PDA

View Full Version : retaliation penalty - reverse the penalty?



drew
14-04-09, 07:04
I was wondering . . .

penalty awarded to blue for foul play by red warranting a penalty / card, blue retaliates (also warranting a penalty/card) - does the penalty get reversed? at all times? could it be a scrum with blue put in?

I am sometimes on the side of the of blue (the retaliating team) because cause of problem was red's initial offence.

thanks

Dixie
14-04-09, 09:04
A very good question, Drew. We can take things to extremes here, for the purposes of explanation. However, in principle I try to look at the severity of the offence, always bearing in mind that vigilantee-ism (I'm sure that's not a word, but you know what I mean) is a direct challenge to the referee's authority. So two equal blows traded, I view the second as more severe, because it is compounded by the challenge to the authority of the officials. So on my pitch (shades of Aussie ref Matt Goddard - first sign of megalomania:cool: ), the retaliation is always marked up over and above the severity of the retaliatory action itself.

That said, if the marked-up retaliation was less severe than the original offence, I'd go with the original PK. Example by extremes: Red defender kicks blue ball carrier hard in the nuts, rather than tackle him fairly. Blue team mate pushes Red kicker hard in the chest and shouts at him. Red kicker staggers under the weight of the push and falls over. Card & PK against Red, Blue gets a talking to.

20 minutes later, at a scrum Blue prop pinches Red prop's muffin top with a long bind. Ref sees it and signals advantage. As the scrum breaks up, Red prop pushes Blue prop hard in the chest and shouts at him. Blue prop staggers under the weight of the push and falls over. PK reversed; the retaliation is more severe than the original offence.

Dickie E
14-04-09, 09:04
I see it differently. A reactionary response to foul play is less severe than the original and both of these are less severe than 3rd man in.

Davet
14-04-09, 10:04
Simple answer is 10.4.j - A player must not retaliate, even if an opponent infringes.

In practice we appreciate that rugby is a physical game and that sometimes things boil over - which is why the Law on retaliation exists, to keep a lid on things.

If go with Dixie, if the retaliation is "controlled" and not violent, then I would not penalise it, if however it was kicking over into retaliatory aggression then that needs to be stopped, straight away - and 10.4.j is the tool to use.

jeff
14-04-09, 10:04
The way i see it if the captain is made aware of this in the brief, Then i will reverse the penalty as we are there to referee the game and not to allow any player to re'act in any manner towards the offender as this instigates players coming in and getting involved.
I tell the captians that i treat retaliation as a more severe offence as it instigates further problems, so will have none of it.
I do an avarage 80/100 games a season and have not yet at to use the red card in 2 seasons. this works for me and the players.

Dickie E
14-04-09, 10:04
jeff, I'm OK with you having a diiferent view but your lack of red cards doesn't add weight to your argument nor make it right.

I'm surprised with your sympathy for the agent provocateur.

jeff
14-04-09, 11:04
DICKIE E,)-
I didnt say i would allow the first offender to get away with the offence but i would reverse the penalty against him,
If there is an offence that would warrent a sending off by the offender and then the other person decides to retaliate against him then i would put both in the bin with the penalty being reversed for the second offence.

Dickie E
14-04-09, 11:04
I'm happy to agree to disagree but maybe we're arguing different things. I'm picturing the reactionary swing after a 'squirrel grip' or similar.

Phil E
14-04-09, 12:04
A very good question, Drew.
.......at a scrum Blue prop pinches Red prop's muffin top with a long bind.

First of all, what is the secondary signal for pinching the muffin top?
Does this have a different connotation in a ladies game?

Original question: IMHO retaliation should be penalised more heavily (all other things being equal) as they are taking the law into their own hands and if you don't come down on it hard, they will all be doing it.

"If he hits me I can have a free punch back and still get the penalty"!

Davet
14-04-09, 12:04
Dickie E - law is clear, retaliation is not OK, even if provoked. If necessary card both and ping the retaliation.

SimonSmith
14-04-09, 13:04
First of all, what is the secondary signal for pinching the muffin top?
Does this have a different connotation in a ladies game?

Original question: IMHO retaliation should be penalised more heavily (all other things being equal) as they are taking the law into their own hands and if you don't come down on it hard, they will all be doing it.

"If he hits me I can have a free punch back and still get the penalty"!

I think there's a difference between retaliation or self defence in the moment, and taking a considered swing after a wee break to think about it.

If someone starts swinging at me, I'm going to hit back to make him stop - and that should NOT reverse the penalty.
If I wait half a second, think about it and THEN swing, then the penalty is more likely to be reversed.

Phil E
14-04-09, 13:04
If someone starts swinging at me, I'm going to hit back to make him stop - and that should NOT reverse the penalty.
If I wait half a second, think about it and THEN swing, then the penalty is more likely to be reversed.

So you want us refs to monitor half second pauses as consideration of an offence? :nono:

Dixie
14-04-09, 14:04
SimonSmith's view has merit - there is surely a distinction to be made between self-preservation and retaliation?

Simon Thomas
14-04-09, 14:04
Such decisions are a judgement call in the context of the match.

First offence - PK, with warning or YC or RC.
Second offence retaliation or defence - warning only, YC or RC. Is any retaliation / defence / reaction such that the penalty is reversed ? Both Dickie E and Simon S put forward sound criteria within which the judgement should be made.

It seems we all agree that any third player (often coming in from 15-25 yards away) who gets involved and punches, strikes, kicks etc has little justification and would merit a card and reversed penalty.

dave_clark
14-04-09, 14:04
So you want us refs to monitor half second pauses as consideration of an offence? :nono:

takes longer than half a second to have a piss, surely :D

andyscott
14-04-09, 15:04
just a quick one about signals.

After you have sorted out the cards/sanctions do you signal the original penalty and then the reversed penalty?

