterwards) regularly in GP, HC and Intls matches, as well as seeing them at Dinners / PR events, and formal Referee to club visits.

My advice to any non-Elite referee is don't use forenames or surnames on the pitch - number and colour sets the right tone and I am 'sir' as a matter of basic respect and courtesy (even to guys I have known for 30 years & their choice to use Sir not mine). Using names may lead to accusations of bias !

I thought WB had a terrific match in terms of management, and decision making, suitably adapted to the conditions, and the players responded accordingly. The players' skill and fitness levels to play like that on a morass of a pitch were outstanding.

ex-lucy
05-01-08, 12:01
yep, good enjoyable game made so by WB's interpretations and management.

his 'dive' into the mid and subsequent loss of whistle sound made me larf ... even happens to the very best ...
"Whistle" ...
where did the spare come from? the TJ?
worth remembering to always have a spare whistle on you .. just in case cos even WB needed it.

What was with the arm up with single finger up at tackles/ rucks?
Then sort of said "one man, that's ok?"
cos he got asked by a player is that a pen adv, to which he replied no.
i was confused. anyone else?

Davet
05-01-08, 12:01
That got me too for a second - I think he was telling players that what had happened was a not a maul collapse, because there was only one tackler who made an immediate tackle rather than forming a maul.

The signal for advantage, of course, is the arm at 90 degrees, not raised to imitate the penalty signal.

So, of course, it couldn't have been an advantage signal.:wink:

Rew15
05-01-08, 12:01
Andrew Small , the fourth official, brough the spare whistle on for Barnsey.

With ref: to the players names at one point he said "NO JP" to Jeremy Paul.

Overall I thought Wayne Barns had a very very good game given the conditions.

chopper15
05-01-08, 12:01
[QUOTE=ex-lucy;35325]yep, good enjoyable game made so by WB's interpretations and management.

his 'dive' into the mid and subsequent loss of whistle sound made me larf ... even happens to the very best ...
"Whistle" ...
where did the spare come from? the TJ?
worth remembering to always have a spare whistle on you .. just in case cos even WB needed it.QUOTE]



Isn't it about time an electronic bleeper replaced the ancient whistle?

A different jingle for each offence/procedure perhaps?

OB..
05-01-08, 13:01
Just after start of 2nd half Bath loses ball forward around 22.

Ref signals advantage. . . Glouc. put in clearing kick. . . Ref. calls advantage over with ball still in flight . . .Bath catches ball just inside touch about half way and play continues. . . . as I recall it!

Premature call?
For a scrum advantage that is standard procedure if the kick was a free tactical choice.

Simon Thomas
05-01-08, 13:01
Chopper - great idea

Referees already use different whistle tone and loudness to indicate the type and severity of offences / errors.

Perhaps a voice activated gizmo ('penalty', 'unplayable ball', 'not straight') that gives different sounds for each word used !

chopper15
05-01-08, 13:01
Chopper - great idea

Referees already use different whistle tone and loudness to indicate the type and severity of offences / errors.

Perhaps a voice activated gizmo ('penalty', 'unplayable ball', 'not straight') that gives different sounds for each word used !



Now your talkin' Simon!

OB..
05-01-08, 13:01
Isn't it about time an electronic bleeper replaced the ancient whistle?

A different jingle for each offence/procedure perhaps?
We already have something better than that - at Internationals they call it RefLink.

Simon Griffiths
05-01-08, 15:01
For a scrum advantage that is standard procedure if the kick was a free tactical choice.
Fully agree, I was sat on my settee, head in hands, knowing exactly what Rory Lawson was going to do (i.e. box kick the ball right down someone's throat) and also that it would be advantage over. No complaints from this Gloucester supporter.

chopper15
06-01-08, 17:01
Did anyone notice that a Bath ball-carrier, Olly B, was taken out in the air when he leaped over several players sprawled on the ground? No whistle!

Some weeks back I raised the query 'bout tackling a ball-carrier in the air following the Jerry Collins incident against Barnstable 2nd team when he took out their wing diving for the line and prevented the try . . . . and accepted by the ref.!

I was given short shrift by many of you . . . .OB accused me of over emphasising the matter . . . . another suggested it was Ok if the ball-carrier was horizontal!

Never-the-less, the law does not allow this tackle 10.4(e) paras 5/6.

What if Barkley was going over for a try?

If it's going to be ignored, isn't about time someone got on the grapevine to get it scrapped ( you'll still have 10.4(h) ) or at least get a consensus?

