PDA

View Full Version : YC's what do people think



peperami
06-01-08, 18:01
Hi all

Seasons best wishes to all.

Yesterday had a run out in Surrey 4(lvl 12). 30 mins gone in the first half green attacking penalty for hands in the ruck, player goes to take it quickly. Red lazy runner just grabs him from behind, I play advantage for not 10 and eventually bring them back for the penalty as they gained no advantage. The original hands in offence being 20m out. Carded the player for professional foul in the red zone, what do people think ?

Second Card was earlier in the second half. Player ran through, was turned over thought it was a ruck and claimed hands in sir, I shook my head at which point he said to me f*** sake sir. Blown the whistle and explained to player and captain that I found this unacceptable and that it was a yellow card, as it was not about me which would have been a red. Again what would you have done?

The reason I ask is that both captains where pleased with my approach and game, but the home skipper did say sometimes he felt I was refereeing a london 4 not surrey 4 game. Also interested as I still have a > 1 per game card average.

Ben

Gareth-Lee Smith
06-01-08, 18:01
Both cards seemed pretty good decisions, the second one being only slightly more contentious than the first. Some referees (maybe even myself) would've let that go, but maybe you made your job MUCH easier my stamping out such behaviour before it escalated to 'you're an f****** c***, ref'.

Maybe it's cos I'm not from down South, but what's the difference between London 4 and Surrey 4? Higher standard in London?

Don't worry about that average. A couple of members of this forum will attest to my liberal nature when it comes to cards. I can sometimes give 3 in a match, various colours.

peperami
06-01-08, 18:01
Maybe it's cos I'm not from down South, but what's the difference between London 4 and Surrey 4? Higher standard in London?



London 4 = Midlands 4
Surrey = Staffs

London 4 would be lvl 8.

Ben

SimonSmith
06-01-08, 19:01
Wouldn't argue with them - you're the man on the spot.

Don't worry about the cards average - we've had this discussion elsewhere. It's time to worry if you think you're giving the same cards for the same things and not trying alternative courses of management.

OB..
06-01-08, 19:01
I think the second one nicely illustrates why I advise referees NOT to allow players to give "advice". There was no point in him saying "Hands in, Sir" because you will make your own decision, not go with his (or the opposition's!). They should be discouraged from making such claims.

Simon Thomas
06-01-08, 20:01
Gareth-Lee - you need to get up to speed on RFU league structure ready for when you get to the Panel !

GP
National 1 & 2
National 3 (North and South leagues)
it then it splits into the 4 Divisions - North, Midlands, South West and London & South East (often shortened incorrectly to London 1, 2, 3, & 4 !)

Below the Divisional Leagues come the 'feeder' County Leagues - which for L&SE are Middlesex (urban London and suburbs north of River), Surrey (same, south of River), Kent, Sussex, Hampshire (south) and Hertfordshire, Essex and Eastern Counties (Norfolk and Suffolk) north and east.

Each county has its own Society, except London Society which covers Middlesex and Surrey and is a Federation in it's own right.

Davet
06-01-08, 23:01
1st card would depend where on the pitch and what the act prevented. If the tap and go would have made a clean break, and especially if we were in opposition 22 the YC every time. If lesser impact then PK and bollocking.

2nd one - first offence -PK & bollocking, and strong word with captain. subsequent offence YC. Players do feel frustration and it can boil over, I never find it useful to go straight to the pocket, which often sets up a "me vs them" situation.

Dixie
07-01-08, 10:01
1st card would depend where on the pitch and what the act prevented. If the tap and go would have made a clean break, and especially if we were in opposition 22 the YC every time. If lesser impact then PK and bollocking.

2nd one - first offence -PK & bollocking, and strong word with captain. subsequent offence YC. Players do feel frustration and it can boil over, I never find it useful to go straight to the pocket, which often sets up a "me vs them" situation.

Fully agree. The first card was spot on as within the 22m, utterly deliberate and premeditated. Your thinking seems confused on the second card. You write:
... "f*** sake sir". Blown the whistle and explained ... that I found this unacceptable and that it was a yellow card, as it was not about me which would have been a red. If a player asks you for a decision, hears your refusal and then comes out with a derisive expletive, in what sense is that not about the decision you've just communicated? It is clear dissent, expressed earthily.

By issuing the yellow card and indicating that you have only limited it to yellow because you are pretending that the offensive word was not addressed to you, you set yourself up to penalise every benign incidence of offensive language. YC when a kicker misses, and says "f**k it!". YC when a #4 is being held back by a flanker, swivels to glare at his assailant and shouts "f**k off", and then moves away, job done. And who's to say what is offensive? A Vicar acting as ref YC-ing anyone who says Jesus? YC for someone in a youth game calling a team-mate a spastic, because he's fallen over when in a try scoring position? I'd go with Davet's view - PK, bollocking, instruction as to future conduct. YC just makes you look prissy. But if you'd given it for the dissent, that would have been acceptable - though possibly a tad harsh. RC for dissent expressed in this way would, IMO, have been a huge over-reaction.

Emmet Murphy
07-01-08, 12:01
The first one is easier to think about - I'm in two minds about it. Last year I had a match where something virtually identical occured: quick tap in the 22m by the attacking side in a merit fixture and he was held immediately by an opposition player. I pulled out a YC for that but the players and their captain were genuinely surprised which would suggest that most referees would take a more lenient view. I'm not saying that makes the decision incorrect but by being (possibly) inconsistent it does draw unnecessary attention to me in a negative way! This year I have taken the view that I will warn the captain very explicitly the first time it happens and then go to the YC if it happens anywhere on the pitch in any type of fixture. So far I've had no complaints.

With regards to the second incident, it would depend a lot on his tone of voice - was it passive, aggressive, frustrated ???

Toby Warren
07-01-08, 13:01
1st example - cynical and deliberate in my view = 10 mins
2nd example prob a bollocking and PK (does this make your call wrong - of course it doesn't - you were there and your judgment / style will of course be dif to mine.)

ex-lucy
07-01-08, 13:01
for a "fcuks sake" .i would call the miscreant over for a chat with his skipper and refer skipper to prematch brief re: advice and verbal discipline and "discpline is your resp" etc.
Card is a bit harsh for first offence... just exasperation on his part.

i had a "fcuks sake' in a u15 match y'day (top u15s in county/ mayfair on new monopoly) while retreating from a FK after 3rd pushing before ball came in at scrum ... i called skipper over and warned him about verbal discipline ... that's all it needed at the time.
And then told coach afterwards to be careful of such language.

Dixie
07-01-08, 13:01
I pulled out a YC for that but the players and their captain were genuinely surprised which would suggest that most referees would take a more lenient view. ... This year I have taken the view that I will warn the captain very explicitly the first time it happens and then go to the YC if it happens anywhere on the pitch in any type of fixture.
I too carded a player for this just 10m out, and was greeted with astonishment from the skipper, who pointed out that I hadn't issued a warning. My response was that your first cynical, "professional" foul doesn't come with an all-purpose Get Out of Jail Free card. Emmett, IMO issuing a YC 74m out for the second one may be an over-reaction, even bearing in mind your warning. I also think that failing to card for the first one, if in the red zone, is a doobrie - defined as being very similar to an abdication of responsibility, but with fewer judgemental overtones than that phrase carries:wink: .

Davet
07-01-08, 13:01
astonishment from the skipper, who pointed out that I hadn't issued a warning.


The Yellow IS the warning!

SimonSmith
07-01-08, 13:01
I too carded a player for this just 10m out, and was greeted with astonishment from the skipper, who pointed out that I hadn't issued a warning. My response was that your first cynical, "professional" foul doesn't come with an all-purpose Get Out of Jail Free card. Emmett, IMO issuing a YC 74m out for the second one may be an over-reaction, even bearing in mind your warning. I also think that failing to card for the first one, if in the red zone, is a doobrie - defined as being very similar to an abdication of responsibility, but with fewer judgemental overtones than that phrase carries:wink: .


Cue Simon T anecdote about a certain famous Hampshire referee's pre match brief....:biggrin:

Greg Collins
07-01-08, 14:01
The Yellow IS the warning!

issued a general warning for infringements at the tackle - less than a minute later in Blue 22, Blue hands in => YC out, restart, next ruck hands in again BY THE BLUE SKIPPER 3m off his own line YC out again. Blue coach vocally unhappy from touch line, Blue coach told to save it for after the game, Blue concede 10 points during the dual sin binning (only points they conceded in the match)

After game Blue coach wants a word "You didn't issue a warning" I suggest he speaks to his skipper and I ask "so what about the second Yellow then? Wasn't the first one warning enough?"

Learning point for me was the warning should have come earlier so my question is for repeat offences by a team at the tackle zone and in ruck what rule of thumb do people use for issuing a general warning?

Davet
07-01-08, 19:01
Greg - you are NOT obliged to issue any warning at all.

If I had been you then I'm afraid my answer to the coach would have been along the lines "Correct. I did not. So what?"

Perhaps a tad gentler, or not - depending on the way he addressed the subject.