Phil E
14-04-09, 15:04
just a quick one about signals.

After you have sorted out the cards/sanctions do you signal the original penalty and then the reversed penalty?

I do (with both scondary signals), just so the moaning buggers on the touchlines (sorry; behind the barriers) know what's going on.

drew
14-04-09, 15:04
excellent . . . no hard and fast ruling . . . i prefer the ability to 'manage' the game . . . i.e. judge retaliation for what it is and it's severity and penalilse appropriately if necessary.

I was unsure it there was a hard and fast application of the retaliation law . . . obviously from discussion - no . . .

but it seems, both offences being 'equal', penalty against the retaliating player.

thanks for the discussion.

Simon Thomas
14-04-09, 15:04
Yes - first 'time on' (arm up and touch watch on wrist), then slowly and deliberately you first signal the original offence PK followed by secondary - (e.g. high tackle) and then reverse the PK signal and again give secondary signal (e.g. punch) - only of course if the Dickie-Simon criteria are met to reverse it !

After all time-offs (boll*ckings, wrnings, cards, injuries, lost ball, loose dog on pitch, etc) it is good management (and makes an assessor smile :D ) to see reminder of what was happening before we stopped play and time.

dave_clark
14-04-09, 15:04
and it proves that we were paying attention!

chopper15
14-04-09, 19:04
You appear to have over-looked the 'double-whammy' effect of the reverse penalty.

Both offences being equal, the retaliation offence is automatically treated more severe.

Not only is the retaliator responsible for i) losing the advantage of the penalty for his side, but ii) he initiates one against.

By the way, when the third retaliation comes in and he's a team mate of the current 'advantagees' would consideration be given to reversing the penalty for a second time if thought necessary?

I'll leave you now to watch Che v Liv.:hap: (4-4)

Dixie
15-04-09, 10:04
So: what would we all do here? http://tinyurl.com/c3dlc8

The video drags on a bit, but the best view comes 2 minutes in, with a reverse angle. Check the red scrum half's action just after the put-in. If you are interested in the entire thing, you might also ahve a look at White SH's Eric Cantona imitation.

chopper15
15-04-09, 10:04
So: what would we all do here? http://tinyurl.com/c3dlc8.

Don't know what you lot would do, I would've reversed the penalty. :hap:

Thought the nonchalence of ref was admirable.

Reminded me of a threader who reffed Redruth some months ago when a few rascals had a set-to.:clap:

Phil E
15-04-09, 11:04
So: what would we all do here? http://tinyurl.com/c3dlc8

The video drags on a bit, but the best view comes 2 minutes in, with a reverse angle. Check the red scrum half's action just after the put-in. If you are interested in the entire thing, you might also ahve a look at White SH's Eric Cantona imitation.

In real time I probably wouldn't have seen anything leading up to it as I woyuld have been following the ball. So would have taken numbers of fringe players coming in with cheap shots and dealt with them.

Slow time Red SH starts punching the White LHP, when the scrum breaks up all the red players attack the White LHP, suggesting he started the whole thing?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
15-04-09, 11:04
This is my favourite not reversed penalty...it's from RL and the implication is you can't reverse it.

This shows that such a law would be useful and is indeed the stance the aggrieved skipper takes. Listen to the players and the ref rather than the punch - which is nothing special.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEQmVy0ASYA&feature=PlayList&p=E318BB1FE272AA00&index=25 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEQmVy0ASYA&feature=PlayList&p=E318BB1FE272AA00&index=25)

The penalty stays but the retaliator gets 10 minutes.

Anasta was a bit pissed! "You're off your head!"

Dixie
15-04-09, 12:04
Slow time Red SH starts punching the White LHP, when the scrum breaks up all the red players attack the White LHP, suggesting he started the whole thing? Agreed - so we have Red 9 retaliating against whatever the White 1 did. His retaliation involved a haymaker to a guy in a scrummaging position, unable to defend himself against it (and unaware that it is coming). My instinct says RC - particularly in the light of Julian White's card from Barnes earlier in the month. Fortunately, we can even things up by RC-ing the white #9 for his flying kick. Then we need to decide what to do with everyone else - including White 1, against whom we have only circumstantial evidence (i.e. everyone else retaliating against him).

andyscott
15-04-09, 12:04
This is my favourite not reversed penalty...it's from RL and the implication is you can't reverse it.

This shows that such a law would be useful and is indeed the stance the aggrieved skipper takes. Listen to the players and the ref rather than the punch - which is nothing special.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEQmVy0ASYA&feature=PlayList&p=E318BB1FE272AA00&index=25 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEQmVy0ASYA&feature=PlayList&p=E318BB1FE272AA00&index=25)

The penalty stays but the retaliator gets 10 minutes.

Anasta was a bit pissed! "You're off your head!"


RC for me ;)

There again if a player said to me I was off my head like he did, he would go to the bin aswell.

Andy

chopper15
15-04-09, 15:04
Isn't it about time you refs questioned if you have the authority to rescind a justified penalty once given? :wow:

I would be interested to see the law that gives you this authority.:hap:

SimonSmith
15-04-09, 16:04
No, it isn't.

10.4.j is as good a place to start as any. It's also implicit in 10.5.a.

And we're not "rescinding anything" - we're penalizing a further offence.

gillburt
15-04-09, 16:04
Isn't it about time you refs questioned if you have the authority to rescind a justified penalty once given? :wow:

I would be interested to see the law that gives you this authority.:hap:

If in doubt... 6.A.4 (a) :D

David J.
15-04-09, 16:04
I thought the referee's demeanor was excellent, but he may have prevented that backchat by letting Red know the other player was getting binned before telling him the penalty was going against. Doesn't excuse the back chat, of course.

chopper15
16-04-09, 16:04
If in doubt... 6.A.4 (a) :D

Certainly I'm well aware you have the 'authority' to practice what you think is fair in the circumstances.

