PDA

View Full Version : Not straight. Again. And again.



SimonSmith
30-10-16, 00:10
Mots pf this season, I've been doing D1 College, and enjoyed it a lot.

I had a D3 Men's game today, just to get a change.

I've done D3 before, so I thought there would be few surprises.

Except...

First red L/O? Not straight.
Second red L/O? Not straight.

Now my heart is starting to sink. I already set a big tunnel, and give the hookers a fair degree of latitude, so if I say not straight, it's really not straight.

Have a quiet word with hooker. "Mate, you're 0 for 2"

Third red L/O? Not straight.

"Next one's a FK. This is getting silly"

You can guess what happens on the 4th.
Fifth was plausible, so I let him have it.
Sixth? Yup. So, now it's a PK and word with the captain. "Look, I'm about of options here, and I've been generous...Maybe you want to swap out throwers?"
"Sorry sir, he's our only thrower"
[sotto voce 'shit'] "Well, OK. That's your problem. I'm telling you what's about to happen."

Reader, I yellow carded him. First time in 23 years of refereeing. Replacement thrower did just fine.

didds
30-10-16, 01:10
presumably he was simply rubbish at throwing - as nobody would deliberately do it after warnings surely.

I'm not personally convinced though that somebody shoud end up being YCd because of sheer incompetence?

And as for giving a FK for repeated N/S ... what's the point? a FK is worse than useless for about 70m of the field for the team awarded one.

didds

leaguerefaus
30-10-16, 01:10
I don't think you can justify a YC for someone not throwing-in straight. They are not breaking down the play of their opponent, they are essentially giving up the ball when they have the advantage of the throw. Penalty sufficient every time.

Ian_Cook
30-10-16, 02:10
I don't think you can justify a YC for someone not throwing-in straight. They are not breaking down the play of their opponent, they are essentially giving up the ball when they have the advantage of the throw. Penalty sufficient every time.

Yep. three times not straight, then escalate to FK and then escalate to PK from then on.

I know its technically repeat/persistent infringements but its not as if what he is doing is disadvantaging the opposition. With a PK at every NS, there is no upside for his team. All he is doing is continually giving up possession and field position. That's punishment enough surely?

chbg
30-10-16, 10:10
But the team have learnt that they do have another, more competent, thrower. So long term win!

ChrisR
30-10-16, 11:10
19.7 Incorrect throw in

(a) If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a
lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is
again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.


(c) A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line
How the throw-in takes place


I agree with didds, the choice of line-out or scrum is much more of an advantage than a FK.

Escalating to PK is an available option but YC is harsh as the PK is already for repeat offence.

The Fat
30-10-16, 11:10
Yep. three times not straight, then escalate to FK and then escalate to PK from then on.

I know its technically repeat/persistent infringements but its not as if what he is doing is disadvantaging the opposition. With a PK at every NS, there is no upside for his team. All he is doing is continually giving up possession and field position. That's punishment enough surely?

And what if you escalate to PK's and during the next 4 or 5 minutes he throws 3 more that you award 3 more quick PKs for? See where I'm going?

ChrisR
30-10-16, 11:10
..... and the team receiving the PKs says "Thank you, Sir". This is 'throwing in crook', not a capitol offence in and of itself.

The Fat
30-10-16, 11:10
..... and the team receiving the PKs says "Thank you, Sir". This is 'throwing in crook', not a capitol offence in and of itself.

Sounds like he only wants to throw to 4 or 6. Why doesn't his captain suggest he try the front or 2 just for something different?
How many PKs would you allow for the continual miss throws?

ChrisR
30-10-16, 12:10
As many as go awry. Giving up the throw at a LO and getting hit with a PK in 15m is a smack up the side of the head.

What if they change throwers and it's still not straight? What if he only cocks it up every other throw?

As said before, the LO/scrum option is already a nice reward for a poor throw so chucking in a penalty for repeating is a bonus. No need for a card.

didds
30-10-16, 12:10
19.7 Incorrect throw in

(a) If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a
lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is
again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.


(c) A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line
How the throw-in takes place


I agree with didds, the choice of line-out or scrum is much more of an advantage than a FK.

Escalating to PK is an available option but YC is harsh as the PK is already for repeat offence.

what I actually meant (though I appreciate the agreement :-) is that betweena team's own 22 and deep into the oppo 22, an FK award ends up in a scrum anyway for most teams. so awarding a FK is in itself meanigless... and removes the LO option to the other team that they would otherwise have.

I can see that its an escalation process to go from scrum-or-lineout to eventual PK... but even then this is now PKing somebody for incomptence... which _personally_ I am not sure I can agree with. (see above).



didds

didds
30-10-16, 12:10
a secondary thought...

IF one were to YC a thrower for persistent not straight, and the next thrower stands forward and he throws not straight... is that a YC for him then as well for continuation of repeated NS? Who on earth is going to stand up to throw in with the prospect of a YC hanging over them?

didds

Pegleg
30-10-16, 12:10
At a scrum for not straight the rule is: Warning --- FK --- PK --- YC. What is the difference with a line out? I can see the point of missing out the FK but YC and maybe he'll practice a bit more.

Also who is to say he is throwing not straight because the other side has a very good line out?

ChrisR
30-10-16, 12:10
It's a moot point since the FK isn't an option but I agree (again) that a FK inside own 22 or a quick tap can be a benefit. Otherwise I think the LO/scrum is a better option.

SimonSmith
30-10-16, 12:10
He was throwing to the front more than the middle or back. In fact, he didn't go to the back at all that I remember.

My Coach - who didn't come to coach, just to watch some rugby - suggested I could have gone to my pocket earlier.

didds
30-10-16, 14:10
My Coach - who didn't come to coach, just to watch some rugby - suggested I could have gone to my pocket earlier.

how - on the day - would that have actually "helped" anyone though (except the oppo presumably!). Surely YC is a deterrent in terms of it potentially being shown. How can you deter someone that hasn't the skills to do any better (as clearly was the case here). You can YC him, he comes back on and the next LO he does it again, so presumably at that juncture RC him. What does that ultimately achieve except being RCd for incompetence?