Simon Griffiths
06-01-08, 17:01
He shouldn't have been jumping a) over players like that, b) through a tackle.

Short shrift from me this time. Likelihood is at top speed that a player is 'in the air' anyway, even if he isn't dangerously jumping like police caution boy...

chopper15
06-01-08, 17:01
He shouldn't have been jumping a) over players like that, b) through a tackle.

Short shrift from me this time. Likelihood is at top speed that a player is 'in the air' anyway, even if he isn't dangerously jumping like police caution boy...




I'll just do a 'slo-mo' to comprehend what you stated.


He was RUNNING with the ball . . .

LEAPING over some grounded players. . .

was taken out whilst 'IN THE AIR' by a tackler running in from the side.

Are you saying that in those circumstances he's not permitted to,

(a) leap over, even if the try line was the other side. . . .

(b) when the leap precedes the tackle it is still deemed to be 'leaping THROUGH a tackle'?

And what about Jerry Collins, the law, and the ref?

Simon Griffiths
06-01-08, 19:01
Without a doubt in my mind, what he did was dangerous. This isn't American Football. I would also argue that diving over players to ground the ball is a slightly different situation to jumping over them (i.e. with feet/studs directly above them).

OB..
06-01-08, 20:01
This is a difficult judgement call, based on an assessment of the danger involved.

Jumping to avoid a tackle is usually deemed dangerous because the likelihood is that a boot or knee will catch the tackler in the face. Tackling such a player, even though in the air, would surely not be foul play (first offence, anyway).

Jumping over a pile of bodies would be dangerous if they were trying to get up, but jumping over a player who had just fallen down might be less dangerous than any other way of trying to avoid him.

If jumping over the bodies effectively means opponents cannot safely reach him to tackle him, we have a conundrum.

Simon Griffiths
07-01-08, 00:01
Slightly more eloquently put OB, but then you're a neutral (top of the table's of little interest to you at the moment...). ;)

Davet
07-01-08, 00:01
Chopper
He was carrying the ball.
Not jumping to claim it.

I KNOW the Law is written clumsily, that's what refs are for: to make sense of some of the absurdities, and ensure a game can be played.

You wil never get watertight legalities. Even Parliaments don't get that right - which is why lawyers and Judges earn big money. Why are you consistently trying to create an issue out of something which is purely in your own mind? Accept it, and move on, for sanity's sake. (Mine, if yours).

Dixie
07-01-08, 10:01
Likelihood is at top speed that a player is 'in the air' anyway, even if he isn't dangerously jumping like police caution boy... Noddy - I believe you are of playing age, which means that the fact I have no idea what you are saying could account for the low marks I get for communication on some Captains' assessment sheets. Is there a dictionary of teenage speak around, where phrases such as "jumping like police caution boy" could be explained to those of us brought up with plain old English?

chopper15
07-01-08, 12:01
[QUOTE=Davet;35419]Chopper
He was carrying the ball.
Not jumping to claim it.
I KNOW the Law is written clumsily, that's what refs are for: to make sense of some of the absurdities, and ensure a game can be played.
QUOTE]



It's no good hiding behind that 'clumsily written' one, Davet, Law 10.4(e) paras5/6 and (h) are particularly specific!

Reference my 'And what about Jerry Collins, the law, and the ref?' query I posed earlier in these threads and which you all avoided answering!

Simon Thomas
07-01-08, 13:01
Chopper

The Laws are a framework within which the players play and when necessary the referee blows the whistle or signals advantage, with a clear Safety-Equity-Law priority. Back in the 19th century there was no referee (or umpire), and the skippers arbitrated disputed decisions of Law there and then on the pitch. Since then the referee's role has developed over the years and continues to do so. Over the many years the Game has been played, there have been many protocols and variations arsie through common practice or from innovative players / coaches, some that have became new or amended Law, or some remained as urban myths (e.g. 'let him up').

Referees are all individuals, and so we have slightly different points of view, perceptions and interpretations, experiences, cultural backgrounds, etc. So may make slightly different decisions on the same incident.
The IRB, RFU, National Panel, Groups, Federations and Societies are all working hard to get consistent decision making especially in the critical areas and we see less and less idiosyncratic referee decisions these days. However each referee will aplly the Law as he sees it, at the time with a set of specific match circumstances, etc.