Emmet Murphy
07-01-08, 21:01
I too carded a player for this just 10m out, and was greeted with astonishment from the skipper, who pointed out that I hadn't issued a warning. My response was that your first cynical, "professional" foul doesn't come with an all-purpose Get Out of Jail Free card. Emmett, IMO issuing a YC 74m out for the second one may be an over-reaction, even bearing in mind your warning. I also think that failing to card for the first one, if in the red zone, is a doobrie - defined as being very similar to an abdication of responsibility, but with fewer judgemental overtones than that phrase carries:wink: .

My point was more to do with the relationship between your / our decision to YC without a warning and the decisions that other referees might give. For instance, your suggestion that a YC 74m out may be an over-reaction ... that is exactly why I would want to issue a warning - because I know other refs would interpret it differently to me therefore I'm going to communicate to the captain that my interpretation of this particular law is different to what he is probably used to and make it clear what will happen if it occurs again. If someone is then thick enough to call my bluff - noone can blame me!

beckett50
08-01-08, 09:01
You are not obliged to give a warning before the cards come out of your pocket. However one could argue that penalties against are sufficient warning.

It is customary, from a management viewpoint, to alert the skipper that he is failing in his duty to ensure HIS players are not keeping their discipline well enough and that you may have to take actions that you may (or may not) have aluded to in your pre-match brief.

Having said that there are some offences for which no warning is justified - like the clumsy late tackle that doesn't warrant a red but something stronger than just a PK etc.

As with any post match approach from a coach, let him have his rant - until he stops talking/shouting - then quietly answer the question or advise him that you will discuss it with him in the bar after you have cooled down, had a shower and got changed:)

At the end of the day, YCs are personal to each of us in the same way that we all play the "Advantage" Law differently. If you felt you were justified in your actions, then fine and we'll back you all the way

Davet
08-01-08, 13:01
because I know other refs would interpret it differently to me therefore I'm going to communicate to the captain that my interpretation of this particular law is different to what he is probably used to


Are you saying that you are intentionally treating some offences differently to the way that "most refs" do?

Emmet Murphy
08-01-08, 15:01
I'm saying that my interpretation of this law is different to a lot of other refs' ... but that is in the same way that everyone interprets the laws differently. I was assessed recently and the assessor specificly praised my interpretation of this particular law (ie one verbal warning to the skipper when it happens 1st time and then a YC the next) because - as he put it - it happens far too often which in itself implies that a lot of other refs tolerate it. I do not see a problem with having an interpretation that is slightly different to the norm provided you communicate this very clearly to the captains.

OB..
08-01-08, 16:01
I think we have a distinction without a difference. Referees will judge situations differently, and there may well be genuine differences. Warning players is part of ATP.

However if a referee insists on always giving a warning before he issues a Yellow Card, I would say he is simply wrong.

Emmet Murphy
08-01-08, 18:01
However if a referee insists on always giving a warning before he issues a Yellow Card, I would say he is simply wrong.

I should have made that clearer ... I'm not advocating always giving a warning before a YC - only for this specific offence and then only a certain distance from the goal line (ie for it not to be considered a 'professional foul').

Davet
08-01-08, 21:01
Hmmm

OK what you seem to be saying is that you KNOW how the majority of refs will interpret a given situation, yet insist on an entirely unique interpretation.

That seems to be to be a distinction which creates a difference, and a deliberate inconsistency.

I am all for referees applying judgement, and I am no automation in terms of consistency, and definitley do NOT subscribe to the view that whatever the majority thinks is automatically correct (or as the gents wall in the Green Dragon in Darlington once put it, "Eat sh1t, sixty billion flies can't be wrong!"); but, to simply march to your own drumbeat in full knowledge that you are the one out of step rather than attempting to persuade the rest of us and having us all act in concert seems a tad idiosyncratic.

Emmet Murphy
08-01-08, 23:01
Hmmm

OK what you seem to be saying is that you KNOW how the majority of refs will interpret a given situation, yet insist on an entirely unique interpretationNow - let's be sensible here - it can't really be an "entirely unique interpretation" if someone else has begun this thread by mentioning it and it has been commented on favourably by an assessor, can it? Furthermore, you've failed to answer how my "entirely unique interpretation" (which it clearly isn't) is an issue at all when it is preceded by a clear verbal warning to the captain?