We can make arguments about its the team's punishment etc - with some validity - but in the weeds this may be a bloke that doesn't normally throw but all the throwers are sick/injured/away/dragged up a team cos their normal thrower is sick/injured/away etc. cards are a literal progression, but not very "safety-ENJOYMENT-law" orientated in this scenario. Especially for the individual concerned.

I am conflicted here - but overall I am not convinced that carding someone for straight incompetence is really a solution.

Taken to an extreme, that potentially means that team X could end up with (say) two - or more! - RCs for incompetence per game .. because lets face it team B will kick to touch quite happily and conceed the throw because they know they will always end up with the ball back, so you could see a lot more LOs than normal, for team A to throw in. It isn;t really of any benefit at all. Its not an offence like offside. And frankly takes far more ability than to put the ball into a scrum straight!

didds

didds
30-10-16, 14:10
but YC and maybe he'll practice a bit more.


maybe - but that doesn't help at this juncture at that moment in time.

And maybe he never normally throws but through exceptional circumstances his team has no thrower and he volunteered/got volunteered. Its happened to me.

didds

Pegleg
30-10-16, 16:10
I think "in the weeds" we apply different standards for repeated offences. So we'd not be going to YC on the third occasion. Common sense also would apply in windy conditions. Especially if the hooker was throwing to the front rather than middle or back.

I leave the question on the table though about the scrum. We go through the process of warning ect up to red card. Again this may be a technical issue too. Of course many line out throwers are off target deliberately just as much a SHs.

Do those who object to the YC for the Hooker also opposing for the SH?

merge
30-10-16, 16:10
... and removes the LO option to the other team that they would otherwise have.

Surely 21.4 (b) applies and they do have they lineout option from a FK or PK for not straight?

Pegleg
30-10-16, 17:10
19.7 INCORRECT THROW-IN

(c) A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Make it clear that the law makers expect a PK for the lack of skill. Also the other side can chose a scrum or a line out ifthe prefer it to the PK. Of course, there is no FK option at the line out we go straight to the PK. Perhaps the line out chould be brought into line with the scum and Law 19.7 (c) should carry a FK sanction instead of the PK.

21.4 PENALTY AND FREE KICK OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
(a) Scrum alternative. A team awarded a penalty or free kick may choose a scrum instead.
They throw in the ball.
(b) Lineout alternative. A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a lineout may choose a
further lineout into which they throw in. This is in addition to the scrum option.

SimonSmith
30-10-16, 18:10
The replacement thrower, incidentally, was great and nailed his man, fairly, every time.

Taff
30-10-16, 18:10
... "Sorry sir, he's our only thrower" ..
Well that's blatant bullshit IMO because the "replacement thrower did just fine".

If the thrower was genuinely incompetent, then you'd expect some of the throws to be their opponents favour wouldn't you. I'm happy to bet a pint though that all these "not straights" were in his teams favour. Am I right?

Wedgie
30-10-16, 20:10
I had a ladies match the other week and, in common with other parts of the game, the LO was very different from a men's game. No trying to keep the lines apart - the first one lined up at least 2m apart. I looked at them quizzically, but allowed them to carry on. The throw went in as straight as a die, the jumpers went up .......and neither of them could get close to the ball which then landed between them, on the ground between the two lines. Next LO, I encouraged them to get just a bit closer together ;-)

Dickie E
30-10-16, 23:10
the choice of line-out or scrum is much more of an advantage than a FK.



??? That would suggest a team would always take the scrum option at a FK ... which they don't do.

Dickie E
30-10-16, 23:10
What is the difference with a line out?

a straight lineout throw is more difficult, and more subject to the vagaries of the weather, that a straight scrum feed

SimonSmith
30-10-16, 23:10
The throws all went in one direction, and there were absolutely no mitigating factors in terms of weather

Dickie E
31-10-16, 00:10
The throws all went in one direction,

that would be the telling factor for me. Might be different if he was spraying them all over the place.

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

ChrisR
31-10-16, 10:10
From Pegkeg above: "Of course, there is no FK option at the line out we go straight to the PK."

Make that " Of course, there is no FK option at the line out for not straight, we go straight to the PK."

ChrisR
31-10-16, 11:10
??? That would suggest a team would always take the scrum option at a FK ... which they don't do.

Agreed, they don't and "much more of an advantage" is a stretch. So, inside their own 22 they'd want to gain ground and inside the ops 22 a quick tap can be effective especially if the ops don't retire.

However, between the 22s the FK doesn't get you much if the ops retire in order. Both LOs and scrums create space by packing half the players into a box. LOs give you lots of options and scrums used to be a good attacking platform until they sank into a PK shambles.

Maybe those teams that always take a FK should reconsider.

didds
31-10-16, 11:10
Well that's blatant bullshit IMO because the "replacement thrower did just fine".




you presume that the talents of the replacement were already, definitely, known.

Or maybe every other time he has been truly shite, and somehow that day got it right!

It is somewhat odd though. And whilst I appreciate the law does seem to accept a card for incompetence, even up to a RC, _personally_ I think thats stinks, and is another indication that the laws are written for
the very very small top level elite player level and do not reflect the huge pyramid base of weekend warriors.

And you still have "safety - ENJOYMENT - law" to consider. I fail to see that in the weeds carding someone for incompetence adds to anybody's enjoyment, except maybe the oppo's as they get a numerical advantage from it. And in the OP it actually ruined their constant supply of ball form L/O turnovers as the forced replacement could throw, it turned out!


I do appreciate I am in a minority of one here :)


didds

didds
31-10-16, 11:10
??? That would suggest a team would always take the scrum option at a FK ... which they don't do.

caveats about weak scrummages aside, between the two 22s what other realistic option is there? A tap and go is about it, and is often messy, and doesn't concentrate 18 players in a small part of the pitch.

didds

didds
31-10-16, 11:10
a straight lineout throw is more difficult, and more subject to the vagaries of the weather, that a straight scrum feed

yup. A scrum feed is a metre of getting the line right along the ground basically.

