Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: YC/RD

      
  1. #21
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    1,818
    Thanks (Received)
    31
    Likes (Received)
    451

    Default Re: YC/RD

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref
    All PK offences are intentional, (or presumed intentional) aren't they ? That's why they are PK and not scrum
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    that's tricky. If what you say is correct then every penalty is a law 9 (foul play) offence which says:

    A player must not:
    Intentionally infringe any law of the game.


    and

    A player who commits foul play must either be cautioned or temporarily suspended or sent off.


    Do you caution a player at every penalty?




    Clearly not all PK are intentional or there would be no need for Law 9.7. Nor would we have needed the old clarification that Cards wre ony compulsory after "intentional offending"

    An example of an non - intentional PK would be, a high tackle where, the arm slips up to the neck. It is a a PK but it is not "intentional".
    Last edited by Marc Wakeham; 05-03-20 at 22:03.

  2. #22
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    1,818
    Thanks (Received)
    31
    Likes (Received)
    451

    Default Re: YC/RD

    Here is the old law clarification (Note the old law numbers.)

    Ruling
    9-2004
    Union / HP Ref Manager
    IRFU
    Law Reference
    10,22
    Date
    23 December 2004
    Request
    The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

    Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

    The first paragraph states:
    Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. 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 from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

    The final paragraph states:
    A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

    The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

    The clarification sought is:
    Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

    Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

    The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
    In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

    Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

    Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
    Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

    The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

    Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

    Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
    • a collapsed scrum
    • a collapsed maul
    • a defending player intentionally offside
    • a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

    If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending
    , the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

    Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
    • mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
    • unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.
    Last edited by Marc Wakeham; 05-03-20 at 22:03.

  3. #23

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,675
    Thanks (Received)
    120
    Likes (Received)
    1440

    Default Re: YC/RD

    Nice pick up, Marc, and thanks for sharing. And even though it refers to 'old' numbering, it is still a current & valid clarification ... yes?
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  4. #24
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    981
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    239

    Default Re: YC/RD

    Interesting if still valid, certainly hope so, as allows some common sense to be applied by us.

  5. #25

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,420
    Thanks (Received)
    162
    Likes (Received)
    1924

    Default Re: YC/RD

    Quote Originally Posted by Flish View Post
    Interesting if still valid, certainly hope so, as allows some common sense to be applied by us.
    Law 8.3 is very clear on this

    .8.3 A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team
    prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A
    player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No
    conversion is attempted


    Generally speaking if you go down the route of favouring very old clarifications over the current Law Book you are going to go very far astray there are loads of clarifications from the past that are now superseded by subsequent Laws

  6. #26

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    843
    Thanks (Received)
    40
    Likes (Received)
    232

    Default Re: YC/RD

    I never have thought that it is compulsory to YC for a PT. Recently at one of our training sessions one ot our professional referees said that they try to avoid a ‘double whammy’ as much as possible. The real question is does it meet YC criteria.
    At a recent match one scrum was being totally decimated. A PT resulted. Who do you YC? T/H, L/H, Hooker, No8 for releasing bind, second row for going to ground? Nobody was really at fault; the opposition were too big and strong. There was nothing that the opposition scrum could do to resist the pressure. If they (and one player in particular) were deliberately dropping the scrum (or similar) to prevent the drive it would be a different matter.

    In the above scrum scenario the referee adopted the ‘I must YC’ approach. This resulted in uncontested scrums and the dominant scrum (and coach in particular) was livid!

  7. #27

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,420
    Thanks (Received)
    162
    Likes (Received)
    1924

    Default Re: YC/RD

    If you can't identify a culprit I think it's obvious you can't give a card

    Interestingly Law 8.3 also says that PT are awarded as a result of Foul Play and scrum penalties aren't foul play anyway

  8. #28

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    843
    Thanks (Received)
    40
    Likes (Received)
    232

    Default Re: YC/RD

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    If you can't identify a culprit I think it's obvious you can't give a card

    Interestingly Law 8.3 also says that PT are awarded as a result of Foul Play and scrum penalties aren't foul play anyway
    It is if you keep releasing you binding etc. Repeat infringements are foul play, by definition.

    Basically releasing binding is what you give the PT for in the above circumstances. It’s not done deliberately. If the opposition have made you do it do you penalise the dominant side?
    Last edited by Balones; 06-03-20 at 09:03.

  9. #29

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,996
    Thanks (Received)
    76
    Likes (Received)
    1018

    Default Re: YC/RD

    You are (WADR :-) ) overthinking it.

    One card, one offence. Maybe the offense is a "double whammy" but the PT is an added "what if scenario" toan otherwise standard card.

    High tackle in midfield ? PK
    Dangerous? YC

    High tackle 1m off goal line no other defenders around? PT
    Dangerous? YC

    ISTR the move is definitely away from automatic cards for PTs (huge discussions in other threads)

    It may well be the act that meant a PT is awarded is not deserving of a card at all. We can I am sure all find an angel to dance on a pin head to proide a scenario.


    didds
    Last edited by didds; 06-03-20 at 09:03.

  10. #30

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,420
    Thanks (Received)
    162
    Likes (Received)
    1924

    Default Re: YC/RD

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    ISTR the move is definitely away from automatic cards for PTs (huge discussions in other threads)


    didds
    It's the other way round, as it's now enshrined in Law, without qualification

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •