PDA

View Full Version : Punching



Toby Warren
16-01-08, 10:01
I read on an earlier thread can't recall by whom, that if you witness a punch it is a red card.

This got me thinking does a sort of an unoffical code exist still?

i.e. if the punch is a cheap shot or on an unprotected player mismatch etc it is red, but if it is a 'fair fight' i.e two blokes having a go then this is somehow ok and response is a talking too or yellow.

Does this view still exist?

Greg Collins
16-01-08, 11:01
I can see this one may have legs....

10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play law must be
admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended, or sent-off.

so it is all down to individual interpretation and some will subscribe to your unofficial code.

However this got covered failry well on my ELRA course so for me, and I'm still at the black'n'white stage of my reffing career...

Handbags (of which I am sole judge on the pitch) talking to or sin bin, i.e. lower end of the scale, bollocking and work up

Fighting (of which I am sole judge on the pitch) with players being struck is 10.4 (a) upper end of the scale, i.e RC and work down


It's a flashpoint and so you have to do something, according to the temp of the game.

Dixie
16-01-08, 12:01
http://www.rfu.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/RFUHome.Community_Detail/StoryID/18399

Berkshire Society discussed this at our meeting yesterday, and had a range of opinions. There's clearly a case for a stright red, but also if a player has been held back, lashes out half-heartedly out of frustration and lands with the power of an exhausted marshmallow, red may be excessive.

The link takes you to the RFU's recommended sanctions page. Striking an opponent with a fist earns you from 2 weeks to 52 weeks out of the game. In the light of that, many argued that a ref awarding a yellow card was bottling the decision. Others argued that as with everything else in the game, it's a judgement call. Consistency will be hard to find. As Greg said, this one may have legs ...

Pablo
16-01-08, 12:01
There USED to be (pre-2000 re-write) a document produced by the RFU which was nicknamed "The Crimes Act", detailing a tariff of in-game sanctions recommended for each of the acts of foul play described in Law 26 (now Law 10). This document is no longer circulated (one of our fellow board members may be able to provide a copy), I believe because it was felt that it removed too much power of discretion from the referee. Dixie's link is the corresponding tariff for a disciplinary committee to use after a red card or citing has been issued.

Greg's approach is the correct one - every case judged on merits and context as you, the sole arbiter of fact and Law, determine at the time. From personal experience, I find that offences worthy of a red card sort of "jump out" at you - if you need a long debate in your head about whether to give a red card, it's probably only worth a yellow.

Simon Thomas
16-01-08, 13:01
You should take your Society's guidance based on Training Meeting discussions, which will based on everyone's experiences and on-going RFU Guidelines.
As is said - a red card offence is pretty clear to most of us at the time - you just know.

Simon Griffiths
16-01-08, 13:01
Fully agree that the sanction depends largely on the context of the situation, many factors will enter my mind. But, there are some things which will always be a red card. Usually with a red, you'll know it should be a red.

sgoat
16-01-08, 13:01
I don't know about an RFU Crimes Act but there is still one in force in Australia. Attached in the current version (it says 2006 though) of the Act used in Perth.

I agree with Pablo in that I personally found it far to prescriptive while I was out there refereeing. There are plenty of times when things are not black and white.

Toby Warren
16-01-08, 13:01
Any one know what the Christmas hold they refer to in the document

Simon Griffiths
16-01-08, 13:01
If I recall correctly, it is a grab of the most painful kind... :eek:

sgoat
16-01-08, 13:01
The the Urban Dictionary:

Christmas Hold - "reaching between someone's legs from behind and grabbing their... Ummm... Package."

Toby Warren
16-01-08, 13:01
Any one know the derivation?

Simon Griffiths
16-01-08, 13:01
Some of us have got trees down there? :wow:

Pablo
16-01-08, 14:01
I knew the term, but I don't know why it's called a Christmas hold - the term I've heard most commonly applied to that sort of nut-grabbing illegality is a "squirrel tackle" for obvious reasons...

AndyKidd
16-01-08, 14:01
Any one know the derivation?


Answer could be for Married men. As it would be the only time someone else grabbed them. Rather like Christmas and the wife :rolleyes:

Toby Warren
16-01-08, 14:01
Thought it might be something to do with baubles........

jerkyboybrit
16-01-08, 14:01
The the Urban Dictionary:

Christmas Hold - "reaching between someone's legs from behind and grabbing their... Ummm... Package."

Crikey I usually have to pay good money for this kind of treatment!! :drool:

didds
16-01-08, 23:01
what about intended punches (of the most heinous kind say, that would earn a red) that miss the target through no deliberate action of the perpetrator (ie he was "lucky" the punch missed)

didds

OB..
17-01-08, 02:01
It got Ringer sent off.