A throw in is typicall 6+m, in the air. weather potentially affecting it etc.

didds

didds
31-10-16, 11:10
The throws all went in one direction, and there were absolutely no mitigating factors in terms of weather

In which case... the thrower, his captain, and frankly all his teammates are total and utter idiots.

why would you continue deliberately not throwing straight to your own team, in the knowledge that the ball WILL be turned over, with escalations eventually to PKs (losing territory, or even points) and eventually losing a player temporarily and then possibly permanently.

That makes no sense at all. Why WOULD you do that?

Bombay bookmakers?

didds

didds
31-10-16, 11:10
scrums used to be a good attacking platform until they sank into a PK shambles.
.

do you guys that ref at (say) L6 and below see a PK shambles with scrummages?

didds

Pegleg
31-10-16, 11:10
a straight lineout throw is more difficult, and more subject to the vagaries of the weather, that a straight scrum feed

And yet the Scrum feed goes through FK to PK. Whereas we miss the FK here. and "we" ping line outs but rarely ping scrum feeds.

Funny how it is (as implied by TAFF) almost always that the not straight goes towards the throwers own team. If it was genuinely "accidental" there would surely be a larger incidence of not straights going to the other side too.

If the weather is really affecting the issue use some common sense!

I think there is some naivety going on here.

Rich_NL
31-10-16, 12:10
If you're on PKs every time, I think I'd suggest to the hooker that he aim for the opposition; at the best he'll find it going down the middle, at worst they gain possession without a PK advantage.

DocY
31-10-16, 12:10
do you guys that ref at (say) L6 and below see a PK shambles with scrummages?

didds

Nope - I can probably count (albeit on both hands) the number of reset scrums I have per season - and the huge majority of scrum penalties are flankers not binding (typically the first scrum or two every game).

FlipFlop
31-10-16, 12:10
Wow - all these people saying no YC.

Lets look at this. Ref has escalated. Ref has given the captain an opportunity to correct. Captain didn't try anything to correct it.

Ref sent player to bin.

Suddenly the problem goes away.

Seems to me like the card solved the problem, after the referee tried to manage it away.

Seems like a perfect use of a card to me - problem seen, attempt to solve problem, problem not solved by management (via players and captain), issue card, problem solved.

Ian_Cook
31-10-16, 12:10
And what if you escalate to PK's and during the next 4 or 5 minutes he throws 3 more that you award 3 more quick PKs for? See where I'm going?

The reality is this won't happen. The opposing team will be throwong to the line-out, and some distance downfield too.

OB..
31-10-16, 13:10
do you guys that ref at (say) L6 and below see a PK shambles with scrummages?

didds
No......

didds
31-10-16, 13:10
Wow - all these people saying no YC.

Lets look at this. Ref has escalated. Ref has given the captain an opportunity to correct. Captain didn't try anything to correct it.

Ref sent player to bin.

Suddenly the problem goes away.

Seems to me like the card solved the problem, after the referee tried to manage it away. .

In the OP the team were either on some sort of bizarre death wish mission to give the ball away, or genuinely didn't think they had an alternative. As it turned out they did.

but what if they hadn't and post YC the next victim stood forward and mis threw. Is that a YC for him too?

because if the clock resets then the solution for any team is to always rotate the thrower (when nobody can throw!) so nobody ever gets escalated - or if they do its very late in the game after 15X throws have been done. Possibly 18X depending on use of bench!

I can't explain why the skipper didn't rotate him. I can't explain either why any team would deliberately expose themselves in this manner.

But it still seems - to me - that you are now carding someone because he is purely incompetent (to an Nth degree as well it seems)

didds

didds
31-10-16, 13:10
Seems like a perfect use of a card to me - problem seen, attempt to solve problem, problem not solved by management (via players and captain), issue card, problem solved.

This is soemwhat chopperesque so apolgies but I am intrigued now...

If threatened with a YC "next time", at the next lineout that player refuses to throw in as they don;t want to be YCd, and nobody else from the throwing side steps up - because they don;t want to be YCd either.

what do you do now - abandon the game? PK for time wasting - and what do you do next time when this happens? card the bloke that is refusing to expose himself through his incompetence? what about the other 14 that could throw in biut are also refusing? card them too?


I am guessing here that D1 is a higher level than D3, so we are dealing with guys that play for fun once a week at most, not hard bitten semi=pros looking to gain an edge to get a fully pro contract etc



didds

OB..
31-10-16, 13:10
But it still seems - to me - that you are now carding someone because he is purely incompetent (to an Nth degree as well it seems)

diddsSince all the throws were going to his own team, I find it difficult to interpret that as incompetence.

SimonSmith
31-10-16, 13:10
I did warn the captain and the replacement thrower that this was a cumulative thing, so he was going to be on a bit of a tightrope as well. No issues at all.

As I said, first time in 20+ years of doing this

OB..
31-10-16, 13:10
This is soemwhat chopperesque so apolgies but I am intrigued now...

If threatened with a YC "next time", at the next lineout that player refuses to throw in as they don;t want to be YCd, and nobody else from the throwing side steps up - because they don;t want to be YCd either.

what do you do now - abandon the game? PK for time wasting - and what do you do next time when this happens? card the bloke that is refusing to expose himself through his incompetence? what about the other 14 that could throw in biut are also refusing? card them too?


I am guessing here that D1 is a higher level than D3, so we are dealing with guys that play for fun once a week at most, not hard bitten semi=pros looking to gain an edge to get a fully pro contract etc



diddsAussie Rules: ref stands with his back to the lineout and throws the ball over his head, turning round quickly to see what happens.

(There is a sort of international precedent for this. A referee got so fed up with the scrumhalfs messing up the feed that at one scrum he did the job himself.)

didds
31-10-16, 13:10
(removed - strange double post!)

didds
31-10-16, 13:10
Since all the throws were going to his own team, I find it difficult to interpret that as incompetence.