But you Band of Brothers are supposed to be men of principle on the FoP yet you wheel out that tired old catchall. Where on earth is your reasoning and sense of fair play for goodness sake?

I think you're so used to practicing that double-whammy you switch to auto and never bother to consider the ethics of the decision.

You are depriving that team of a decision that you as respected refs honestly thought was well and truly justified. . . . so why on earth take it away? :hap:

As a fair play alternative, why not stand by your conviction and let it stand with a card if necassary. You could even march them back 10m! using law 6.A.4 (a)! :wow:

This demeaning 'knee-jerk' practice is the sole responsibility of refs and is probably why the law lords never dared to put such an option into the LoG.


Incidently, when was the last time you actioned or witnessed a reverse pen. after awarding a pen. try?

Phil E
16-04-09, 16:04
Certainly I'm well aware you have the 'authority' to practice what you think is fair in the circumstances.

But you Band of Brothers are supposed to be men of principle on the FoP yet you wheel out that tired old catchall. Where on earth is your reasoning and sense of fair play for goodness sake?

I think you're so used to practicing that double-whammy you switch to auto and never bother to consider the ethics of the decision.

You are depriving that team of a decision that you as respected refs honestly thought was well and truly justified. . . . so why on earth take it away? :hap:

As a fair play alternative, why not stand by your conviction and let it stand with a card if necassary. You could even march them back 10m! using law 6.A.4 (a)! :wow:

This demeaning 'knee-jerk' practice is the sole responsibility of refs and is probably why the law lords never dared to put such an option into the LoG.


Incidently, when was the last time you actioned or witnessed a reverse pen. after awarding a pen. try?

Why Chopper; if I didn't know better, I would think you were deliberately trying to wind us up to get a reaction? :wow: :nono: := :chin: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/imagehosting/971499435ce20f39.gif

dave_clark
16-04-09, 16:04
And we're not "rescinding anything" - we're penalizing a further offence.

(aimed at chopper rather than Simon, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick)...

what part of this is unclear?

now write the above out 99 times so it sticks.

SimonSmith
16-04-09, 16:04
Chopper - I cited the laws I feel comfortable using, as well as the philosophical framework.

I have never reversed a penalty try, and THAT discussion has taken place on the forum before as to why that usually doesn't happen.

chopper15
16-04-09, 17:04
Originally Posted by SimonSmith
And we're not "rescinding anything" - we're penalizing a further offence.

(aimed at chopper rather than Simon, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick)...

what part of this is unclear?

Where did Simon's 'rescinded' go, Dave, you tell me?

And Phil, what part of my thread did you consider a wind up?

The 10m back I thought was a pretty good suggestion. You could even go laterally if it was in front the posts.

PS Incidently, when was the last time you actioned or witnessed a reverse pen. after awarding a pen. try?


PPS. Can't I get anyone to back me on this one? . . . I spent ages composing it and you give me callous short shrift.:sad:

SimonSmith
16-04-09, 19:04
Well, I did answer it.
And I referred to the fact that we've discussed before.

If a Penalty Try has been awarded and there is an act of foul play AFTER the award, then the PT is not reversed.
It is awarded, and the non-offending team starts with a penalty on half way.

If there is an act of foul play BEFORE the PT is awarded the referee is going to exercise judgement as to whether or not it is sufficiently serious to over turn the penalty giving rise to the penalty try.

andyscott
16-04-09, 19:04
You cant reverse a penalty try by another offence only if an offence happened before the PT (say a TJ with a flag in) or if you change your mind. ;) You have awarded a try and not a PK.

You can start with a penalty restart against the try scoring team though.

andyscott
16-04-09, 19:04
Sould type faster ;)

SimonSmith
16-04-09, 19:04
Originally Posted by SimonSmith
And we're not "rescinding anything" - we're penalizing a further offence.

(aimed at chopper rather than Simon, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick)...

what part of this is unclear?

Where did Simon's 'rescinded' go, Dave, you tell me?

And Phil, what part of my thread did you consider a wind up?

The 10m back I thought was a pretty good suggestion. You could even go laterally if it was in front the posts.

PS Incidently, when was the last time you actioned or witnessed a reverse pen. after awarding a pen. try?


PPS. Can't I get anyone to back me on this one? . . . I spent ages composing it and you give me callous short shrift.:sad:

And I quote 10.4.l:
If a penalty kick is awarded to a team but a player of that team is
guilty of further misconduct before the kick is taken, the referee
will caution or send-off the guilty player, declare the kick
disallowed, and award a penalty kick to the opposing team.

chopper15
16-04-09, 19:04
And I quote 10.4.l:
If a penalty kick is awarded to a team but a player of that team is
guilty of further misconduct before the kick is taken, the referee
will caution or send-off the guilty player, declare the kick
disallowed, and award a penalty kick to the opposing team.

I asked if a law existed . . . and it does. Thank you, Simon for telling me.:hap:

But I still think it unethical practice. Not only to the team who 'earned' a penalty because the ref. honestly thought it justified, but also by introducing such a law which can encourage even a fair minded ref. to change his mind by giving him that option.

Why don't refs simply ignore this unprincipled law and issue cards.

dave_clark
16-04-09, 19:04
can we quote you on that, next time you complain that we don't follow the exact letter of the law?

OB..
16-04-09, 20:04
But I still think it unethical practice. Not only to the team who 'earned' a penalty because the ref. honestly thought it justified, but also by introducing such a law which can encourage even a fair minded ref. to change his mind by giving him that option.
You can only award a penalty to one team, so you give it to the side that has sinned least. Arguments about "double whammy" are irrelevant.