To answer the specifics you raise about players 'in the air' being tackled and how the Law is interpreted :

a) Jerrry Collins - perfectly legal to tackle a player diving horizontally in a try scoring scenario. I suspect any serious player or referee would laugh at any suggestion that is not, hence I suspect most on here ignored it.

b) Ollie Barkley - at the time 'live' I thought it was dangerous play by Barkley jumping in to a tackle - which would be illegal and dangerous play. However when I replayed it, I saw he was hurdling over a fallen player at speed, and that both he and tackler were not in danger - here we have two very fit and strong professional Premiership players, whereas if it was U16 boys it would perhaps have a different interpretation. There was no player reaction on either side at the incident.

chopper15
07-01-08, 17:01
Chopper
To answer the specifics you raise about players 'in the air' being tackled and how the Law is interpreted :

a) Jerrry Collins - perfectly legal to tackle a player diving horizontally in a try scoring scenario. I suspect any serious player or referee would laugh at any suggestion that is not, hence I suspect most on here ignored it.


Of course, Simon, I accept the thrust of what you espouse, but in this particular case 10.4(E) spells it out quite succinctly.

Scrap it or apply it! The JC ref has to be wrong, surely?

And when you say you suspect 'any serious player or referee would laugh at any suggestion that is not, hence I suspect most on here ignored it.' . . . . I think you've nailed the problem??!!


Believe it or not, Simon, I not only respect but admire you refs on the field. It's the laws, as you've guessed, I'm always having a go at, aggravated by your dog/manger attitude.

'They've' had decades to clarify/amend the 'culprits' and I just do not accept that you can't change them . . . even if you just re-worded the obvious ones to reflect the way a consensus interpret them and issued them as a Society supplement -you lot spend a fair old time on this site why not set up a thread with suggested wording? Surely even this would be a step in the right direction?

I know, as you've said in a previous threads, you've got better things to do!

OB..
07-01-08, 21:01
Chopper15 - as Simon Thomas said in rather more details, you should stop trying to apply the laws in vacuo. You should also realise that your interpretation is not necessarily the only one.

Yes, there are lots of things wrong with the way the laws are written. As previously explained, there is a standard procedure for seeking changes. It would make no sense to keep having individual referees send in their various ideas as they felt like it. We sometimes discuss possible changes here, but our much more important task is dealing with the laws as they are NOW.

chopper15
07-01-08, 21:01
Ref OB;You should also realise that your interpretation is not necessarily the only one.

MY INTERPRETATION???? So how do you INTERPRET this specific one (10.4(E), OB?

SimonSmith
07-01-08, 22:01
That noise in the background? My head doing a Linda Blair impression.

1. The laws will never be perfect, and will always have some kind o subjectivity applied. Example: how to differentiate between diving for the line, hurdling bodies, and jumping in the air to catch the ball.
The law has to be comprehensible and usable - if we were going to cover every scenario, it would fail those tests.

2. I think you misunderstand the power that we have. There is, as Simon T and OB have outlined, a process by which law changes can be recommended.

SimonSmith
07-01-08, 22:01
10.4.e - OK Chopper, help me. The way that it is written it is impossible to tackle anyone who is running. What would you suggest a referee do then?

David J.
07-01-08, 23:01
Ref OB;You should also realise that your interpretation is not necessarily the only one.

MY INTERPRETATION???? So how do you INTERPRET this specific one (10.4(E), OB?

This sounds familliar...
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4725
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4675

chopper15
08-01-08, 10:01
10.4.e - OK Chopper, help me. The way that it is written it is impossible to tackle anyone who is running. What would you suggest a referee do then?



'Use it or lose it!' QED



and if you must use those irritating asides, particularly by that particular stoic;

. . . . an ordinary erring man, conscious of things done which should not have been done, and other things equally numerous left undone . . .

P G WODEHOUSE with reference to Marcus Aurelius

SimonSmith
08-01-08, 13:01
Use it or lose it?

10.4.e is about the inability to tackle a player with both feet off the ground. That describes people in full flight running - therefore they are, according to the standard that you set, immune from being tackled.

Referees choose to apply judgment to the law, which you seem to have a problem with. I was asking that FOR ONCE you provide a solution instead of laying this at the feet of the referees. Rugby is a community sport - we all own it, flaws and successes. If you don't like something then you have as much right and influence to lobby for change as the rest of us.

I don't mind debating law and rugby issues; I do mind the continual drip drip of something being "our" responsibility. I get enough of that sh!t at work.