I have sympathies with that view as well OB... but for a constant stream of deliberately not straights with the escalation of penalties along the way, to continue makes absolutely no sense. Particularly with the captain and tea,m mates aiding and abetting that policy by not replacing him. Something really isn'tt adding up here ... but I just cannot see that this was consistently deliberate with nobody from his own side changing anything. why would it have been deliberate? A hope that the ref would just give up calling the not straights ? ??

didds

ChrisR
31-10-16, 17:10
.... and now a word from the opponents: "Please, Sir, don't card him. We're really thriving on the PKs."

didds
31-10-16, 17:10
bang on chrisr!

DocY
01-11-16, 10:11
Personally, I'm loathe to YC someone for incompetence. I'm not too comfortable with giving a penalty for incompetence, though it is useful as a threat in these cases.

The only time I've come close to penalising a hooker for repeated not straights was when he kept trying to throw to the back and just wasn't accurate enough - I ended up speaking to him and the captain saying "FFS throw to the front".

Taff
01-11-16, 12:11
Personally, I'm loathe to YC someone for incompetence.
Well, strictly speaking you're not - you're YCing a player for Repeated Infringement.


... The only time I've come close to penalising a hooker for repeated not straights was when he kept trying to throw to the back and just wasn't accurate enough - I ended up speaking to him and the captain saying "FFS throw to the front".
Two points:


If the Hooker can't throw it straight - do they have another player on the pitch who can? It doesn't have to be the Hooker's job.
If he can't throw to the back the conventional way - throw it underarm then! There's nothing in the lawbook that says how the ball is thrown in - as long as it's thrown in straight.

There isn't a team on the planet surely who would fail on both counts, is there?

didds
01-11-16, 12:11
Two points:

If the Hooker can't throw it straight - do they have another player on the pitch who can? It doesn't have to be the Hooker's job.
If he can't throw to the back the conventional way - throw it underarm then! There's nothing in the lawbook that says how the ball is thrown in - as long as it's thrown in straight.


There isn't a team on the planet surely who would fail on both counts, is there?

clearly the one in the OP.

I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with any answers as to why a thrower would continue deliberately throwing squint after already being penalised and being threatened with a YC.

didds

DocY
01-11-16, 12:11
There isn't a team on the planet surely who would fail on both counts, is there?

Isn't that what the OP was about?

crossref
01-11-16, 12:11
I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with any answers as to why a thrower would continue deliberately throwing squint after already being penalised and being threatened with a YC.

didds

to provoke the ref ?

didds
01-11-16, 12:11
but why would a team do that?

that just doesn't make any sense.

didds

Pegleg
01-11-16, 12:11
clearly the one in the OP.

I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with any answers as to why a thrower would continue deliberately throwing squint after already being penalised and being threatened with a YC.

didds

Perhaps you can answer this: Why the player's incompetence only causes him to throw off centre to the right? I was poor at throwing in but mine went; to us, to them and straight over the top. Not always to my side.

FlipFlop
01-11-16, 13:11
How many teams, when told, change it, or he goes, wouldn't at least TRY someone else? I do wonder if the team involved just wanted that player off the field, but were unable to sub them (club president, money man, etc).

But to let a problem continue, and do nothing about it apart from PK it, consistently, is not a great option. Yes things like this, you perhaps have a bigger standard of "repeated infringement", but if after 5-10 PKs, why aren't you going to your pocket?

And the oppo - they would want you to YC it. Then they play against 14 men AND the chances are the replacement is even worse, so they still get the PKs.

DocY
01-11-16, 13:11
Perhaps you can answer this: Why the player's incompetence only causes him to throw off centre to the right? I was poor at throwing in but mine went; to us, to them and straight over the top. Not always to my side. Perhaps a mis-placed sense of "I'll get it right this time".

Perhaps a word along the lines of "aim to the left" would have been in order.

didds
01-11-16, 13:11
well, I can see that base imperfections in technique could cause that. If it was ALWAYS to the RIGHT, and that meant it was always thrown to his own team, that would suggest that all lineouts were from the same side . until half time in which case it would be "the other side" so to speak - or if you prefer the same side in terms of "upfield" left or right.

Was that the case Simon?

Because if it was always to the right, and lineouts were shared across both touchlines in each half, then the NS can't always have been to his own side.

??

Were all lineouts only form one side of the pitch ? - that would explain why a throw to one side always ended up on his own team's benefit. Though it wold be very unusual to have all lineouts on one side of the pitch, unless weather was a factor (which then may have been a factor in the throwing). I'm pretty sure weather has been excluded in the OP.

I just see no reason why anybody would continually deliberately throw NS, in the knowledge that they are turning over the ball at best, and being penalised increasingly more stringently ending up in being YCd. Why would anyone do that?

I can;t explain either why a skipper wouldn't try somebody else anyway.

There is something not adding up here at all, generally. But I still don't see the point of continuing to deliberately thow squint. Its senseless.



didds

SimonSmith
01-11-16, 13:11
A D3 game down here is...not good. There are some very good teams, but the average is poor.

The whole match was a management challenge, which actually made me reflect on how higher level rugby can be easier to referee.

The throws all went to his side, both sides of the field. Bear in mind I set a really BIG gap, probably 1.5m, and tell them "inside the inside shoulders" is straight enough. His throws were over the head of his jumper (who hadn't stepped in) with one going outside the outside shoulder.

Why didn't they change thrower? Probably the reason they stuck with a bad kicker; or ran the same back play that got rumbled in the first 5 minutes; or had an ineffectual captain. Or... who knows. Rugby IQ was not high on this day.

Pegleg
01-11-16, 13:11
Perhaps a mis-placed sense of "I'll get it right this time".

Perhaps a word along the lines of "aim to the left" would have been in order.


That's for his captain not me. Anway back to the point. If it was genuine incompetence the throws woul not all be wrong in one direction (or at least it is not very likely).

didds
01-11-16, 13:11
Thanks for the update Simon and clarifications.

So it seems they were not all to the right, they were to both left and right though always to his own team., That is weird, and all i can suggest is that on top of poor technique there is some sort of subconscious bias going on affecting which direction its wobbly. Unless he and skipper and team really REALLY didn't understand what was going on! (that's not a serious suggestion as i am sure Simon explained it very well!)

So there's my attempt at suggesting why they were always NS to his team's side.

I still do not buy that anybody is so stupid, aided and abetted by skipper and teammates (and coach if present) , to deliberately always throw squint in the light of increasing sanctions. That is too nonsensical.

Over to somebody who can explain that.

didds

Taff
01-11-16, 14:11
... I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with any answers as to why a thrower would continue deliberately throwing squint after already being penalised and being threatened with a YC.
Err ... perhaps they just thought the Ref didn't have the balls to carry out the threat.

didds
01-11-16, 14:11
Seeing as he (ref) was already turning over with scrum/LO offers to the oppo, then PKs, it was already a failing idea though wasn't it? The YC was only an icing on the cake. His team was already losing possession and (with PKs) probably territory too. As a bizarre tactic it still doesn't stack up.



didds

Pegleg
01-11-16, 14:11
So when stood one onside of the pitch all the not straights skewed left and on the other side of the pitch they all skewed right. Some of you reckon this was done to a lack of skill? Ok that must be it them. THe guy just happens to skew them all to his own team!

I've just check my birth certificate. Sorry guys I was not born yesterday.

Pegleg
01-11-16, 14:11
"The throws all went to his side, both sides of the field."


Sorry boys I was not born yesterday.


On one side they ALL skewed Left on the other Right.


Always left on one side and always right on the other.

Yep that was no accident.

didds
01-11-16, 14:11
So when stood one onside of the pitch all the not straights skewed left and on the other side of the pitch they all skewed right. Some of you reckon this was done to a lack of skill? Ok that must be it them. THe guy just happens to skew them all to his own team!

I've just check my birth certificate. Sorry guys I was not born yesterday.


I get that weirdness as well.

so why would he escalate through deliberately giving the ball to the oppos through turnover LO/scrum, to PK and eventual YC? what is this genius masterplan? That his entire team and coaching staff also buy into 100% ?


its just daft.

didds

DocY
01-11-16, 14:11
I get that weirdness as well.

so why would he escalate through deliberately giving the ball to the oppos through turnover LO/scrum, to PK and eventual YC? what is this genius masterplan? That his entire team and coaching staff also buy into 100% ?


its just daft.

didds

This is exactly why you go for a drink in the clubhouse afterwards! Perfect time to ask what he was doing!

didds
01-11-16, 15:11
so simon - what was his answer? :-)
didds

Phil E
01-11-16, 15:11
Was his name Clarence?

https://youtu.be/8ECVbfA8QIM

SimonSmith
01-11-16, 16:11
No clubhouse - this is America!

I didn't feel like heaping misery upon him...

didds
01-11-16, 17:11
cheers Simon,

I guess then we now fall into one of 2 x 2 camps..

1) YCing a player displaying a lack of skill in the weeds is punishment too far - or not
2) the thrower in the OP was deliberately throwing NS for a tactical reason nobody can fathom, or has some other technique failing reason for such a "biased" NS history.

:-)


didds

Pegleg
01-11-16, 20:11
so why would he escalate through deliberately giving the ball to the oppos through turnover LO/scrum, to PK and eventual YC? what is this genius masterplan? That his entire team and coaching staff also buy into 100% ?


its just daft.

didds

That's his teams problem not mine. I can only answer based on the facts as presented.

didds
02-11-16, 00:11
Go on peg leg... Throw off the shackles of the whistle for one moment 😉

Hazard a guess, have a stab... Put yourself in his shoes 😊

Why would you do such a thing if it were you?

Go on. You know you want too 😊

Didds

SimonSmith
02-11-16, 12:11
I have some sympathy with Pegleg on this.

At some stage I have to part company with the captain/thrower on trying to understand what the hell is happening and just deal with it. ATP, making suggestions along the way that are rebuffed.

"We don't have another thrower" was when I drew up the plank.

didds
02-11-16, 13:11
I do sympathoise - really :-)

what was the real issue with shrugging at the captain and saying "fine - you do realise that you are losing PK awards every time this happens as a result then" ?

But OK... I'll go with the YC then through sheer desperation.

Presumably you'd have YCd the next thrower IF he'd thrown NS as well?

And the next thrower?

What happens after you now have four throwers in the bin after several minutes (cos the oppo have now cottoned on to what is happening and are giving away LO throws asap in order to reduce the oppo numbers) and the scrum is down to less than 5 players, and uncontested potentially (though I guess they have to start using backs to make up their five).

what did all those YCs actually solve?

didds

SimonSmith
02-11-16, 17:11
Well, I did warn the second thrower...

didds
02-11-16, 17:11
indeed.

so IF that 2nd thrower had thrown NS you would have had to YC him as well, yes?

and the 3rd?

what then?

didds

leaguerefaus
02-11-16, 17:11
indeed.

so IF that 2nd thrower had thrown NS you would have had to YC him as well, yes?

and the 3rd?

what then?

didds

Might be able to go home early!

FlipFlop
02-11-16, 17:11
what did all those YCs actually solve?


Well, let us look at the facts. The 1 YC did actually solve the NS issue. Which goes to show it was the right thing to do.

Why get into all these “What Ifs”? – the OP escalated, showed a card, and then the problem was solved. How they did it – IT WORKED. WELL DONE.

If it had not worked, then you need to consider other options. Other management. But this was text book escalation.

didds
02-11-16, 17:11
Well, let us look at the facts. The 1 YC did actually solve the NS issue. Which goes to show it was the right thing to do.

Why get into all these “What Ifs”? – the OP escalated, showed a card, and then the problem was solved. How they did it – IT WORKED. WELL DONE.

If it had not worked, then you need to consider other options. Other management. But this was text book escalation.

WADR the YC "got lucky". Inmost circumstances I think it would be fair to say that the initial thrower is "the best" available and so anybody that replaces him - in the weeds remember - is unlikely to be better as a general rule.