Reversing a penalty is nothing new, and I have never heard anybody complain about the principle before.

Cards are a separate matter: you can issue a card even if you do not award a penalty against the player.

chopper15
16-04-09, 20:04
You can only award a penalty to one team, so you give it to the side that has sinned least. Arguments about "double whammy" are irrelevant.

Reversing a penalty is nothing new, and I have never heard anybody complain about the principle before.

Cards are a separate matter: you can issue a card even if you do not award a penalty against the player.



New or not, you're taking away a justified penalty honestly given, for goodness sake, OB. And none of you has to!

Doesn't that bother any of you refs out there?

It certainly bothers me . . . tho' I don't expect that to be worth much to you lot.

chopper15
16-04-09, 20:04
can we quote you on that, next time you complain that we don't follow the exact letter of the law?

You have a choice, dave.

Why not stick to your principles instead of sacrificing them to an unethical custom and law?

I honestly think that you lot have never considered this issue seriously. This is a good eg of 'Rote' law.

OB..
16-04-09, 21:04
New or not, you're taking away a justified penalty honestly given, for goodness sake, OB. And none of you has to!
Yes you do. The team that had been awarded the penalty have in effect given it away themselves by their subsequent illegal behaviour.


Doesn't that bother any of you refs out there?
Not in the slightest. It seems perfectly sensible to me.

I have no idea why this bothers you so much.

chopper15
16-04-09, 22:04
Yes you do. The team that had been awarded the penalty have in effect given it away themselves by their subsequent illegal behaviour.


Not in the slightest. It seems perfectly sensible to me.

I have no idea why this bothers you so much.



The ref. giveth . . . the ref. taketh away! I give in. :sad:

SimonSmith
17-04-09, 00:04
No.

The ref giveth.
The idiot player giveth it away. I've only got one penalty to award, so I need to be sure it goes to the right offence.

Dickie E
17-04-09, 09:04
10.4.l: If a penalty kick is awarded to a team but a player of that team is
guilty of further misconduct before the kick is taken, the referee
will caution or send-off the guilty player, declare the kick
disallowed, and award a penalty kick to the opposing team.

This is, of course, interesting because it says a YC or RC is mandatory in this situation.

Dixie
17-04-09, 10:04
[I]This is, of course, interesting because it says a YC or RC is mandatory in this situation.I disagree, Dickie. The word "caution" is normally used in the laws to indicate "berate". A YC is usually indicated by wording such as "caution AND temporarily suspend", while the term "send off" tends to encompass both red and yellow cards.

andyscott
17-04-09, 10:04
But if a player is put in the bin for a team offence (reoffending) and another player commits the same offence for the team, then you should give straight red. This is according to Law but no one ever to my knowledge has done this.

My society meeting decided it would be unwise to follow it to the letter.

OB..
17-04-09, 11:04
I disagree, Dickie. The word "caution" is normally used in the laws to indicate "berate". A YC is usually indicated by wording such as "caution AND temporarily suspend", while the term "send off" tends to encompass both red and yellow cards.
Law 10.2 (a) [...]The player who

intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is
committed, or sent off. After a caution a player is temporarily
suspended for a period of ten minutes playing time.
[...]
Law 10.5 (a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended, or sent-off.

Inevitably the Laws are not too consistent in their terminology, but these extracts give the basic line:
Admonish - penalty only
Caution [and temporary suspension] - yellow card
Send off - red card.

A quick check through the laws convinces me that "caution" implies yellow card.

SimonSmith
17-04-09, 13:04
But if a player is put in the bin for a team offence (reoffending) and another player commits the same offence for the team, then you should give straight red. This is according to Law but no one ever to my knowledge has done this.

My society meeting decided it would be unwise to follow it to the letter.


*sticks hand up*

Davet
17-04-09, 16:04
If the team offended against choose to offend themselves then it is their action that results in the penalty reversal - make bed, go lie on it. If they had not retaliated then the original penalty would stand - they threw away the opportunity.

If the second offence warrants a penalty then you have to reveres the first one - they can't each have a penalty...

A penalty try award is different, in that it can still stand AND the second offence can be separately penalised - by a kick from half way, which - incidentally and apropos of nothing in particular - is an advantage over a kick from your own goal line.

Davet
17-04-09, 16:04
Duplicate - impatience with referesh rate is my one weakness

chopper15
17-04-09, 16:04
If the team offended against choose to offend themselves then it is their action that results in the penalty reversal - make bed, go lie on it. If they had not retaliated then the original penalty would stand - they threw away the opportunity.

If the second offence warrants a penalty then you have to reveres the first one - they can't each have a penalty...

A penalty try award is different, in that it can still stand AND the second offence can be separately penalised - by a kick from half way, which - incidentally and apropos of nothing in particular - is an advantage over a kick from your own goal line.


The actual 'punishment' is rescinding the penalty which a ref. 'honestly' thought justified.:sad:

Not get the boot-in and give a pen to the opposition. Two pens don't make a bloody write!

I'm convinced you lot can't seperate your ethics from your rote.:D

Dixie
17-04-09, 16:04
The actual 'punishment' is rescinding the penalty which a ref. 'honestly' thought justified.:sad:

Not get the boot-in and give a pen to the opposition. Two pens don't make a bloody write!

I'm convinced you lot can't seperate your ethics from your rote.:DChopper, I'm not sure you've thought through what you are asking for! If you just rescind the PK, you still need to restart the game, presumably with a scrum. To whom do you award it?

Take an example: Red 7 dangerously high tackles Blue 15 - immediate whistle. Blue 7 then launches a flying karate kick against Red 7. Ref cards Blue 7; then what? Scrum to side that started it by near decapitation? Or scrum to the side that finished it with a cardable offence? Neither seems acceptable.

andyscott
17-04-09, 17:04
drop ball? :biggrin:

OB..
17-04-09, 18:04
The actual 'punishment' is rescinding the penalty which a ref. 'honestly' thought justified.:sad:
No. The punishment is the penalty against you for foul play.