(His fifth penalty of the day. It might have been different with yellow cards.)

Gareth-Lee Smith
17-01-08, 02:01
And, of course, said grabbing of nuts can equal a lifetime ban under the RFU's disciplinary sanctions

Toby Warren
17-01-08, 08:01
what about intended punches (of the most heinous kind say, that would earn a red) that miss the target through no deliberate action of the perpetrator (ie he was "lucky" the punch missed)

didds

I've seen yellows given for it - accompanied by the line it is lucky you missed

Greg Collins
17-01-08, 13:01
I've YC'd a player for a haymaker that missed and said exactly that to him

didds
17-01-08, 23:01
I've YC'd a player for a haymaker that missed and said exactly that to him

so... the intent was exactly the same but the perp receives leniency because the potential citim manged to duck/sway in time.

Equity? Smash him to a pulp and its a red, miss by some fluke and only get a yellow?

didds

Simon Griffiths
17-01-08, 23:01
Everything in life depends to some extent upon the outcome as well as the intent - you don't get convicted of murder if you cocked it up, you get convicted of attempted murder.

If, however, he'd run in from some distance to attempt a haymaker but missed, I'd still likely give him a RC for coming in from somewhere else.

SimonSmith
18-01-08, 01:01
Everything in life depends to some extent upon the outcome as well as the intent - you don't get convicted of murder if you cocked it up, you get convicted of attempted murder.

Which usually carry the same sentence.

There are lots of good points made here. But I wouldn't want to paint myself into a corner; I've sent people off for a swing and a miss (outcome, btw was that a certain County's Disciplinary panel dismissed it), and I've let two guys have a swing and just told them off (with no problems after that).

It's all about context, not about absolutes.

Dinks
18-01-08, 08:01
Equity? Smash him to a pulp and its a red, miss by some fluke and only get a yellow?

didds

Didds,
You're an experienced guy, and I'm sure that in reality you judge each case on its own circumstances and context. I understand where you're coming from, but these things are never as black and white as you've suggested.

I would also consider the equitable element to be ensuring that I deal with players from both side in similar fashion, and the key priority would be safety.

Greg Collins
18-01-08, 08:01
It was explained to me that, in most situations, RC'ing someone for missing with a punch would likely not have legs at the disciplinary panel and would probably be a very foolish thing for a L11 ref like me to do.

Greg Collins
18-01-08, 08:01
so... the intent was exactly the same but the perp receives leniency because the potential citim manged to duck/sway in time.

Equity? Smash him to a pulp and its a red, miss by some fluke and only get a yellow?

didds

Where in the Laws does it say intending to commit foul play, or attempting it is illegal? Actual foul play yes for sure ping and card away, otherwise surely not? For it to be foul play it actually has to happen surely not "it might have happened but for x" e.g.....

Big tall Red lock goes to make a high/straight arm tackle on short stocky blue #9, blue easily ducks under it, no tackle is made. You award a penalty on what basis?

Red lock goes to intentionally put his boot on the body of Blue #6 who is on the ground in a ruck. Blue #6 moves, Reds boot hits turf. Penalty for stamping on the ground?

ex-lucy
18-01-08, 08:01
Equity? Smash him to a pulp and its a red, miss by some fluke and only get a yellow?
its about enjoyment now not equity (see other thred).
did the perp enjoy the punch?
did the victim enjoy the punch?

OB..
18-01-08, 10:01
The disciplinary reports from the RFU always make a point of noting if a punch actually landed, so obviously it is something they take into account.

Simon Thomas
18-01-08, 11:01
The disciplinary reports from the RFU always make a point of noting if a punch actually landed, so obviously it is something they take into account.
because the referees/TJ's Dismissal Form will give full evidential details - was it aimed, did it strike, where it hit, how hard, blood, player felled or on feet, was he able to continue playing, etc etc.
Panel and Group Refs and experienced 'dismissers' (will know all this) but for most of us we may only dismiss one or two a season, if that. Therefore (Hampshire and other Societies) ask members to send draft reports to our Society Discipline Officer (a barrister) to make sure all the relevant facts are included and that the Committee will have all they need to find guilt and get the entry level and IRB sanction correct.

Davet
19-01-08, 23:01
Julian White was a tad lucky to get only a YC, that was a heck of a punch.

Question - since the officials took action, can he be cited? Never used to be the case but I've a nagging feeling they changed the rules...

Simon Griffiths
20-01-08, 00:01
If I recall correctly, this has cropped up a few times, and the present situation allows someone to be cited by the commissioner (or whoever is reponsible) if they deem that the referee's actions were not appropriate for the act.