Simon Griffiths
08-01-08, 14:01
Fully agree there Simon (both of you actually...)

Dixie, when I spoke of 'leaping like police caution boy' I was referring to the act of jumping that Olly Barkley partook in. Of course his police troubles have been almost front-page news in Gloucester for a combination of two reasons: bugger all ever happens in Gloucester, and it's a chance to publicise a Bath player in trouble :D Of course, Ryan Lamb's police exchanges are discreetly hidden on p15...

chopper15
08-01-08, 15:01
Use it or lose it?

10.4.e is about the inability to tackle a player with both feet off the ground. That describes people in full flight running - therefore they are, according to the standard that you set, immune from being tackled.

Referees choose to apply judgment to the law, which you seem to have a problem with. I was asking that FOR ONCE you provide a solution instead of laying this at the feet of the referees. Rugby is a community sport - we all own it, flaws and successes. If you don't like something then you have as much right and influence to lobby for change as the rest of us.

I don't mind debating law and rugby issues; I do mind the continual drip drip of something being "our" responsibility. I get enough of that sh!t at work.




Simon, it's very difficult for me to defend my point when so many of you misrepresent what I simply raised in the first place with an actual happening, ie. the Jerry Collins incident when the ref. chose to ignore 10.4.e !

The law is positive, it 'forbids' the tackle ('inability' would put another slant on the issue, as would horizontal running with both feet off the ground) and goes on to spell out the come-uppence should it happen - particulaly when a probable try is prevented by the action.

And the 'use it or lose it' advice, I thought was obvious, enact it or scrap it!

I would be delighted to join a discussion on intent (inc. safeguards) and wording for an unambiguous replacement which IMHO is sadly overlooked.

David J.
08-01-08, 15:01
The ref did not ignore the law. He applied the accepted interpretation. You are aghast that such a clear and simply worded sentence can be "interpreted". Well, it can be and is.

SimonSmith
08-01-08, 16:01
I don't think I did misrepresent you at all.

First, and I don't usually go after posting style, not for the first time your posting was cryptic - I genuinely didn't understand what you meant.

Second: by your very question, you raise the spectre of interpretation. Why didn't the ref blow? Because, as DJ says, he applied the commonly held interpretation. You seem to have a problem with that. If we apply the law as currently set, and apply it literally, then it is impossible to tackle someone who is running, as they have both feet off the ground. If we did that, I'm sure that there would be uproar.

Now, if the point that you're making is that the law is applied subject to interpretation, you're right. As I have said elsewhere, I think that's a necessity as you can't write the laws to suit all circumstances

chopper15
08-01-08, 18:01
So, finally, just to shut me up, in what circumstances would you apply 10.4(e) para.5 2nd sentence, in context ?

Cryptic? Was it my remark 'bout 'horizontal running with both feet off the ground'?

I was only pointing out that 'tackling in the air' would obviously exclude normal running with the ball for that reason!

Or if it was 'inability', which is not what the law implies. 'Forbidden or else'?

Davet
08-01-08, 21:01
The 2004 law book states categorically that the ref is the arbiter of what is dangerous.

That is not specified in the current Law - but is generally understood to apply.

Dangerous can vary wildly depending on the level and temper of the game and the skill and fitness of the players - you simply cannot make all-encompassing detailed definitions - that would be ludicrous.

With regard to takling a player who has his feet off the floor then if the ref deems it dangerous in the circumstances then it will be penalised, if not - not.

chopper15
09-01-08, 10:01
So, finally, just to shut me up, in what circumstances would you apply 10.4(e) para.5 2nd sentence, in context ?


Any takers?

tim White
09-01-08, 11:01
This was brought in to specifically protect catchers of a kick ahead, obviously with eyes on the ball rather than an aproaching player they are vulnerable and as such get protection that is clearly spelt out. Now of course catchers make a point of jumping at the moment of contact to use this protection-even being lifted to receive restart kicks etc. Interestingly it also protects line-out jumpers in the same way.

Dickie E
09-01-08, 12:01
Any takers?

This law was specifically introduce in 1948 to protect a reserve player on the bench provided he had his feet up on a poufe. If they're on the ground he is fair game.

As a result the only poufes you see at a rugby game today are on the touchline (or in the England backline).

chopper15
09-01-08, 12:01
This was brought in to specifically protect catchers of a kick ahead, obviously with eyes on the ball rather than an aproaching player they are vulnerable and as such get protection that is clearly spelt out. Now of course catchers make a point of jumping at the moment of contact to use this protection-even being lifted to receive restart kicks etc. Interestingly it also protects line-out jumpers in the same way.