The fact that you can only give a penalty kick to one team means you have to decide which - and how to decide was the original point of this thread.


Not get the boot-in and give a pen to the opposition. Two pens don't make a bloody write!
What are you on about? Nobody claims that. If appropriate you can card both players. And then you have to decide who to give the penalty to.


I'm convinced you lot can't separate your ethics from your rote.:DI am beginning to find this sort of comment offensive, despite the smiley. Your view of ethics in this instance seems to me to be unrealistic and unhelpful, and certainly way out of line with refereeing since the year dot. We take the trouble to explain and are accused of rote thinking, whatever that may be. How does your position differ, since you keep repeating the same argument?

SimonSmith
17-04-09, 19:04
No. The punishment is the penalty against you for foul play.

The fact that you can only give a penalty kick to one team means you have to decide which - and how to decide was the original point of this thread.


What are you on about? Nobody claims that. If appropriate you can card both players. And then you have to decide who to give the penalty to.

I am beginning to find this sort of comment offensive, despite the smiley. Your view of ethics in this instance seems to me to be unrealistic and unhelpful, and certainly way out of line with refereeing since the year dot. We take the trouble to explain and are accused of rote thinking, whatever that may be. How does your position differ, since you keep repeating the same argument?

QFT...

chopper15
17-04-09, 20:04
Chopper, I'm not sure you've thought through what you are asking for! If you just rescind the PK, you still need to restart the game, presumably with a scrum. To whom do you award it?

Take an example: Red 7 dangerously high tackles Blue 15 - immediate whistle. Blue 7 then launches a flying karate kick against Red 7. Ref cards Blue 7; then what? Scrum to side that started it by near decapitation? Or scrum to the side that finished it with a cardable offence? Neither seems acceptable.



Ref OB; And then you have to decide who to give the penalty to.

EXACTLY, OB, the penalty, when at that point in time you've got two to consider; and that's the point of my argument and ethics consideration. BOTH were justified AND honestly given by the ref.

And regards with me being offensive, save the admonishment until I get my ethics point over.

I've said this before, OB, those face thingies ought to be banned for a while just to see how the rest of you fare; too often they're used to hide an hidden truth. No offence is taken then. . . . but you have to examine my motive:sad: I'm frequently demeaned with the 'flakey 69' charge, do you find that offensive?


Anyway, thank you, Dixie, for the dilemma eg.

Both must be penalised - PK and card each.

It's unethical to be bias, ie. take one PK away when they're both guilty.

OK, I know the 2nd offence is regarded as contempt and is thought to be more serious, but to continue . .

The problem you pose is to how to address what should be the ethical/decent/fair/just/face-saving etc., way out.

Dare I ask . . . suggestions anyone?

For a start you could consider taking both PKs away as an EQUAL 'punishment' to both . . . then we will be discussing ethics!


What's QFT? Hope it's not going to be misconstrued as being offensive.:sad:

ddjamo
17-04-09, 21:04
how do we go about nominating chopper for the IRB?

SimonSmith
17-04-09, 23:04
QFT = quoted for truth.

It isn't unethical, and it certainly isn't biased. I understand what you're trying to say, but bias has a very bad connotation.

In your hypothetical, the problem is that the other team loses out if the penalty to which they are entitled is awarded.

It is perfectly appropriate to reverse a penalty.

Dickie E
17-04-09, 23:04
IMO it has to come down to the ref making an instant decision about which offence is more "serious". This is where the difficulty lies and we can paint dozens of "what if" examples.

Chopper asks for suggestions. Here's one. Referee considers each offence in the way he believes a tribunal would treat it (ie 1 week off, 2 weeks off, etc.). The offence that would be treated most severely by the tribunal would be the one ultimately penalised by the referee.

Chopper, here's a question for you. Blue player punches Red player. As ref is sending Blue player off Red player abuses referee for letting this happen. Red player is then sent off. Which way the penalty? Is physical abuse of an opponent of greater or lesser severity than verbal abuse of official?

David J.
18-04-09, 00:04
When we apply the same standard (PK reversal for retaliation) to both teams, then that is fair and unbiased.

chopper15
18-04-09, 00:04
[QUOTE=SimonSmith;75991]QFT = quoted for truth.

It isn't unethical, and it certainly isn't biased. I understand what you're trying to say, but bias has a very bad connotation.

It is bias if you rescind only one of the two pens, Simon. Taking a pen. away once given is the 'punishment'.

In your hypothetical, the problem is that the other team loses out if the penalty to which they are entitled is awarded.

Am still trying to get my head 'round the focus of that that one . . sorry.

It is perfectly appropriate to reverse a penalty.

According to the LoG, maybe. But my ques still is, is it ethical/fair/ principled, etc.?


Received a private message only a few mins ago; QFT = Quit F*****g Talking and Quite F*****g True., among less offensive ones. :sad:

SimonSmith
18-04-09, 00:04
Bias is favoritism. Penalty reversal is law in application, not bias in action.

Someone has to get penalized - penalty reversal is the in action. Your way deprives the less offending team of their dues in law.

I've always used QFT for "quoted for truth" - it's a way of giving green when there's no rep system.

Davet
18-04-09, 10:04
Chopper - If Red offend and then Blue retaliate they suffer a double whammy - lose their penatly and get one awarded against them -

We all know that logic of such double whammy is to ensure that players do not take the law into their own hands - hence the scaling up of the sanction to the double whammy.

Before they retaliated, they had a damn good idea that such an effect was on the cards, yet went ahead anyway.

