Sale v Leicester Yellow Card?

[ChrisR]

Have not seen the incident, going by OP description. If both are focused on the ball why then a need for a YC? If neither jump and they collide would you YC both? If both jump and collide but one comes off second best does the other get binned?

Seems likje one guy got a YC for something he did not do (jump) or something the other guy did (jump). I agree with menace, if they are both seeking to catch it's a 'rugby incident'.

[crossref]

I agree the Sale player was not really intent on hurting the other player, but we referee on actions not intent.

.

I don't know why you say that - - we referee on intent all the the time.

examples : many offences are defined by the players intention
- knock on or accidental throw forward = scrum, deliberate knock on or throw forward = PK.
- accidental obstructions = accidental offside = scrum, deliberate obstruction = PK
- accidental maul collapse = turnover and win the ball, deliberate collapse = PK aganst you
- accidentally throw ball into touch = lineout, deliberately do it = PK
etc

And for foul play also we routinely consider intention. A knee can catch a head accidentally or deliberately, one is play-on, the other is a RC. etc

[Phil E]

I don't know why you say that - - we referee on intent all the the time.

And for foul play also we routinely consider intention. A knee can catch a head accidentally or deliberately, one is play-on, the other is a RC. etc

If you can read peoples minds perhaps you should be on the stage? I can't so I will stick with facts.

This IRB memo is somewhat specific to high tackles, but the final statement is clear and unequivocal.

Memorandum

The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:

-SNIP-

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle.

[crossref]

If you can read peoples minds perhaps you should be on the stage? I can't so I will stick with facts.

so have you never penalised a deliberate knock on?
have never called accidental offside?

Agreed on high tackles, there is a memo for those not to look for intent (and also for tip tackles). But we are not discussing either, we were discussing players leaping for the ball.

There's no memo on in-the-air collisions that tells us they are special instances where we disregard intent, so I think they are just the same as 99% of all injuries/collisions -- a consideration of intent is vital. it's not mind reading just a routine judgement.

[Phil E]

so have you never penalised a deliberate knock on?
have never called accidental offside?

Agreed on high tackles, there is a memo for those not to look for intent (and also for tip tackles). But we are not discussing either, we were discussing players leaping for the ball.

There's no memo on in-the-air collisions that tells us they are special instances where we disregard intent, so I think they are just the same as 99% of all injuries/collisions -- a consideration of intent is vital. it's not mind reading just a routine judgement.

Deciding what someone had in their head to do, is mind reading.

Deciding on a knock on or an accidental offside is based on facts and experience. Where was their hand pointing, what movement was involved, was there an attempt to catch, or merely to bat away, etc. etc.

If you run into the back of your own player, its accidental offside. It makes no difference if you intended to do it or not.


I wonder if you can guess my intentions?

[crossref]

Deciding what someone had in their head to do, is mind reading.

Deciding on a knock on or an accidental offside is based on facts and experience. Where was their hand pointing, what movement was involved, was there an attempt to catch, or merely to bat away, etc. etc.

exactly ... and when you make a judgement as to what they were attempting to do, you are forming a judgement about their intention.

It's no big deal, we do it all the time.

[Phil E]

exactly ... and when you make a judgement as to what they were attempting to do, you are forming a judgement about their intention.

No i'm not. I am forming a judgement based on their actions. I have no idea what their intention was.

[crossref]

Here's some Laws that require you form a judgement about a player's intention

Law 17: Maul
17.2 Joining a maul
A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.

Law 12: Knock-on or Throw forward
12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward
Unintentional knock-on or throw forward.

Variations: Under 19: Law 20: Scrum
20.9 Scrum - general restrictions
A player must not intentionally keep the ball in the scrum once the player’s team has heeled the ball and controls it at the base of the scrum.

Variations: Under 19: Law 20: Scrum
20.11 Scrum wheeled
A team must not intentionally wheel a scrum.

Variations: Seven-a-side: Law 20: Scrum
20.8 Front-row players
A front-row player must not intentionally kick the ball out of the tunnel or out of the scrum in the direction of the opponent’s goal line.

Law 16: Ruck
16.3 Rucking
A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a ruck. This is dangerous play.

Law 10: Foul Play
10.1 Obstruction
A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.

Law 10: Foul Play
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
Front row players must not intentionally lift opponents off their feet or force them upwards out of the scrum.

Law 11: Offside and Onside in General Play
11.1 Offside in general play
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.

Law 11: Offside and Onside in General Play
11.6 Accidental offside
When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is offside. Unless the receiver is considered to be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty kick is awarded), the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

Law 14: Ball on the Ground - No Tackle
14.2 Players on their feet
A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.

Law 19: Touch and Lineout
19.7 Incorrect throw-in
A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight.

Law 19: Touch and Lineout
19.14 Offside when taking part in the lineout
The referee must penalise any player who, intentionally or not, moves into an offside position without trying to win possession or tackle an opponent.

Law 20: Scrum
20.1 Forming a scrum
A team must not intentionally delay forming a scrum.

Law 21: Penalty and Free Kicks
21.7 What the opposing team must do at a penalty kick
The opposing team must not do anything to delay the penalty kick or obstruct the kicker. They must not intentionally take, throw or kick the ball out of reach of the kicker or the kicker’s team mates.

Law 21: Penalty and Free Kicks
21.8 What options the opposing team have at a free kick
The opposing team must not do anything to delay the free kick or obstruct the kicker. They must not intentionally take, throw or kick the ball out of reach of the kicker or the kicker’s team mates.

Law 22: In-Goal
22.17 Misconduct or unfair play in in-goal
When a player charges or intentionally obstructs an opponent in the in-goal who has just kicked the ball, the opponent’s team may choose to take the penalty kick either in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line opposite the place of infringement, or where the ball landed.

Law 10: Foul Play
10.2 Unfair play
Intentionally Offending.

Law 11: Offside and Onside in General Play
11.3 Being put onside by opponents
Intentionally touches ball.

Of course, for high tackles it's different

Law Application Guidelines
Dangerous tackles (high tackles)
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle.

[Phil E]

You're playing with words. Those are all intentions that are discerned by actions.

If you pull down a maul, you are deemed to have done it deliberately.
Do you know any referees who see a player pull down a maul and then say "I don't think he intended to do that", of course not, it doesn't happen. We judge on actions (he pulled the maul down), not intentions (I don't know if he meant to do it).

Anyway, I have made my point.
I'm out.

[crossref]

no, you are repeating a mantra 'we don't judge on intentions' that is manifestly in opposition to the Laws and to reality, where we judge on intention very frequently