PDA

View Full Version : In-goal



Will.Q
18-02-08, 11:02
Red V Black. Red winger hoofs long ball from his own 22m line. It travels a long way into the black 22, stopping near the black 5m line. Black full back dives on ground, collects ball and gets to his feet but on-side red player, who chased hard, is up with play. Black full back tries to run the ball out by running back, into his own in-goal and then trying to run back out. He is tap-tackled by the red player. The black player falls to the ground and the ball is grounded, in-goal.

I award a 5m scrum to red opposite with where the ball is grounded. Black (generally ill-disciplined team) complain. Lock says "you don't know the rules ref." I call him over, tongue in cheek explain we don't play to rules, but to laws, and that he is on the thinnest of thin ice, given I'd warned him about dissent earlier."

I've thought and thought and thought some more and cannot see I got this wrong. The black player collected the ball in field of play, took it into his in-goal, was tap-tackled and was unable to stop the ball from touching the ground, in - goal, in his possession. Scrum 5 attacking side. Surely?

beckett50
18-02-08, 11:02
Absolutely the right call.

You could also have changed the call to a PK for the insolence of the Black lock:) But then I suppose you really would have been public enemy number 1:D

Will.Q
18-02-08, 11:02
I did. Big bollocking, then a penalty. Red duly obliged and tapped the ball over the posts to extend their lead.

I sometimes cannot work players out. He obviously thought I was wrong with my decision and it makes me wander about the levels of law knowledge for most players around level 10.

Dickie E
18-02-08, 12:02
only thing I'd have done different is not to say "we don't play to rules, but to laws," when attempting to manage a heated situation.

Perhaps the player thought he hadn't grounded the ball when tap-tackled???

Dixie
18-02-08, 12:02
Perhaps the player thought he hadn't grounded the ball when tap-tackled??? possibly. But that's a dispute as to fact, not law, and could hardly lead to an accusation of lack of knowledge of the "rules"

Will.Q
18-02-08, 15:02
only thing I'd have done different is not to say "we don't play to rules, but to laws," when attempting to manage a heated situation.

Perhaps the player thought he hadn't grounded the ball when tap-tackled???

At the time I awarded the scrum, the comment was made. I walked a few paces back, away from the approaching packs, called the captain over and then the lock. The lock walked towards me with a wry grin on his face and we exchanged a pleasant grin - he said "sorry ref." The situation was, by this point, relaxed. My comment was made tongue in cheek - I wouldn't have made it if the situation was "heated." Although we had relaxed up, I wasn't happy with the dissent (this player was already on warning) and I stood by the penalty. In most circumstances he would've gone to the bin but there was only a few minutes left and black were being soundly beaten; I didn't therefore feel it was required. I'm sure he appreciated the light hearted remark as oppose to the yellow card.

Wert Twacky
18-02-08, 15:02
Will.Q I wasn't happy with the dissent (this player was already on warning) and I stood by the penalty. In most circumstances he would've gone to the bin

You got the decision bang on, but as Dixie said, I wouldn't have made a comment about laws not rules. It just sends a message out that you as a ref are trying to be smart, and I don't think that sits well with most players.

But do you often bin players for dissent? If you find that you are binning players for dissent, maybe there's an issue on how you define/manage it.

That said, you still got the decision right and the players a fool for not knowing the laws. 99.9% of the time you'll know more that the players do. They try it on and see how far they can push you :nono:

Davet
18-02-08, 15:02
I think I would have simply described what happened, very briefly, and the told the player be very careful.

"Your player took it into in-goal, your player was tap tackled and the ball was grounded. No question about it. Be very careful in future, or I will penalise and quite possibly card you for dissent!

Will.Q
18-02-08, 15:02
OK - two of you have suggested it wasn't a good thing to say, so I'll think about that. It genuinely was fine at the time.

Re dissent - no, no problems as I know of. They had terrible discipline problems. They were on at me all match.

As you'll know, dissent 'can' be rife at the lower levels. Think I've binned 3 players for dissent in 40 odd matches - all at the lower levels.

truck'n'trailor
18-02-08, 15:02
Law knowledge is often atrocious at that level. Have often used the 'I'll explain it to you in the bar' line - which I always endeavour to do, with a copy of the Laws in hand.

OB..
18-02-08, 15:02
Ask - Tell - Penalise. If they still haven't got the point, then of course you have to think about cards.

Will.Q
18-02-08, 15:02
Ask, tell and penalise - spot on. If I've asked and then told, the player can have no complaint 'if' I issue him with a card.

I'm not sure about taking the law book into the club house though. Could open up a whole world of pain.

OB..
18-02-08, 15:02
I always have the law book in my coat pocket, but very rarely need to produce it. Occasionally a referee will ask a point of law, and we can look it up.