Law reference for foul play penalties priority

[RemainingInTheGame]

Just been trying to find the law reference for how to assign penalties for foul play.

Example:

Red 14 runs the ball into touch. Blue 15 attempts to gain ball for restart. Red 14 throws ball a long distance. Blue 1 (who else…) comes in and wrestles Red 14 to ground. Red 3 then comes in and wrestles with Blue 1.

I would penalise Red 14 for the throw away, and then reserve for foul play; but where is the law on this?

Specifically I then want to look at the law for how should the penalty be decided for foul play for Red 3 and Blue 1, and if Blue 1 punched Red 14 where is the law that says this takes priority over Red 3’s actions?

 

[Dickie E]

"The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s)"

The above is from law 7. It is a fairly oblique way of saying that foul play trumps other infringements.
I am not aware of a law that gives a hierarchy of foul play offences

 

[didds]

I was in the process of saying what Dickie says.

Ping the foul play. Card appropriately.

If the throw away warrants a card then issue it. It may well otherwise warrant a finger wagging if its been a niggly game, or a quiet word to not be daft again if otherwise.

 

[Phil E]

From your initial description I am going to penalise Red 14 for throwing the ball away, because that's what started it all. From your initial description what follows is a lot of pushing and cuddling, so that's just a warning and stick with the original offence.

If however a punch is thrown by Blue 1 as suggested, then yes that would take over. You had the penalty, then you took the law into your own hands so its turned over (as per Dickies quote from Law 7).

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

"The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s)"

The above is from law 7. It is a fairly oblique way of saying that foul play trumps other infringements.
I am not aware of a law that gives a hierarchy of foul play offences

Thanks @Dickie E exactly what I was after!

 

[SimonSmith]

From your initial description I am going to penalise Red 14 for throwing the ball away, because that's what started it all. From your initial description what follows is a lot of pushing and cuddling, so that's just a warning and stick with the original offence.

If however a punch is thrown by Blue 1 as suggested, then yes that would take over. You had the penalty, then you took the law into your own hands so its turned over (as per Dickies quote from Law 7).

Up until the punch, it was going to be:
PK against Red 14, plus a card.
Reverse for Blue coming in.
Reverse again for Red 3. Third man in is always at risk.

 

[Dickie E]

From your initial description I am going to penalise Red 14 for throwing the ball away, because that's what started it all. From your initial description what follows is a lot of pushing and cuddling, so that's just a warning and stick with the original offence.

I'd consider "wrestling to ground" as FP and ping that. Depending on the severity of Red 3's actions I'll be looking to ping him as 3rd man is.

But consider a melee. Blue player punches Red player, Red player retaliates with a punch, a couple of "3rd men" from both teams join in with some punches. Maybe there's a kick in there too. Lots of cards but what is the sensible restart?

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

Lots of cards but what is the sensible restart?

That's what I was looking for in the law.

I think there was a question in this year's season test about penalising after foul play.

I think that per law 7 is that is it down to the referee and we have a fair bit of freedom to determine what is 'fair' as foul play incidents is a broad bucket.

Generally it would seem that convention is penalty against either the 'worst' infringement or the last infringement.

Using the original example with the following changes:

Blue 1 punches Red 14, then Red 3 then wrestles Blue 1.

We could restart with a penalty against Blue 1 (after their card) and waive the penalty for Red 3 OR restart with penalty against Red 3 (and explain the reversal of the penalty against Red 14 and then the reversal against Blue 1) - and this a decision a referee determines on a case by case basis.

 

[Dickie E]

That's what I was looking for in the law.

I think there was a question in this year's season test about penalising after foul play.

I think that per law 7 is that is it down to the referee and we have a fair bit of freedom to determine what is 'fair' as foul play incidents is a broad bucket.

Generally it would seem that convention is penalty against either the 'worst' infringement or the last infringement.

Using the original example with the following changes:

Blue 1 punches Red 14, then Red 3 then wrestles Blue 1.

We could restart with a penalty against Blue 1 (after their card) and waive the penalty for Red 3 OR restart with penalty against Red 3 (and explain the reversal of the penalty against Red 14 and then the reversal against Blue 1) - and this a decision a referee determines on a case by case basis.

there is another (my preferred) option. Once the cards are dished out and its all settled down ... restart with the lineout to Blue. That way you're not sending a message that one team is more or less culpable in the whole mess. They're all equally at fault, the miscreants have been dealt with, so let's get on with some rugby.

 

[didds]

as merely a daft suggestion - maybe this is where field hockey bully, football drop-ball, basketball tip off etc provide a restart that favours neither side.

I stress this is not a serious suggestion as to something that SHOULD be available!

 

[SimonSmith]

In days of yore, the guidance was "penalize someone - do NOT let the players immediately get back to a phase where they can hit each other"

 

[Flish]

In days of yore, the guidance was "penalize someone - do NOT let the players immediately get back to a phase where they can hit each other"

I’ve had this, two equally culpable teams so restarted with a scrum, and been told afterthought I should have ‘found a penalty’ so I don’t have to bring them all back into contact - never quite sat right with me that one, but I understand why

 

[Dickie E]

In days of yore, the guidance was "penalize someone - do NOT let the players immediately get back to a phase where they can hit each other"

So don't have a lineout in favour of a PK into touch & then have a lineout?

And the penalty decision ... penalise who & based on what criteria?

 

[Dickie E]

I’ve had this, two equally culpable teams so restarted with a scrum, and been told afterthought I should have ‘found a penalty’ so I don’t have to bring them all back into contact - never quite sat right with me that one, but I understand why

And what would you do if the lucky team decided to take the scrum option?

 

[SimonSmith]

So don't have a lineout in favour of a PK into touch & then have a lineout?

And the penalty decision ... penalise who & based on what criteria?

"You - last man in" or
"You - first man in"

 

[Flish]

And what would you do if the lucky team decided to take the scrum option?

Find a penalty, quick