Also, I'm a little confused by your comment that you "definitley do NOT subscribe to the view that whatever the majority thinks is automatically correct" because your criticism of my interpretation of this law seems to be based only on the false premise that it is "entirely unique" and is therefore not what the "majority thinks". If there is a difference, and those two statements are not as blatantly contradictory as they appear, I'd be really grateful if you could explain the difference.

but, to simply march to your own drumbeat in full knowledge that you are the one out of step
Am I disregarding the laws? Am I discouraging positive play? Am I refusing to communicate clearly to the players about what I expect from them? Am I doing something that will increase the likelihood of something dangerous occuring? And - I'm not being funny here - but do you seriously think that your interpretation of every single aspect of the game is identical to the majority of other referees? We all interpret the laws differently.

rather than attempting to persuade the rest of us and having us all act in concert seems a tad idiosyncratic.
I know - it's not as if I went and posted it on an internet forum populated by rugby referees, eh? :rolleyes:

OB..
09-01-08, 01:01
We don't have to go to extremes. If your interpretation is unusual, preceding it by a clear verbal warning is irrelevant. So is whether or not you see it as a good interpretation (which you obviously do).

The question seems to be just how different your view is. Some degree of difference is inevitable. The bigger, the worse.

AndyKidd
09-01-08, 07:01
With regard to warnings being issued before a yellow card. A previous post elsewhere within this board mentions a previous Hampshire chairman, who's opening comments in the changing rooms were something like.

" Some of you seem to be under the impression that I have to issue a warning before a card. Consider this the warning!".

Just about sums it up really.

Emmet Murphy
09-01-08, 09:01
I think the use of a warning is relevant simply because there can then be no valid reason for a team failing to comply. I'm not talking about ignoring any laws as this interpretation falls well within the LoTG so to not issue a warning at all would be perfectly valid - I'm merely stating that I use a warning in most circumstances to give me that little extra insurance. For what its worth, I don't consider this to be anything like an extreme interpretation and I know a lot of other refs would apply a similar interpretation (it is just that a lot of others obviously don't!) :)

Dickie E
09-01-08, 10:01
I should have made that clearer ... I'm not advocating always giving a warning before a YC - only for this specific offence and then only a certain distance from the goal line (ie for it not to be considered a 'professional foul').

I agree with this. If its not in the 22 I'd certainly penalise with no card in the 1st instance unless something else in the game called for a different approach.

Davet
09-01-08, 13:01
Emmet, please re-read what I wrote, there is no inconsistency. I am suggesting that if you disagree with the majority then you may well be correct, however, if we are trying to get some for of consistency within refereeing you should not simply act on your own ideas in cases where you KNOW a majority of others do it differently.

Instead you should seek to convince others that your path is the correct one - whilst acting in accoprdance with general standards in the meanwhile.

The instance we are discussing here is trivial, and indeed I don't think that in this case you are actually out of step. I am concerned here more with the principle, the generality. If a referee has genuine belief that the way the Law is interpreted by the vast majority his colleagues is wrong then he he should not simply go his own way, in despite of a generally accepted position.

SimonSmith
09-01-08, 14:01
If a referee has genuine belief that the way the Law is interpreted by the vast majority his colleagues is wrong then he he should not simply go his own way, in despite of a generally accepted position.

Not 100% on board with that. I bet a LOT of referees apply "let him up" incorrectly. If I KNOW that my law interpretation is correct, that's what I'll apply. I will attempt to convince others of my stance, but I will stand by what I think is right.

Emmet Murphy
09-01-08, 16:01
Davet - I would agree that we should not draw attention to ourselves by being provocative or unsympathetic in our law interpretations. Deliberately choosing to be different for its own sake is something I would not, in any way, support.

I do also agree that discussion and dialogue is necessary on all aspects of the laws; before I started using these forums I used to think there was such a thing as a 'Double Movement' and that when someone fell on the ball the opposition had to let him up!

Gareth-Lee Smith
09-01-08, 16:01
I remember letting several penalties in the 22m in an U15s go uncarded some weeks ago. I learned my lesson when I was told later that a fellow ref (associated with the club on this occasion) was quietly and rhetorically remonstrating with the words "Red?! It's the f****** purple zone now!" :D

Toby Warren
09-01-08, 17:01
Davet - I would agree that we should not draw attention to ourselves by being provocative or unsympathetic in our law interpretations. Deliberately choosing to be different for its own sake is something I would not, in any way, support.

I do also agree that discussion and dialogue is necessary on all aspects of the laws; before I started using these forums I used to think there was such a thing as a 'Double Movement' and that when someone fell on the ball the opposition had to let him up!


Emmet (and others)

Would be intrested if you could elaborate on the double movement point. Whilst I accept that you won't find the words 'double movement' in the law book, but I would say that such a thing existed i.e. not playing the ball immediately in a tackle (and in particular in this instance having two dibs at it) Always accepted double movement as a term similar to squeeze ball tap tackle etc

Have I missed somthing?