Tim, think your eg. is covered by (h) not 10.4(e) para.5 2nd sentence?

AndyKidd
09-01-08, 13:01
This law was specifically introduce in 1948 to protect a reserve player on the bench provided he had his feet up on a poufe. If they're on the ground he is fair game.

As a result the only poufes you see at a rugby game today are on the touchline (or in the England backline).


Or the Australian front row :)

SimonSmith
09-01-08, 13:01
10.4.e.para 5:
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the
ground.

The second sentence is....the one about advantage that follows it?

Not sure I'm understanding the question....

David J.
09-01-08, 15:01
Tim, think your eg. is covered by (h) not 10.4(e) para.5 2nd sentence?

Sure. It's covered by BOTH. There's dozens of redundancies in the law book. I'm sure with your research skills you can come up with a list. Submit that to the IRB and wait for an answer.

What exactly are you trying yo prove chopper? Tim isn't giving you his interpretation, he's giving you THE interpretation as it is understood and applied by the vast majority of referees all over the planet.

chopper15
09-01-08, 15:01
Tim, think your eg. is covered by (h) not 10.4(e) para.5 2nd sentence?

(h) and (e) are two different situations.

The former relates to the player 'receiving' the ball; the latter not only alludes to the player 'carrying' the ball, but by inference confims it by the second sentence regarding the penalty try award.

Hence my invite ' In what circumstances would you apply 10.4(e) para.5 2nd sentence, in context ?

As I can't think of any, and the law is patently ignored, I just wondered what the IRB's justification was to put in, and even took the step to include the penalty clarification?

SimonSmith
09-01-08, 15:01
(h) and (e) are two different situations.

The former relates to the player 'receiving' the ball; the latter not only alludes to the player 'carrying' the ball, but by inference confims it by the second sentence regarding the penalty try award.

Hence my invite ' In what circumstances would you apply 10.4(e) para.5 2nd sentence, in context ?

As I can't think of any, and the law is patently ignored, I just wondered what the IRB's justification was to put in, and even took the step to include the penalty clarification?

What is the second sentence? I only see one in my version of the laws

chopper15
09-01-08, 18:01
What is the second sentence? I only see one in my version of the laws

Advantage may be played, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded.

SimonSmith
09-01-08, 18:01
So as I interpret that law - and I hope it answers the question.

First, the advantage clause underpins all of 10.4, which is about dangerous tackling.

Players with both feet off the ground are immune from being tackled; if they are tackled it's an act of foul play and must be managed as such. As I said earlier, a literal interpretation suggests immunity for people running - it's a physiological output that running involves having both feet off the ground.

In practice - someone jumping can't be tackled. If it's dangerous, I'll blow. If it isn't dangerous, we play on.

Seems a fairly straightforward law to me...

chopper15
09-01-08, 21:01
Ref. SimonSmith; Seems a fairly straightforward law to me...




So, to summarise;

It should be recognised that the positive statement 'A player MUST NOT tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground',

(i) needs to be made sense of by interpretation,

(ii) that interpretation will be 'A player CAN tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground'

(iii) and if the tackle prevents a probable try . . . tough!


OK . . . I'm only joking!

I now get your point believe me. And my thanks for indulging me . . . I'll try not to raise it again!

SimonSmith
09-01-08, 22:01
You got it!!

I'd only add that there is a (ii.a), almost where there is stipulation about the nature of the tackle.

Other than that, you're right. Stay on this path and you could become a referee!

Account Deleted
10-01-08, 11:01
Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

Ref's call as to what is dangerous - His interpretation!
Penalty: Penalty Kick

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Dangerous regardless of intent of course.


A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Pretty straight forward. but some personal room for interpretation here also.

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Common sense / interpretation of events required when a player is tackled in a "man and ball" situation when the pass is not good and the like.

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

As people have tried to explain this does not provide a defence against being tackled of jumping along etc. Every player running spends most of that time with both feet off the ground. clearly the ref has to put the tackle and the "off the ground" into context.

Sadly Chopper, whilst making the occasional valid point, seems, in general, to be on wind up missions.

chopper15
10-01-08, 13:01
Sadly Chopper, whilst making the occasional valid point, seems, in general, to be on wind up missions.[/COLOR]



(i) 'SADLY' Chopper . . . ! If true, is it?