So generally speaking there is a very good chance the replacement would NS - so more YCs? after 3 of them are in the bin, and having painted yourself in the corner, ... what then?

that's the point.

didds

DocY
02-11-16, 17:11
indeed.

so IF that 2nd thrower had thrown NS you would have had to YC him as well, yes?

and the 3rd?

what then?

didds

TBH, I think you'd be being very harsh to even penalise the second thrower for NS on one of his first throws. I probably get one in 5 lineouts NS normally - if he comes on (probably already nervous after seeing what happened to his mate) and his one in five crooked throw comes up first I can't see how penalising it would help the game.

DocY
02-11-16, 17:11
If I were the hooker in this case and I just couldn't throw straight, despite the warning of a penalty or card, I'd intentionally step into the FoP, dummy, throw less than 5m... and turn the ball over without a PK. Or even, if I know I can't throw it straight, why not intentionally throw it to the opposition?

didds
02-11-16, 18:11
If I were the hooker in this case and I just couldn't throw straight, despite the warning of a penalty or card, I'd intentionally step into the FoP, dummy, throw less than 5m... and turn the ball over without a PK. Or even, if I know I can't throw it straight, why not intentionally throw it to the opposition?

surely that's still NS but playing advantage? Does that remove the escalations? After all his NS to his own team always ends up with the oppo getting the ball generally speaking.

And again, you couldn;t repeatedly step into the FoP and then throw less than 5m under the same repeated thingy?



TBH, I think you'd be being very harsh to even penalise the second thrower for NS on one of his first throws


I'd agree but Simon had apparently warned the replacement that his fate was the same.

FWIW and WADR the YC in the OP "got lucky". The skipper seemed convinced there really was nobody else ... why would he lie after all? what possible benefit would that bring him? On another occasion potentially it didn't get so lucky - its NS and another YC. And again, after the 3rd thrower is in the bin for repeated infringements and that team are down to 12 men, 5 man scrums (probably), potentially uncontested, how have these YCs helped the game?

This isn't intended to smack anyone over the head until you all succumb to the great wisdom of Didds. Its a similar process that I take my players through when analysing what actions they took, or what new play they have dreamt up; i presume ref coaches do similar. I'm just trying to equate Simon's experience, with the laws as written, the mantra of safety - ENJOYMENT - law, with some consideration to this teams' position in the great pyramid of global rugby.

again WADR I see a referee potentially painting himself into a corner and ending up with a "solution" that may well have backfired terribly.

I in no way intend this to sound like a witch hunt :)

didds

crossref
02-11-16, 18:11
I don't understand this reluctance to penalise not straight the first time it happens - do people think you get one free?

I'd say the opposite : always penalise the first one!

That way you get fewer.

ChrisR
02-11-16, 20:11
Well, let us look at the facts. The 1 YC did actually solve the NS issue. Which goes to show it was the right thing to do.

Why get into all these “What Ifs”? – the OP escalated, showed a card, and then the problem was solved. How they did it – IT WORKED. WELL DONE.

If it had not worked, then you need to consider other options. Other management. But this was text book escalation.

Is it the referees job to "solve the problem"?

The problem has been presented to the captain of the throwing team when his side starts getting PKd. He doesn't fix it. A one-armed blind man could get it in straight half the time so I have no sympathy or patience for "He's our only thrower".

That being so, I still wouldn't YC the thrower. This isn't on TV so nobody is going to complain about an unwatchable game. In a roundabout way you have disadvantaged the non-offending team who was enjoying the stupidity of the opponent's captain.

I also follow and agree with the didds logic of "What then?". It's not too hard to whistle yourself into a corner and that's where he is coming from.

Pegleg
02-11-16, 20:11
I don't understand this reluctance to penalise not straight the first time it happens - do people think you get one free?

I'd say the opposite : always penalise the first one!

That way you get fewer.

You don't ping the first not straight because the law says so. 19.7 (a) gives the options. We come to 19.7 (c) only if it is: i) repeated (by definition you can't call it repeated "the first time it happens" OR ii is ii) intentional. That is very difficult to call the first time it happens

Pegleg
02-11-16, 20:11
Those who are not going to YC the thrower. How are you going to resolve the situation? And yes untimately the referee does need to resolve the solution.Otherwise the players will just see him / her as a joke and all respect is lost. Cue anarchy!

ChrisR
02-11-16, 23:11
Those who are not going to YC the thrower. How are you going to resolve the situation? And yes untimately the referee does need to resolve the solution.Otherwise the players will just see him / her as a joke and all respect is lost. Cue anarchy!

They will see him as a joke if:

a. He gets tired of calling NS and just lets it go.

b. He oversteps his authority and insists on a thrower change.

Simon has the right, and is correct in law, to apply:

10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily
suspended.

I'm just thinking that, if I were the non-offending captain, I'd rather get the PKs.

Dickie E
02-11-16, 23:11
10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily
suspended.



I wonder what we would do with the SH who continually knocks on at the base of the scrum remembering that "repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant"

Ian_Cook
03-11-16, 05:11
.... and now a word from the opponents: "Please, Sir, don't card him. We're really thriving on the PKs."


Spot on!

This is not as if the thrower is trying to gain some advantage; he is giving up great chunks of field position and possession every time the other side put the ball in touch. If there is an upside for his team to what he doing, I can't think what it might be!

leaguerefaus
03-11-16, 05:11
I think a few referees here need to remember the game is about the players and not themselves. Just because a decision can be technically justified by law does not mean it should necessarily be made.

didds
03-11-16, 08:11
This us a grew discussion, and thanks to all the commenters thus far.

I have so far asked two questions neither of which gave had any answers. Si in case they were missed here tgay are again

1) why would the thrower, his skipper, and the team in general choose to persist deliberately in a doing something that has no upside?

2) what will the ref do when three throwers are in the bin and how is this a solution?

Or are these the elephant in the room/ emporers new clothes?

Didds

Pegleg
03-11-16, 09:11
They will see him as a joke if:

a. He gets tired of calling NS and just lets it go.

b. He oversteps his authority and insists on a thrower change.

Simon has the right, and is correct in law, to apply:

10.3 Repeated infringements

(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily
suspended.