The art of the referee lies in judging appropriately - it isn't a science, and the decision to reverse will depend on many factors - but players second guess decisions at their peril - they know what is possible, and they take the consequences of their actions.

There is no ethical problem here, other one of your invention.

Simon Thomas
18-04-09, 12:04
IMO it has to come down to the ref making an instant decision about which offence is more "serious". This is where the difficulty lies and we can paint dozens of "what if" examples.

Chopper asks for suggestions. Here's one. Referee considers each offence in the way he believes a tribunal would treat it (ie 1 week off, 2 weeks off, etc.). The offence that would be treated most severely by the tribunal would be the one ultimately penalised by the referee.

Dickie E - I totally agree with you that we should make any reversal decision based on a judgement of comparable seriousness.

However i totally disagree that the referee should (or indeed can) use the tribunal treatment as his guide. He is a referee and can dismiss & award penalties - he is not a tribunal member and not been trained as such.
Any tribunal punishments are based on evidence on both sides, mitigating circumstances, etc which are discussed by 3,4, 5 person panels, most of which is unlikely to be available to a referee making a decision in a matter of seconds or perhaps minute or so.

chopper15
18-04-09, 13:04
[QUOTE=SimonSmith;76002

I've always used QFT for "quoted for truth" - it's a way of giving green when there's no rep system.[/QUOTE]

Now we and you know there are offensive alternatives to this one, Simon, 'we' may feel offended if you should use it in dubious context again.

And now I'll select a face thingie and try not to convey any hidden truth.:rolleyes:

SimonSmith
18-04-09, 14:04
Actually I didn't know of any other alternatives, so don't be so presumptuous.

And I used it in context with OB's comments, which I was heartily endorsing.

And with that I withdraw until there is something new added in the context of retaliation and penalty reversals.

chopper15
19-04-09, 11:04
Actually I didn't know of any other alternatives, so don't be so presumptuous.

And I used it in context with OB's comments, which I was heartily endorsing.

And with that I withdraw until there is something new added in the context of retaliation and penalty reversals.

You certainly fight your corner well, Simon.:clap:

chopper15
20-04-09, 14:04
IMO it has to come down to the ref making an instant decision about which offence is more "serious". This is where the difficulty lies and we can paint dozens of "what if" examples.

Chopper, here's a question for you. Blue player punches Red player. As ref is sending Blue player off Red player abuses referee for letting this happen. Red player is then sent off. Which way the penalty? Is physical abuse of an opponent of greater or lesser severity than verbal abuse of official?



Watched Pirates v Doncaster yesterday.

Pirates repeatedly collapsed 5m scrums. As PT was awarded Donc. lashed out with fist at Pirate's head. I assumed neither official witnessed it. If seen, or had connected . . . reverse pen. justified?

Ironically, mins later ref. RC'd Donc. flanker for swinging a punch which didn't connect. And later a Pirate for stamping, who, unfortunately, did.

I do accept the 'management' argument but would appreciate opinions.

Incidently, with 2 players off affording more field space, the game really opened up. Perhaps 'they' should've included 13-a-side in the ELV proposals! :clap:

In answer to your poser, Dickie, I would just tell him to button it and let the PK stand. However if it was 'about effing time ref.', reversing the pen. would be more than justified, no way should he get away with ref. abuse. IMHO, of course! :hap:

PS. During this evenful game the ref. only gave a PK for an LO off-ground tackle on the catcher who landed on his back. Isn't a card mandatory?

Simon Thomas
20-04-09, 14:04
PS. During this evenful game the ref. only gave a PK for an LO off-ground tackle on the catcher who landed on his back. Isn't a card mandatory?

Card is a judgement call by referee in context of match and incident.

I have actually carded a player for just that offence, to find out later in the bar that it was an accidental offence due to jumper's own back supporter letting go and 'dropping him' as he moved sideways, creating the gap for the guy I pinged to move into and so be the one the jumper came down across.

PaulDG
20-04-09, 14:04
Pirates repeatedly collapsed 5m scrums. As PT was awarded Donc. lashed out with fist at Pirate's head. I assumed neither official witnessed it. If seen, or had connected . . . reverse pen. justified?

Reversing the PT wouldn't be a legal option if the punch was after the whistle. (Ball already dead.) Of course if the punch was seen by an appointed AR and had happened before the PT then it would be possible to reverse it.

If it had been seen and happened after the PT, the options would include a card and/or a penalty restart.

(i.e. After the conversion, Pirates would have a penalty from the centre of the half way line.)

chopper15
21-04-09, 11:04
Reversing the PT wouldn't be a legal option if the punch was after the whistle. (Ball already dead.) Of course if the punch was seen by an appointed AR and had happened before the PT then it would be possible to reverse it.

If it had been seen and happened after the PT, the options would include a card and/or a penalty restart.

(i.e. After the conversion, Pirates would have a penalty from the centre of the half way line.)

So, for the ball to be considered dead, a PT is primarily a 'Try' rather than a 'Penalty'?

If a ball-carrier is high-tackled into touch just before a probable touch-down in the corner. And during the delay with AR regarding a possible toe in touch he punches the tackler in the face. Reverse PT?

OB..
21-04-09, 11:04
If a ball-carrier is high-tackled into touch just before a probable touch-down in the corner. And during the delay with AR regarding a possible toe in touch he punches the tackler in the face. Reverse PT?
If no foot in touch, I would award the penalty try, and restart with a penalty against the puncher, plus cards as appropriate.

chopper15
21-04-09, 11:04
If no foot in touch, I would award the penalty try, and restart with a penalty against the puncher, plus cards as appropriate.

But this sequence contradicts Paul's comment, OB.

Dickie E
21-04-09, 11:04
But this sequence contradicts Paul's comment, OB.

proof indeed that we all think for ourselves

FlipFlop
21-04-09, 11:04
no it doesn't.

The ball is dead. The high tackle takes place and there is possible foot in touch (I assume earlier)

To discuss with AR - the whistle has been blown, and time is now off. Ball is dead. Result of discussion stands (PT or in touch earlier, followed by PK for the high tackle). Anything that happens after that is a NEW offence, which has occurred after the whistle, while the ball is dead.

If it happened quicker - then it is still one incident, but if the ref has time to be discussing the incidents with the AR before the punch is thrown, I'm going for cards - probably red.

It's all about timing.

OB..
21-04-09, 14:04
As Flip Flop says - it is all about timing. And that depends on judgement, of course.

chopper15
27-04-09, 16:04
I agree, FF, it's all to do with timing. I refer to my scenario;

If a ball-carrier is high-tackled into touch just before a probable touch-down in the corner.

The ref has yet to decide, after taking into consideration the AR's comments.

And during the delay with AR regarding a possible toe in touch he punches the tackler in the face.

The punch was delivered before the ref's decision.

Reverse Pen?

FlipFlop
27-04-09, 16:04
Read my posting a couple above .

It answers your question if you actually bothered to read it and understand it. The Ball is dead. Time is off. We get a decision. Then we move on to the NEXT decision.

So no reversal. Original decision stands (and if necessary - conversion allowed). THEN the punch is dealt with. This is what I meant by "RESULT OF DISCUSSION STANDS" - I fail to see how you missed that. It was the entire purpose of the post. To say - given the time delay - a discussion is now taking place - so original offence stands. THEN we deal with the NEW offence, which has occurred while the ball is DEAD.

Davet
27-04-09, 19:04
I would suggest that it depends on the outcome of the first decision.

If that is PT, then as FF says - that's first then we come to the way we restart the game - penalty on halfway.

If the decision is simply PK and NOT PT, then we may well be into reversal territory.

chopper15
28-04-09, 15:04
Should an 'assault' outside the FoP affect the decision or even be penalised?

Report to RFU or ref., as responsible citizen, also notify local constab.?

Phil E
28-04-09, 16:04
Should an 'assault' outside the FoP affect the decision or even be penalised?


I shouldn't think so.

Outside the FOP could be in the stands, in the pub next door; I can't really see that being the ref's decision?





(ask a silly question)

chopper15
28-04-09, 21:04
I shouldn't think so.

Outside the FOP could be in the stands, in the pub next door; I can't really see that being the ref's decision?





(ask a silly question)


In touch maybe? Why the oneupmanship, Phil?

SimonSmith
28-04-09, 21:04
Law 10 specifies that it is the enclosure:
Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that
is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes
obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and
misconduct which is prejudicial to the game.

Which is defined as:The Playing Enclosure is the playing area and a space around it, not
less than 5 metres where practicable, which is known as the perimeter
area.

Chopper - not an attempt at one upmanship, but this is fairly basic and laid out in the Law book. Could you look there before you ask?

chopper15
28-04-09, 23:04
Chopper - not an attempt at one upmanship, but this is fairly basic and laid out in the Law book. Could you look there before you ask?



What's with some of you lot. . . . why so tetchy?

Phil ridiculed my query and instead of giving me the answer which you kindly obliged me with, suggested it was foolish.

I didn't accuse you of oneupmanship.

Would you dare to ask a fellow ref. to look in the LoG before he asks next time?

I would guess no. You probably know your place and wouldn't choose to be that impertinent. And in any case he's possibly asking, like me, in the hope there'll be interesting opinions.

I can't understand why some of you choose to expose yourself in such mean-minded manner. :sad:

Could it be anything to do with me being just a terrace ref., albeit a learned one? :hap:

OB..
28-04-09, 23:04
Would you dare to ask a fellow ref. to look in the LoG before he asks next time?
I frequently suggest this is a good idea, principally because by searching you get to know the law book much better.

(It worked for me .... I think :cool: )

Donal1988
28-04-09, 23:04
Chopper it has been said to me before. I have reduced the amount of my threads and most of them now tend to be about management rather than laws.

chopper15
29-04-09, 00:04
I frequently suggest this is a good idea, principally because by searching you get to know the law book much better.

(It worked for me .... I think :cool: )

. . . . and me, but as I mentioned I do hope for a few opinions and maybe a few new takes on the issue.

chopper15
29-04-09, 00:04
Chopper it has been said to me before. I have reduced the amount of my threads and most of them now tend to be about management rather than laws.

Ask Donal, they're not all gits. The tolerant and instinctively kind still hold sway and you get some very enlightening takes and opinions on the relevent law.:clap:

SimonSmith
29-04-09, 00:04
Actually, yes. I frequently quote the law book back. There is a link at the top of the page to the Laws.

Better to teach someone to fish than just to feed them.

OB..
29-04-09, 01:04
you get some very enlightening takes and opinions on the relevent law.:clap:Surely you can only have a valid opinion about the law if you actually know what it says?

chopper15
29-04-09, 15:04
Surely you can only have a valid opinion about the law if you actually know what it says?

Goal: A player scores a goal by kicking the ball over an opponents’ cross bar and between the goal posts from the field of play, by a place kick or dropkick.

I tried that once when I asked why refs persisted in allowing the goal kick when the ball went higher than the posts. :sad:

Donal1988
29-04-09, 15:04
Yes but Chopper that is daft. If that was the case teams would simply build posts as high as humanly possible (i.e. there is no maximum height).

The ball is still between the posts and over the bar and once again its about not rigidly applying the law.

chopper15
29-04-09, 15:04
Actually, yes. I frequently quote the law book back. There is a link at the top of the page to the Laws.

Better to teach someone to fish than just to feed them.

Come on, Simon, what fish do we go for?