(ii) 'OCCASIONAL' valid point?

How often do you succeed with a 'valid' point? . . . it's pretty well 'hit or miss, but I do try . . . . then get clobbered for trying and get accused of (iii) should I miss!

(iii) 'IN GENERAL' , to be on wind up missions?

I honestly don't try to? I DO like to go a little deeper I must admit . . . .some of you seem much too comfortable with each other's answers!


So ATTR, all your contemporaries who come in with genuinely interesting and 'sometimes' differing points of view are, in your opinion, suckers to my 'wind-up mission' ?

Don't I have any sympathisers/supporters out there to renew my enthusiasm to continue?

Account Deleted
10-01-08, 14:01
We try to explain first giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, so often it becomes clear that you want to argue for the sake of it.

Not when you are told what the "official" line is and you still argue the toss.

I may disagree with the speed limit on my street However, I have to accept it for what it is. I can choose to observe it or ignore it and be prepared for the consequences if I do not.

Watch the crowd next time a guy is tackled whilst diving for the line, watch the other players (both sides), the coaches and the studio "experts". Listen to the commentators. do any of them agree with you?

A lone voice is usually lone for a reason. think about it!

Simon Griffiths
10-01-08, 15:01
. . . .some of you seem much too comfortable with each other's answers!
That's because most of us have been:

a) Through a very similar training scheme, being passed the same sort if interpretations from our RFU trainers.

b) Quite a few of us have been on this site for a number of years now, and have probably debated almost every law in the book, that has led to a fairly consistent interpretation from most of us, as we weigh up all the options.

Bloody hell! Everyone calls for consistency, then when the referees finally agree on something, we get told off for it! :wow:

SimonSmith
10-01-08, 15:01
[QUOTE=All The Time Ref;35661Watch the crowd next time a guy is tackled whilst diving for the line, watch the other players (both sides), the coaches and the studio "experts". Listen to the commentators. do any of them agree with you?

A lone voice is usually lone for a reason. think about it![/QUOTE]

Never, ever, ever cite the commentators and studio folks as the voices of reason and knowledge. Christ, if I found myself agreeing law with Stuart Barnes my ffirst reaction would be to be very, very worried!

SimonSmith
10-01-08, 15:01
Watch the crowd next time a guy is tackled whilst diving for the line, watch the other players (both sides), the coaches and the studio "experts". Listen to the commentators. do any of them agree with you?

A lone voice is usually lone for a reason. think about it!

Never, ever, ever cite the commentators and studio folks as the voices of reason and knowledge. Christ, if I found myself agreeing law with Stuart Barnes my ffirst reaction would be to be very, very worried!

Padster
10-01-08, 15:01
It often works best if you throw an idea into the ring and let people debate it then draw your own conclusions.
It is enjoyable to hear or read people's views as we all need to keep an open mind or the game won't develop.

chopper15
10-01-08, 15:01
A lone voice is usually lone for a reason. think about it!




An intimidating suggestion of such profound insight!. . .

I don't have a clue what you think, but my explanation is quite 'shallow' for these reasons;

You give me the 'official' line ... ever thought 'we' may like to know what 'you' think?

I accept it is sometimes/often (?) difficult for 'you' to thread this in an on-line discussion (where my points are concerned it's argue!). . . united front and all that.. but why not? I dare-say you're not toe-the-line yes-men at your monthly meetings which us poor terrace refs can't be privy to! And it certainly won't diminish the respect we have for you on the field!

I raised a thread some weeks back 'bout the ethics of the reverse penalty - a 'double whammy' I called it - us terrace bound terrace refs can intelligently guess what the authoritative line HAS to be, but why not discuss/argue principles, equity etc., without mean spirited accusations of 'wind-ups'?

Did you not accept my summary of 10.4(e), particularly when you omitted the 'penalty try' sentence which follows it, and was crucial to my 'argument? . . . the omission did help your argument however!

Please do not think this a wind-up!

beckett50
10-01-08, 16:01
at your monthly meetings which us poor terrace refs can't be privy to!

At the risk of "stating the bleedin' obvious" why not join your local society and then become privvy to such debates.

Better still use this site to learn the LotG and then look at the game you see week in week out and decide how best to APPLY the Laws as written. Then you will continue to understand why some Laws have more weight than others.