PaulDG
09-01-08, 18:01
Emmet (and others)

Would be intrested if you could elaborate on the double movement point. Whilst I accept that you won't find the words 'double movement' in the law book, but I would say that such a thing existed i.e. not playing the ball immediately in a tackle (and in particular in this instance having two dibs at it) Always accepted double movement as a term similar to squeeze ball tap tackle etc

Have I missed somthing?

The call of "Double Movement" from the pitch side lawyers generally refers to the situation where a player tackled close to the goal line reaches forward and places the ball on the line.

This is because too many pitch side lawyers watch Rugby League on Sky TV and are convinced this is the "Double Movement" offence which is a penalty offence in League (if the ball touches the ground while being held in league, the phase of play stops. If the ball is deliberately moved forward, that's a penalty).

Of course in Union, the move is not only not a penalty, it's a specifically allowed way to score a try.

Now "Double Movement" can also mean "being brought down and then half-jumping/crawling forward after the tackler has released". That is a penalty (the tackled player has not released and then got to his feet before playing the ball) - but it's almost never what is mean by the phrase when you hear it on the touchline.

OB..
09-01-08, 18:01
SimonSmith - Seniority counts for more than numbers. The referees misapplying the laws are (I sincerely hope!) at the bottom end, and so count for little.

SimonSmith
09-01-08, 19:01
Oh I agree with that.

Although I'll throw "not straight" at you :biggrin:

OB..
09-01-08, 21:01
SimonSmith - if you throw not straight at me, I shall take under advisement :chin: the necessity of penalising you :D :cool:

SimonSmith
09-01-08, 21:01
Touche!!

Toby Warren
10-01-08, 08:01
The call of "Double Movement" from the pitch side lawyers generally refers to the situation where a player tackled close to the goal line reaches forward and places the ball on the line.

This is because too many pitch side lawyers watch Rugby League on Sky TV and are convinced this is the "Double Movement" offence which is a penalty offence in League (if the ball touches the ground while being held in league, the phase of play stops. If the ball is deliberately moved forward, that's a penalty).

Of course in Union, the move is not only not a penalty, it's a specifically allowed way to score a try.

Now "Double Movement" can also mean "being brought down and then half-jumping/crawling forward after the tackler has released". That is a penalty (the tackled player has not released and then got to his feet before playing the ball) - but it's almost never what is mean by the phrase when you hear it on the touchline.

Thanks PaulDG that was my understanding (which you have added to with the rugby league info). was suprised by the previous comment that there is 'no such thing'

Emmet Murphy
10-01-08, 12:01
In Rugby Union there isn't!! When a player is tackled - in any part of the pitch - he may be penalised for "Not Releasing". As Paul explained Double Movement is often referred to but in Union the offence is actually "Not Releasing".

Toby Warren
10-01-08, 14:01
In Rugby Union there isn't!! When a player is tackled - in any part of the pitch - he may be penalised for "Not Releasing". As Paul explained Double Movement is often referred to but in Union the offence is actually "Not Releasing".


Ok I understand your view but I see double movement as part of the language of the game. You are right you won't find the exact words double movement in the laws but also you won't find 'crossing' 'spear tackle' 'squeeze ball' 'truck and trailer' etc etc etc do you not ping these?

Of course you do it is just the language of the game and I include double movement in that bracket. - Others I am sure won't!

SimonSmith
10-01-08, 14:01
LB - that's a tricky path to be on.
Double movements ARE allowed as long as they happen immediately, as outlined earlier in the thread.

If you refer to "double movement" when you are refereeing, you create a rod for others to be beaten with, as well as being incorrect in law.

Toby Warren
10-01-08, 14:01
LB - that's a tricky path to be on.
Double movements ARE allowed as long as they happen immediately, as outlined earlier in the thread.

If you refer to "double movement" when you are refereeing, you create a rod for others to be beaten with, as well as being incorrect in law.

Not sure I agree (and without wishing to make this issue any thing more than it is - a polite debate re semantics) - If you asked a player of reasonable standard what a double movement was they would understand that you are talking about not releasnig immediately.

If we follow your logice the language of the game gets restricted to the language of the law book only - and we all know how accurate that is at times. Using the langugage of the game helps keep it flowing.

beckett50
10-01-08, 15:01
I see double movement as part of the language of the game.

Part of the MISINFORMED language of the game, promoted by the likes of Stuart Barnes and the rest of Sky commentary team.:cool:

I think you'll find that squeeze ball does appear in the Laws.

Both Crossing and Truck and Trailer are metaphors to describe obstruction, in various areas of game play.

Davet
10-01-08, 15:01
Emmet - correct. I really want Barnes an co to stop using the term "double movement". A second movement, to play the ball after the tackle is perfectly legal - so long as it is "immediate". The length of time encompassed by that definition may be slightly variable depending on level of game, temper of game, and the circumstances at the that individual tackle.

The Law itself specifies that a player brought down short of the line may reach over to score a try.

There is some room for debate on how far "reaching" is purely an arm movement, or includes stretching the trunk as well, or allows some thrust forward component from thighs, legs, etc. But in general I think most refs have an instinctive notion of what's OK and what's extracting the urine.

Personally I would resist absolute detailed definition, these invariably shackle officials and lead to some strange and unjust results. Allowing referees (judges etc.) to use their judgement and interpretation is - in my view - a vital part of seeing justice done. The caveat I would offer here is that those making the judgement need to have had training and be aware of the views of their peers, to avoid idiosyncratic rulings.

(That's not trying continue our previous discussions on another thread - but, I guess, is related in principle.)

Toby Warren
10-01-08, 15:01
Part of the MISINFORMED language of the game, promoted by the likes of Stuart Barnes and the rest of Sky commentary team.:cool:

I think you'll find that squeeze ball does appear in the Laws.

Both Crossing and Truck and Trailer are metaphors to describe obstruction, in various areas of game play.

Well we will agree to disagree, I consider double movement in the same vain as the other examples quoted and I am happy to bow to your knowledge re squeeze ball.

If I hear double movement I understand it as failing to release (or play) the ball immediately after a tackle - normally in an effort to score a try - it is an effective and quick way of describing a fairly common event

Same as I hear crossing I know it means obstruction spear tackle means a dangerous tackle etc etc etc etc.

You clearly hear it as something else :)

As an aside why are the truck and trailer etc metaphors ok but this one not?

FlipFlop
10-01-08, 15:01
They are acceptable as they refer to something that is always illegal, and therefore liable to PK.

Double movement isn't. A large number of players believe that reaching forward after you've been tackled and placing the ball forward (normally over the try line) is a double movement. It isn't. It needs to be judged as anywhere else on the field, with respect to releasing.

I've had numerous times when I've awarded a try and BOTH sides thought it was a "double movement" as the tackled player reached forward and placed the ball. Afterwards explained it, and they all understood, and were happy.

Toby Warren
10-01-08, 15:01
Ok thanks flipflop, not for the first time my takeon somthing is different to the rest of the world.
:o

As an aside it is shame it is a hated phrase, as it actual a really useful way of describing what a player did wrong to non rugby person.

i.e. the tackled player is only allowed one attempt to play the ball he moved twiced double movement penalty.

Them's the breaks (and I not going to start a crusade to defend double movement as I get the feeling I'll be pushing Shite uphill with a stick)

chopper15
10-01-08, 16:01
Just a quicky please!

In what cicumstances is 'truck and trailer' an obstruction as an offence?

SimonSmith
10-01-08, 16:01
Usually - and I stand by for a better definition - when two players or more roll off from a maul, with the ball carrier being protected from potential tacklers by one or more team mates in front of him.

Toby Warren
10-01-08, 17:01
Usually - and I stand by for a better definition - when two players or more roll off from a maul, with the ball carrier being protected from potential tacklers by one or more team mates in front of him.

Key thing in my mind is the players infront of the ball carrier are not bound into the maul

Dixie
10-01-08, 17:01
Key thing in my mind is that the ball carrier is not bound to the maul, but is protected by it (or by other offside players ahead of him) while acting as though he were part of the maul.

Because the ball carrier is not bound to the maul, the maul has ended. All the participants in the ex-maul are thus offside. Normally, this is not a problem because the ball is moved away from the ex-maul. But when the ball carrier acts as though he were still part of the maul, the ex-maulers are protecting him from the opposition. Being offside, they are thus interfering with play.

OB..
10-01-08, 18:01
The term "double movement" is so ill-defined that it is impossible to say if it is legal or not. The expression therefore should not be used.

OB..
10-01-08, 18:01
I agree with SimonSmith that "Truck'n'Trailer" applies specifically to a pod of players breaking off from a maul with the ball-carrier at the back. That is also the view of my RRDO.

David J.
10-01-08, 18:01
Wouldn't Truck and trailer also apply if players bound in front of the ball carrier in open play?

Not to be too nit picky, but truck and trailer does occur in the laws, while squeeze ball, double movement, and crossing do not.

One of my early referring experiences involved a women's collegiate match. The ball carrier was tackled diving for the line and the ball came down, in hand, in the in goal, on an opponent's foot. The ball carrier then placed it on the ground in the in goal. I awarded the try to the opposing team's fury.

Sinkers
10-01-08, 20:01
momentum..you can score by momentum ie wet slippy pitch 1 metre short tackled and slide in to in goal

Simon Thomas
10-01-08, 22:01
Squeezeball is not in LoG but is in numerous advisory notes (IRB, coaches, referees, et al) and was defined including drawings when it was banned at Under 18 level and younger by the RFU a few years ago.