I'm just thinking that, if I were the non-offending captain, I'd rather get the PKs.


Would you not like an extra player on the park?

No one is suggesting stopping giving the NS. Nor am I suggesting that we insist on a change of thrower. We can advise. If the team ignore then that is their call andf the consequences are theirs also.

All the post are said with the caveat that the standard of the sides are taken into account (as indeed the law book does) when assessing "repeated infringements".

Pegleg
03-11-16, 09:11
This us a grew discussion, and thanks to all the commenters thus far.

I have so far asked two questions neither of which gave had any answers. Si in case they were missed here tgay are again

1) why would the thrower, his skipper, and the team in general choose to persist deliberately in a doing something that has no upside?

2) what will the ref do when three throwers are in the bin and how is this a solution?

Or are these the elephant in the room/ emporers new clothes?

Didds

You chose to ignore the question you've been asked! Is your answer just to have 20 / 30 or more NS PKs? Does that work?

To answer again the above:

1) Not my problem. The team choose to do what they wish I just apply fairly and equitable the laws of the game in the light of their actions. Ity is not for me to second guess the tactical choice of the teams.

2) Short term it is not a great solution, The non offenders will have more space inhich to play and will have a numerical advantage. The would benefit them. The offenders side may choose to review their, ill advised, tactic and / or practice more to improve. THEIR CALL!

Pegleg
03-11-16, 10:11
I think a few referees here need to remember the game is about the players and not themselves. Just because a decision can be technically justified by law does not mean it should necessarily be made.

The game is about the players playing their tactical plan within the laws. WE are there to facilitate that. We are not there to write the laws to suit. WR is the law maker. They're there to make the laws.

When we invent laws, we make the game about us.

Pegleg
03-11-16, 10:11
Spot on!

This is not as if the thrower is trying to gain some advantage; he is giving up great chunks of field position and possession every time the other side put the ball in touch. If there is an upside for his team to what he doing, I can't think what it might be!

Why doe any player deliberately offend the laws of the game?

didds
03-11-16, 10:11
You chose to ignore the question you've been asked! Is your answer just to have 20 / 30 or more NS PKs? Does that work?


sorry - I had missed that.

If I was the ref? Not my problem. Does the oppo skipper object to have a PK at every oppo lineout? I suspect not. I would suggest therein your answer lies. The only people this affects materially is the side with the wonky throwing player. If they want to keep giving away penalties all day, that is their problem. Its not a safety issue, its not stopping the other team from playing. It IS stopping themselves from playing - that is the entire crux of the matter. Its a self inflicted, non dangerous issue. YCing a technically (physcially and mentally) incapable person doesn't solve the PROBLEM. It merely gives the problem to somebody else and doesn't stop the same player from potentially repeating when he comes back on. And paints the ref into a corner once its happened because now he is going to have to RC that player if it happens again. Which it probably will seeing as all the sanctions up to that point have failed - because of lack of skill, not wilfull breaking of a law.





didds

didds
03-11-16, 10:11
You chose to ignore the question you've been asked! Is your answer just to have 20 / 30 or more NS PKs? Does that work?

To answer again the above:

1) Not my problem. The team choose to do what they wish I just apply fairly and equitable the laws of the game in the light of their actions. Ity is not for me to second guess the tactical choice of the teams.

2) Short term it is not a great solution, The non offenders will have more space inhich to play and will have a numerical advantage. The would benefit them. The offenders side may choose to review their, ill advised, tactic and / or practice more to improve. THEIR CALL!


thanks fro having a stab.

I would suggest it is your issue to deal with because when you have 3 in the bin and a 4th bloke is about to step up and potentially be binned the game is now becoming untenable. I appreciate you don;t see it this way. We;ll have to agree to disagree. I feel the game would be better erved keeping him on, and providing PKs onwards.

As for the alw as write - I thought law came third after safety and enjoyment. I really fail to see enjoyment for in the end all players including the oppo by ending up potentially with 15 v 11. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I very much doubt the oppo skipper was overly perturbed with a string of PKs versus a man advantage.


I wish we could ask the thrower's skipper what HE thought was going on!

didds

didds
03-11-16, 10:11
Why doe any player deliberately offend the laws of the game?

I suggest he is not DELIBERATELY offending.

Rather he is incapable of conforming to the requirement.

A not so subtle distinction.

As fopr generally, players that deliberately break the laws, probably do so UNTIL they are caught. Then they tend to stop because on the whole its not a positive move to do so. This bloke wasn;t capable of stopping - because je wasn't capable of starting!

didds

DocY
03-11-16, 10:11
Just because a decision can be technically justified by law does not mean it should necessarily be made.This should be on the first page of the next lawbook!

ChrisR
03-11-16, 11:11
I think that there are more difficult scenarios, and the more likely.

1. After three NS you advise the skipper that he may wish to change throwers as the next NS will be a PK so he may wish to consider an alternate thrower. The new thrower chucks it NS.

2. After three NS you are thinking "The next one is a PK" but it goes in just fine. But LO number 5 is NS. Six and 7 are OK but 8 is crook. Thinking PK again but 9 is fine .......

3. At 5 min Red get their first LO and throw NS. At 25 min they get their second LO and throw NS. At 55 min they get their third LO and throw NS. At 75 min ............

crossref
03-11-16, 11:11
I suggest he is not DELIBERATELY offending.

Rather he is incapable of conforming to the requirement.

A not so subtle distinction.

As fopr generally, players that deliberately break the laws, probably do so UNTIL they are caught. Then they tend to stop because on the whole its not a positive move to do so. This bloke wasn;t capable of stopping - because je wasn't capable of starting!

didds

I think that we'll never really know what the thrower thought about all this.
perhaps somewhere in another message board for players there is a parallel thread where the intentions of the player are clear and they are all specualting about what was going through the ref's mind..

Pegleg
03-11-16, 11:11
The reference, in reply to Ian, to deliberate offending was contextual to his point.

As said you take the level of the game into consideration when you apply standards to deliberate offending. It is in the law book!