As to your debate regarding the reverse penalty, couldn't see your point. At the end of the day if I am playing advantage to Red for an infringement by Blue and a Blue player then commits an offence that is more serious (i.e. Foul Play) then of course Blue will be penalised ergo the PK is reversed. Why should I be derided because the Blue player(s) can't keep their discipline and use the 'free ball':wait:

As to the paragraph relating to a Penalty Try in your intial post, you should read that paragraph alongside that relating the awarding of a penalty try. In other words the PT will ONLY be awarded if it is warranted.

That is why a PT does not always merit a YC, despite the memo released by the iRB and endorsed by the RFU a couple of seasons ago.

Hope this helps:)

chopper15
10-01-08, 17:01
At the risk of "stating the bleedin' obvious" why not join your local society and then become privvy to such debates.

As to your debate regarding the reverse penalty, couldn't see your point. At the end of the day if I am playing advantage to Red for an infringement by Blue and a Blue player then commits an offence that is more serious (i.e. Foul Play) then of course Blue will be penalised ergo the PK is reversed. Why should I be derided because the Blue player(s) can't keep their discipline and use the 'free ball':wait:

Hope this helps:)




Every time I log on I get an anonomous written reminder that 'Chopper is on a 'wind-up' mission'.

I don't know if all log-onners read this, but if so would they please add that I'm well into my seventies and my wife, son and grand-children refuse to discuss rugby with me . . . .they also refuse to stand with me at the Pirates and Reds home games! I'm desperate for a bit of sympathy and understanding...

PS. What if both offences were serious? After all if both are justified and you can't give one-apiece, punish them both by not allowing either penalty . . . you choose who gets the YCs and puts-in! I think OB referred to it as equity? I still say your way, in these circumstances, is a 'double whammy'!

And ,of course, you all help . . . .in your various ways! And I'm grateful!

PaulDG
10-01-08, 18:01
PS. What if both offences were serious? After all if both are justified and you can't give one-apiece, punish them both by not allowing either penalty . . .

That's an option depending on the circumstances. It's quite possible to YC a pair of players and then have a scrum restart.

Generally though the sentiment is that retaliation is often a more serious issue than the original offence. Simply because we can't have discipline on the pitch if the players are taking justice into their own hands.

Hence there will usually be a reverse penalty.

chopper15
10-01-08, 19:01
That's an option depending on the circumstances. It's quite possible to YC a pair of players and then have a scrum restart.

Generally though the sentiment is that retaliation is often a more serious issue than the original offence. Simply because we can't have discipline on the pitch if the players are taking justice into their own hands.

Hence there will usually be a reverse penalty.




Nice one, Paul! Why didn't they bother to tell me that at the out-set?

David J.
10-01-08, 21:01
Because you didn't ask! You just stated that you wish it were abolished.

chopper15
10-01-08, 23:01
Because you didn't ask! You just stated that you wish it were abolished.



So, David, I should of asked, 'Is it possible to YC a pair of players and then have a scrum restart'?

And I can't for the life of me think why I would wish to have it abolished!

What ALL of it?

Never mind, water under the bridge now, or is this a wind-up?

Account Deleted
11-01-08, 00:01
Chopper 15

You give me the 'official' line ... ever thought 'we' may like to know what 'you' think?
What does my opinion of the Law matter? When you ask what the law is, we tell you. You argue it is something else and we point out why your wrong what would it help if we were to say “you’re wrong in Law because …….. However I think the law is silly” It would merely muddy the water so it is a pointless exercise

I accept it is sometimes/often (?) difficult for 'you' to thread this in an on-line discussion (where my points are concerned it's argue!). . . united front and all that.. but why not? I dare-say you're not toe-the-line yes-men at your monthly meetings which us poor terrace refs can't be privy to! And it certainly won't diminish the respect we have for you on the field!

I raised a thread some weeks back 'bout the ethics of the reverse penalty - a 'double whammy' I called it - us terrace bound terrace refs can intelligently guess what the authoritative line HAS to be, but why not discuss/argue principles, equity etc., without mean spirited accusations of 'wind-ups'?
Reversing a penalty is common sense. In every day life if some one was to hit me in the street and I shot then which would the law look upon as the most in need of action?

Did you not accept my summary of 10.4(e), particularly when you omitted the 'penalty try' sentence which follows it, and was crucial to my 'argument? . . . the omission did help your argument however!
How is: “Advantage may be played, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded”, crucial to your argument? If there is no offence in the scenario of a diving player being tackled there is no case to be made for a penalty try being awarded. However if it was an offence then yes the issue of a try being “Probable” does come into the equation. Since it was irrelevant I ignored it.
but if so would they please add that I'm well into my seventies and my wife, son and grand-children refuse to discuss rugby with me . . . .they also refuse to stand with me at the Pirates and Reds home games! I'm desperate for a bit of sympathy and understanding...