Missed the incident, I do enjoy a good punch-up! :swet:

cymrubach
20-01-08, 00:01
yes they can be cited now if the citing official thinks that the on field punishment was not appropriate to the offence...

and I like a good punch up to..... but normally when i'm watching some other poor b@r$tad reffing :wink:

OB..
20-01-08, 00:01
Yes, the player can be cited, if the citing officer thought the offence was worth a red card rather than a yellow. After all it might be that the citing officer could see a much more heinous offence on video than the referee spotted.

PaulDG
20-01-08, 08:01
Missed the incident, I do enjoy a good punch-up! :swet:

There were several. The tigers were lucky not to have gone to 12 men.

That deliberate pushing the ball out on the 5m that resulted in a penalty and 3 pts deserved a yellow too.

chopper15
20-01-08, 10:01
Thought it might be something to do with baubles........


It's 'brittles'

Who exactly are/is the RUGBYWA? And how effectively presented.

Perhaps they could be persuaded to revamp the Laws . . . . .their logo certainly looks like a pheonix to me . . . or maybe I'm too much the optimist . . .I dare say to you diehards out there it reminds you of a coiled snake waiting to strike!?

FlipFlop
20-01-08, 10:01
Lets not have RUGBYWA drafting the new laws - we'll end up with rugby league - it's the Western Australian rugby union. Be the end of scrums for sure.

chopper15
20-01-08, 13:01
Lets not have RUGBYWA drafting the new laws - we'll end up with rugby league - it's the Western Australian rugby union. Be the end of scrums for sure.

That blinkered/bias attitude is not going to improve our lovely game FlipFlop.

I think this league thing is more a home counties objection. Up north, and us Celts aren't that fussed if, f'rinstance, both flankers were dropped!!??

As I mentioned diehards see their logo as a striking snake rather than a pheonix!

Simon Thomas
20-01-08, 17:01
I totally disagree Chopper, it is nothing to do with 'Home Counties' - and from my extensive contacts and conversations with West Country. Midlands and North referee colleagues and players / directors of rugby / club committee men / RFRU committee / RFU Ref Dept staff, many have a concern (although not as specific as RUGBYWA !) over the general direction the southern hemisphere and especially Australia appear to want the Game to go. However all Unions have lots of input through Laws consultation and committee stages, and these are IRB decisions and not down to specific Unions or sub-unions.

Great win by Redruth yesterday - well done.

David J.
20-01-08, 18:01
Where in the Laws does it say intending to commit foul play, or attempting it is illegal? Actual foul play yes for sure ping and card away, otherwise surely not? For it to be foul play it actually has to happen surely not "it might have happened but for x" e.g.....

Big tall Red lock goes to make a high/straight arm tackle on short stocky blue #9, blue easily ducks under it, no tackle is made. You award a penalty on what basis?

Red lock goes to intentionally put his boot on the body of Blue #6 who is on the ground in a ruck. Blue #6 moves, Reds boot hits turf. Penalty for stamping on the ground?

It's all context of course, but depending on the exact circumstances, I could see penalizing all of those under 10.4 (k).

sgoat
21-01-08, 10:01
The crimes act document that I posted was I believe written by the Australian Rugby Union. I spent a year with WARURA (West Australian Rugby Union Referees Association) therefore the copy I had had their logo on it. The logo is actually a Swan, which is one of the State symbols.

If you want to know more http://www.warura.rugbynet.com.au/

didds
23-01-08, 22:01
Everything in life depends to some extent upon the outcome as well as the intent - you don't get convicted of murder if you cocked it up, you get convicted of attempted murder.

True - but then do the laws have an equivalent? OR is it just "foul play" - and in which case is it actually only foul play if impact/injury actually occurs?

Seems like a license to throw punches around willy nilly to me if they aren't dealt with equally.

didds

OB..
24-01-08, 01:01
We have a theme here that runs through a lot of similar arguments. The range of actions that could be called a punch is a continuum, running from raising a hand to defend yourself, to a full-blood(i)ed knock-out.

The response via a sanction is a step function: nothing, penalty, Yellow, Red.

If you argue that a punch is always Red, then you are probably defining a punch rather narrowly. Thus the argument can become circular: a punch is a use of the fist that deserves Red.

I'm afraid you cannot get away from judgement and management. The world is too complex to allow definitions to do it for you.

bazza
23-02-08, 04:02
Here in U19 competition any punch or deliberate striking is supposed to be a mandatory red card (but a lot of referees are lenient).

Dickie E
23-02-08, 22:02
Baz, love those Melbourne Rebels or, rather, used to. Very sad ARC is now defunct after 1 season. Where are you based?