10.3 (c)

(c) Repeated infringements: standard applied by referee. When the referee decides how
many offences constitute repeated infringement, the referee must always apply a strict
standard in representative and senior matches. When a player offends three times the
referee must caution that player.

The referee may relax this standard in junior or minor matches, where infringements may
be the result of poor knowledge of the Laws or lack of skill.


So you set your standards according to the game and apply them.

All that taken into acount If all his throws are going to his team on both sides of the pitch, the claim that: "He's just crap" does not hold water. At best he would regularly skew throw left or right of a completly random mix of the two. If his crap throwing always finds his middle jumper's outside arm, I'm smelling the beef bi-product!

DocY
03-11-16, 11:11
I think that there are more difficult scenarios, and the more likely.

1. After three NS you advise the skipper that he may wish to change throwers as the next NS will be a PK so he may wish to consider an alternate thrower. The new thrower chucks it NS.

2. After three NS you are thinking "The next one is a PK" but it goes in just fine. But LO number 5 is NS. Six and 7 are OK but 8 is crook. Thinking PK again but 9 is fine .......

3. At 5 min Red get their first LO and throw NS. At 25 min they get their second LO and throw NS. At 55 min they get their third LO and throw NS. At 75 min ............

I can't see a penalty in 2 or 3 being good for the game, though maybe it's the level I usually referee at - I expect that kind of incompetence. And I doubt by the time it got to the 75th minute I'd remember lineouts 20 minutes earlier were not straight.

1 is a bit more interesting, but I probably wouldn't penalise. If I've spoken to the captain and hooker and said "look, you're running the risk of a PK, you've got to change something" and they do change what they're doing (even if they get that wrong, too), I'm going to be far more sympathetic than if they carry on doing the same thing. When incompetence is rife, I'm loath to penalise it, but if it's 'wilful incompetence' I have no such qualms.

Pegleg
03-11-16, 11:11
Also you apply your standards mindful of 10.3 (c).

crossref
03-11-16, 12:11
At best he would regularly skew throw left or right of a completly random mix of the two. If his crap throwing always finds his middle jumper's outside arm, I'm smelling the beef bi-product!

treating this like a lateral-thinking puzzle : the solution is
- his throws always skew to one side (like the way some golfers always hook, but never slice)
- there was a strong cross wind, so that all kicks went out, and all throws came in from the same touchline
- so his skew throwing always favoured the same team

:)

FlipFlop
03-11-16, 13:11
And lets be honest - throwing the ball in straight is not that difficult. The skill is in throwing it to the right place (height, distance) with the right timings and speed. And the shorter the throw, the more likely it will be straight.

Even at our lowest level (and with juniors), the ball manages to go in straight most the time, especially to the front. And if it is not straight, it is (at the lower levels) it isn't consistent, and normally doesn't favour either side.

So if I escalate, and team keep doing the same thing, and they have been asked to change. And still they continue doing the same thing, then I enforce a change. In other words - let them try other things, if they don't, I make them try different things. And the management continues form there.

So to answer the questions about multiple YCs. Unlikely to happen. If Team don't want to change, we YC (eventually) for consistently throwing to their own team. New thrower - warning that straight is good, but I don't expect the ball to go to their own team everytime if it is NS. If it continues, tell the captain to try someone else, or risk a 2nd YC. In other words - manage the new situation, but don't shy away from more cards.

But how many lineouts are there in a game. I think there would have to be a whole lot of LOs to get to a 2nd YC. So that really isn't a sensible question.

And would you not YC a SH for constantly putting the ball in NS into the scrum?

DocY
03-11-16, 13:11
And would you not YC a SH for constantly putting the ball in NS into the scrum?
I have more sympathy with that - I don't think it's possible to accidentally feed a scrum not straight. In practice, though, you give a FK the first time and they rarely feed NS again.

OB..
03-11-16, 13:11
I wish we could ask the thrower's skipper what HE thought was going on!

diddsThat is obviously the correct approach by the referee when the crooked throws are clearly deliberate.
If you get a situation that is bordering on farcical, get the captains together and see if they can help sort it out.

OB..
03-11-16, 13:11
I don't think it's possible to accidentally feed a scrum not straight. At a lineout your team may be on either left or right. At a scrum they are always on your right.

The scrum half will always shade the throw towards his right. The "accidental" part comes in when he overcooks it.

SimonSmith
03-11-16, 13:11
h
This us a grew discussion, and thanks to all the commenters thus far.

I have so far asked two questions neither of which gave had any answers. Si in case they were missed here tgay are again

1) why would the thrower, his skipper, and the team in general choose to persist deliberately in a doing something that has no upside? I don't know. Low rugby IQ, low team IQ, hooker is a lot older than the captain... At some stage I didn't continue to worry about the "why"


2) what will the ref do when three throwers are in the bin and how is this a solution?

In all seriousness, the chances that there are three people, who are the first choices, incapable of throwing the ball straight 7 yards are so slim...
The replacement thrower could hit his man (not just get it in straight, but actually hit his man) from his first go. No issues. You can look at it this way: we got to the right solution, using every management trick I could think of to avoid the YC, and being generous as to when I thought "repeated" was now an issue.
How much of the problem/solution is on me? Well, the captain had an easy solution to his problem and elected, for whatever dumbass reason to not use it. Is that my fault?

Pegleg
03-11-16, 16:11
No it's not Simon. The players were the problem and they had the solution. We can't force them to use it.

Pegleg
03-11-16, 16:11
treating this like a lateral-thinking puzzle : the solution is
- his throws always skew to one side (like the way some golfers always hook, but never slice)
- there was a strong cross wind, so that all kicks went out, and all throws came in from the same touchline
- so his skew throwing always favoured the same team

:)

Except we have been told it was on both sides of the pitch and wind was not an issue.

Pegleg
03-11-16, 16:11
That is obviously the correct approach by the referee when the crooked throws are clearly deliberate.
If you get a situation that is bordering on farcical, get the captains together and see if they can help sort it out.

Indeed give the "ownership" of the problem back to the players. "Your problem guys. sort it or I will!"