Does this not tell you something?

Account Deleted
11-01-08, 00:01
Simon Smith


"Never, ever, ever cite the commentators and studio folks as the voices of reason and knowledge. Christ, if I found myself agreeing law with Stuart Barnes my ffirst reaction would be to be very, very worried!"

That's why I put experts in " ". Mind you the point is valid that why your opinions are so off bean that even Barnes does not spout them you must be seriously wide of the mark!

Simon Griffiths
11-01-08, 00:01
Minfd you the point is valid that why your opinions are so off bean
ATTR, are you pissed...? :chin:

Any chance we could swap Mr Barnes for Mr Davies please? Still, I'd take Stuart Barnes over Eddie Butler any day...

David J.
11-01-08, 00:01
Never mind, water under the bridge now, or is this a wind-up?

No "wind up", though truth be told, I'm not entirely sure what that means.

Water under the bridge.

Account Deleted
11-01-08, 00:01
ATTR, are you pissed...? :chin:

Any chance we could swap Mr Barnes for Mr Davies please? Still, I'd take Stuart Barnes over Eddie Butler any day...

Not at all Never touch the stuff:wink:

The point I tried to make is that Choppers ramblings find No one in support not even the likes of Barnes and co. so his ramblins must be way off beam.

I Like JD Sure he get's it wrong but is prepared to be corrected. Butler is an ASS.

Davet
11-01-08, 10:01
Chopper - in this context you also need to remember that a referee will often simply bollock both players for "handbags", tell them not to stupid etc., and let the original penalty stand.

It's a judgement thing.... again.

But the Law itself is quite clear, retaliation should not be tolerated. It's simply a matter of what is "retaliation"?

This judgement is made many many times by each ref over the course of a season.

chopper15
11-01-08, 11:01
Never mind, water under the bridge now, or is this a wind-up?

Ref.David J; No "wind up", though truth be told, I'm not entirely sure what that means. Water under the bridge.



Got t'be . . . .or you're takin' the p*ss!

beckett50
11-01-08, 13:01
It's quite possible to YC a pair of players and then have a scrum restart.


You'd be a brave man to do that though:biggrin:

tim White
11-01-08, 13:01
Go back to the sequence of events. First a penalty, then retaliation = turnover penalty. Penalty turnover for first retaliation is generally equitable, but not always. I can stand up and say I have binned two players at the same time BUT restarted with the penalty for retaliation, I can understand the scrum decision if there was a mass/multiple handbagging session, but I would shy away from it on grounds of defusing the situation if at all possible.

PaulDG
11-01-08, 14:01
I'd have thought the most likely reason for a scrum restart would be an off-the-ball incident.

You don't know who started it and both players are as bad as each other so you card both.

Then a scrum restart from wherever the ball was at the time of stoppage.

didds
12-01-08, 00:01
Nice one, Paul! Why didn't they bother to tell me that at the out-set?


its been that way for at least 25 years by personal experience and recollection.

what outset do you need? At birth?

didds

chopper15
13-01-08, 12:01
its been that way for at least 25 years by personal experience and recollection.

what outset do you need? At birth?

didds



When I first raised it?

didds
13-01-08, 20:01
When I first raised it?

my point being how was this not already known/appreciated by somebody apparently aged 70 who has followed rugby for years? ie it is surprising that you needed it explaining. Its nothing new.

didds

phillo
18-01-08, 20:01
Back to the actual topic....

Ed Morrison spoke at our society meeting earlier this week and was asked about what he thought about referees using first names, given that it was noted that WB used first names a lot in this game.

The reply was that EM had spoken to WB after the game and asked him about it. The explanation was that half an hour before the kick off, WB made up his mind that he was going to call each and every player by their first names because of the conditions. He wanted to get each and every player on his side so that the game could take place in as orderly fashion as possible given the terrible playing conditions. He added that he wouldn't be taking this approach all the time in the future but it had worked to his advantage and was successful on this occasion.

EM's personal view was that it shouldn't be encouraged at community level so as to avoid bias to either team in the event that you knew one and not the other.

Phil

OB..
18-01-08, 21:01
Interesting.

It still does not answer the question as to what he would have done if there were two players called Fred on opposite sides.