The offence is not the technique of squeezeball itself, but slow release and therefor not making the ball immediately available - which is covered in LoG.

chopper15
10-01-08, 22:01
Key thing in my mind is that the ball carrier is not bound to the maul, but is protected by it (or by other offside players ahead of him) while acting as though he were part of the maul.

Because the ball carrier is not bound to the maul, the maul has ended. All the participants in the ex-maul are thus offside. Normally, this is not a problem because the ball is moved away from the ex-maul. But when the ball carrier acts as though he were still part of the maul, the ex-maulers are protecting him from the opposition. Being offside, they are thus interfering with play.



We had this in another thread and I'm sure that the ball-carrier need not, necessarily, be bound to the maul, ie. If he was holding the ball with both arms (to prevent wrenching). . . . .being 'caught in' would be enough to maintain it?

OB..
11-01-08, 00:01
Wouldn't Truck and trailer also apply if players bound in front of the ball carrier in open play?
Not according to my understanding.


Not to be too nit picky, but truck and trailer does occur in the laws,
Where?

David J.
11-01-08, 00:01
Where?
Oops, I was think "Flying Wedge", which along with "Cavalry charge" is something I've always thought was odd to have listed in the laws.

Then again, this is a sport that's accepted the term "Sin Bin" in the law definitions.

I'll keep my nit picking to myself, or at least search the law book before I comment again.

Davet
11-01-08, 09:01
Quote:
Originally Posted by David J. http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/images3/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=35691#post35691)
Wouldn't Truck and trailer also apply if players bound in front of the ball carrier in open play?

Not according to my understanding.


Well, it would certainly be obstruction.

I don't see why it should not be described as T&T, but frankly why bother - obstruction works fine.

Actually obstruction works fine in both cases, after all that's what it is.

The iRB have issued instructions to refs to talk in terms of Law, and not use shorthand expressions, however commonly (mis)understood.

OB..
11-01-08, 11:01
My recollection is that the term T&T suddenly started being used by refs on TV to describe a specific situation. However it was quickly taken up and misused elsewhere, so its usefulness was undermined. These days it is probably best avoided, at least at lower levels.

cymrubach
11-01-08, 11:01
Well, it would certainly be obstruction.

I don't see why it should not be described as T&T, but frankly why bother - obstruction works fine.

Actually obstruction works fine in both cases, after all that's what it is.

The iRB have issued instructions to refs to talk in terms of Law, and not use shorthand expressions, however commonly (mis)understood.

In specifics the IRB do refer to the term truck and trailer, see the new ELV's where it is proposed to became legal.... Therefore it has been recognised by those that make the laws and is a genuine rugby term. However, I agree, obstruction is a much better descriptive term in both scenarios above and would be my choice on the pitch.

OB..
11-01-08, 11:01
Unfortunately the ELVs are not written in terminology that would be suitable for incorporating into a law book.

When (if) they are incorporated. it will be interestsing to see how they are phrased. IF T&T is used, it will need to be defined.

beckett50
11-01-08, 12:01
Wouldn't Truck and trailer also apply if players bound in front of the ball carrier in open play?


No because the term T&T was brought about to specifically describe the action by the ball carrier at the back of the maul.

What would happen is that he would break his bind/not be caught in by a team mate then move the back of the maul and reattach himself. Ergo he his the trailer attaching himself to the tractor unit/truck (the rest of the forwards in the maul).

Which ever way you look at it its still obstruction:)

Emmet Murphy
11-01-08, 13:01
The term 'truck and trailer' is a metaphor for a maul where the ball carrier is legally at the back (the trailer) and his teammates are legally at the front (the truck). Therefore, it wouldn't really make much sense to be used in other situations and may lead to confusion if it is. I recall that when it did first come in it was more often than not penalised with a penalty whereas now it seems to be more customary to apply the off-side laws more sympathetically and give a scrum if it appears unintentional which I think is very sensible.

Toby Warren
11-01-08, 13:01
OK so (he says accepting the role of creating a littlemischief to help friday pass a bit quicker) why is it acceptable to use the T&T metaphor when there is some confussion over the meaning but not the double movement metaphor?

SimonSmith
11-01-08, 13:01
I can take the description of T&T and show you in law why it isn't allowed.

Can you do that with the "double movement"?

Davet
11-01-08, 13:01
Personally I don't like either.

However, T&T - as commonly understood is illegal.
Double Movement, as commonly understood, is not.

The phrase "Double Movement" therefore causes more problems that it is worth.

Simon Thomas
11-01-08, 13:01
I think the actual term T & T originated in ANZAC area perhaps in Super 12s (as were) from one of the commentators.

Much prefer 'Mondeo & Caravan' as descriptor - it describes speed and physical condition of the players I referee perfectly.

Toby Warren
11-01-08, 14:01
I can take the description of T&T and show you in law why it isn't allowed.

Can you do that with the "double movement"?

Yes

When tackled a player must play the ball immediately - double movement isn't immediate

PaulDG
11-01-08, 14:01
When tackled a player must play the ball immediately - double movement isn't immediate

But the point is that's not what the spectators think double movement is.

They listen to Stuart Barnes. And he's referring to a completely different thing - moving the ball forward at all.

SimonSmith
11-01-08, 14:01
Yes

When tackled a player must play the ball immediately - double movement isn't immediate

The common interpretation, which is the one that you're been relying on, is the one where a player hits the ground and having hit the ground, reaches out and places the ball.

When that happens, uninformed sources cry "double movement". I say - allowable in law - and specified as such.

Toby Warren
11-01-08, 14:01
But the point is that's not what the spectators think double movement is.

They listen to Stuart Barnes. And he's referring to a completely different thing - moving the ball forward at all.

Understand and that is were my initial confusion steemd from as stated in the earlier post

My second question (slightly tounge in cheek) is that if there is a misunderstanding over T+T and double movment why is T+T accepted but double movement is not.

Toby Warren
11-01-08, 15:01
The common interpretation, which is the one that you're been relying on, is the one where a player hits the ground and having hit the ground, reaches out and places the ball.



Sorry just need to pick this up, that is not what I was relying on my earlier post is clear to this effect by using words to the effect of (can't work out how to double quote)

When I hear double movement I understand it to be someone having two goes at playing the ball. Hence double movement your example is clearly a single movement and legal.

I understand that the common understanding is different to what I have just stated.

Just want to be clear:wink:

OB..
11-01-08, 15:01
If a player hits the ground in a tackle, then gets to his knees to cross the line, that is a single movement, but illegal.

People in general do not really understand what is allowed and what is not. The term "double movement" does nothing to help, and should be dropped.

T&T was useful at one time, but has now become equally confusing, so might as well be dropped. However it is in the ELVs so it might yet become a legal term like Flying Wedge.

tim White
11-01-08, 18:01
Underesitmating the neck-snapping acceleration of a Mondeo can be fatal-particularly the Turbo Deisel. Make sure you cover it in the pre-match chat.;)

chopper15
14-01-08, 14:01
Ref; t&t discussion.

Did any one see the Munster v Clermont T&T incident? The 'truck' was brought to ground, the 'trailer' carried on for about 10m or so with the ball until they were held.

The ref, however, had signalled advantage. Surely the maul was still in being?

Davet
15-01-08, 00:01
If the pod of players including the ball-carrier had broken away from the maul then it was over. If the ball carrier had team mates in front of him they were obstructing, which is an offence. The first offence would then be collapsing the maul by the opposition, for which the ref was playing advantage. So we go to that offence and award the penalty.

If the defenders had broken away then the maul was not over and the attackers could have advanced as far as they wished with the ball carrier at the back, with offside lines in place.

OB..
15-01-08, 01:01
If the pod of players including the ball-carrier had broken away from the maul then it was over. If the ball carrier had team mates in front of him they were obstructing, which is an offence. The first offence would then be collapsing the maul by the opposition, for which the ref was playing advantage. So we go to that offence and award the penalty.

If the defenders had broken away voluntarily then the maul was not over and the attackers could have advanced as far as they wished with the ball carrier at the back, with offside lines in place.
Just one slight adjustment needed.

This comes from a (poorly published) IRB note.

Davet
15-01-08, 13:01
OB - amendment accepted

ex-lucy
15-01-08, 16:01
an interesting amendment ... falling over trying to bring the maul crashing down ... i would say that is voluntary ... in fact when it is not voluntary?

OB..
15-01-08, 18:01
As an example - when the attackers break through the defenders.

David J.
17-01-08, 16:01
From the SANZAR website regarding the ELVs. Not that it really matters, but truck and trailer does / did not require a maul to called so...according to them.

"5. "Truck and trailer":

This is no longer penalised if it starts from a maul which splinters. Players of the team with the ball in the maul may continue to advance provided that they are bound together (at least two players). Players may be in front of the ball-carrier. This is now considered a newly formed maul whether there are opponents involved or not.

It must start from a maul. A team may not set up such a formation from the start and drive it forward with the ball-carrier behind the front players. That would still be penalised as obstruction - "truck and trailer". "