Far better for experience to point budding refs and interested parties in the right direction what with the interpretation v literal translation anomalies.

chopper15
29-04-09, 15:04
Yes but Chopper that is daft. If that was the case teams would simply build posts as high as humanly possible (i.e. there is no maximum height).

The ball is still between the posts and over the bar and once again its about not rigidly applying the law.

Not as daft as the written law, Donal. They dropped 'deemed to infinity' from the dimensions some time ago.:hap:

. . . . . and it was only meant as a rejoinder to OB's comment.

A good way of familiarising oneself with the laws is to ferret out the anomolies existing between the written law and refs' perceived interpretation. . . 'specially now ELVs have fleetingly arrived.

OB..
29-04-09, 16:04
. . . . . and it was only meant as a rejoinder to OB's comment.
And you missed the point.


Surely you can only have a valid opinion about the law if you actually know what it says?
In other words, if you want to argue about the interpretation of the law, you need to start with what it says.

You quote the bit of law you wish to query, which is the correct start. You lose the plot by trying to say it ought to be interpreted in a way which conflicts with what has been a clear interpretation since the very early days of the game.

Here is an extract from Tom Brown's School days by Thomas Hughes. East is explaining the game to Tom Brown.

"Well, the match is for the best of three goals; whichever side kicks two goals wins, and it won't do, you see, just to kick the ball through these posts, it must go over the cross bar; any height'll do, so long as it's between the posts." [my emphasis]

If you really believe your version, you are a voice of one crying in the wilderness.

If you are merely trying to show the law is poorly written, you have chosen a bad example. It has never caused anybody (apart from you, perhaps) any problems at all. There are much more important areas to re-write.

chopper15
30-04-09, 16:04
.And you missed the point.
If you are merely trying to show the law is poorly written, you have chosen a bad example. It has never caused anybody (apart from you, perhaps) any problems at all.

That was a good rejoinder, OB, good story. :clap:

Are you referring to the 40s version with Sir Cedric Hardwicke or the 50s with John Howard Davies which I thought the better of the two films?
Possibly the law lords only saw the film and never got around to reading the book.



Not 'problems', OB, you should've stated 'interest' which is probably true.

Bad example maybe, an example never-the-less. That was my favourite OB, do you have one just as succinct and specific for comparison? :hap:

Please not Law19.1 (e). . . it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch . . ., much too long!

Anybody else got a favourite example out there for comparison . . . light-hearted end of term discussion?

Phil E
30-04-09, 16:04
.[I]Anybody else got a favourite example out there for comparison . . . light-hearted end of term discussion?

I've got at least 99 examples, but I wont bore anybody with them. (as the prop said to the actress).

chopper15
30-04-09, 16:04
I've got at least 99 examples, but I wont bore anybody with them. (as the prop said to the actress).

At least you made an effort, Phil. :hap: Was that the 98th? :wow:

OB..
30-04-09, 19:04
Bad example maybe, an example never-the-less. That was my favourite OB, do you have one just as succinct and specific for comparison? :hap:
I have given my views on Law 19 elsewhere (not very succinct, however).

It is also essential IMHO to re-write the definition of a throw forward so that we get rid of the constant misunderstanding.

chopper15
30-04-09, 23:04
I have given my views on Law 19 elsewhere (not very succinct, however).
It is also essential IMHO to re-write the definition of a throw forward so that we get rid of the constant misunderstanding.


That one I always thought was naively conceived and in need of a rewrite.

The problem was created by using the opposing team’s dead ball line as a relative reference which was only OK for defining a forward pass from a stationary ball-carrier.

To suit both static and moving ball-carriers, therefore, the pass direction must be judged relative to an immediate datum reference . . . 'the lateral line of play'. So,

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball
forward. ‘Forward’ means ahead of the ball-carrier’s immediate lateral line of play.

Or, more succinctly;

A throw or pass directed forward of the ball-carrier’s immediate lateral line of play.

'ahead' or 'beyond' alternatives to forward?

Should the ball-carrier then be taken-out as soon as the ball leaves his hands the 'forward' judgement is restricted to that point in time and not the momentum imparted which takes the ball forward relative to the ground.

OB..
30-04-09, 23:04
That one I always thought was naively conceived and in need of a rewrite.

The problem was created by using the opposing team’s dead ball line as a relative reference which was only OK for defining a forward pass from a stationary ball-carrier.

To suit both static and moving ball-carriers, therefore, the pass direction must be judged relative to an immediate datum reference . . . 'the lateral line of play'. So,

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball
forward. ‘Forward’ means ahead of the ball-carrier’s immediate lateral line of play.

Or, more succinctly;

A throw or pass directed forward of the ball-carrier’s immediate lateral line of play.

'ahead' or 'beyond' alternatives to forward?
This is now a long way from the thread title, and has been done to death elsewhere.

chopper15
30-04-09, 23:04
This is now a long way from the thread title, and has been done to death elsewhere.


In lengthy and confused discussion, OB. I don't recall anyone venturing a rewrite for perusal.

I would've appreciated a comment from you or, even better, your ideas for a rewrite just as an academic exercise; redirected as and if necessary to a new thread. :sad:

Deeps
01-05-09, 01:05
Well, all you little fishes bit well didn't you; Chopper even managed to get posting #99 in as well. Time to move on chaps.:sleep: :sleep:

Dickie E
01-05-09, 02:05
what is the significance of the references to '99' (apart from the fact that Barbara Feldon was pretty hot)?

OB..
01-05-09, 10:05
In lengthy and confused discussion, OB. I don't recall anyone venturing a rewrite for perusal.
Then perhaps you missed it.


I would've appreciated a comment from you or, even better, your ideas for a rewrite just as an academic exercise; redirected as and if necessary to a new thread. :sad:
I have been over this so many times that I don't think I have anything new to say, so I am not about to start a new thread on it.