[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
lilywood
|
Wed, 05 November 08 13:25 GMT
|
Interesting, this. Looked at dispassionately, I think the penalty should stand, as a) it was given in good faith and b)if the decision was altered this might, just might, encourage the unscrupulous to deliberately feign an injury in order to get an advantage.
Soccer, anyone?
|
|
|
Skid986
|
Wed, 05 November 08 00:49 GMT
|
For me it was the right call. I had a v similar circumstance a month or so ago except the injury was ankle ligaments and the guy was taken off to A&E in an ambulance.
It does take courage to change a call, but the good old contextuality and materiality issues can help. My match was a friendly, during the first half, nowhere near kicking range of posts. Nobody complained and it seemed in the spirit of the circumstances to restart with a scrum following injury.
Andy J
|
|
|
tashman
|
Mon, 13 October 08 05:46 GMT
|
"what penalty? If Red is prevented from moving by Blue players driving over, he has done nothing wrong."
In the orginal scenario the penalty was awarded because the red player did not move away from the ball. At that point the referee obviously did not think that blue were preventing the player from moving away.
|
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 12 October 08 14:10 GMT
|
tashman - what penalty? If Red is prevented from moving by Blue players driving over, he has done nothing wrong.
[duplicate posting due to a system error - not me!]
This message edited on Sun, 12 October 08 by ob
|
|
|
tashman
|
Sun, 12 October 08 11:27 GMT
|
"You would not have penalised him if he physically could not move because of bodies on top of him."
If there are bodies on top of him then either red have compounded their error or blue have contributed to their own failure to win the ball.
In this instance blue are in no way responsible for their failure to come up with the ball so why should they forfeit the penalty?
|
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 11 October 08 20:37 GMT
|
tashman - "But I am not going to penalise blue because a red player got injured."
You are not. You are penalising red because a player got injured.
You would not have penalised him if he physically could not move because of bodies on top of him. In this case the physical inability was different. Yes, players might exaggerate,but supposing the bloke was out cold?
It is a rare situation, but it did happen once in an international back in, I think, the nineteenth century (I have been trying to check the details, but failed so far). The penalty stood, but the game was rougher then.
|
|
|
tashman
|
Sat, 11 October 08 11:26 GMT
|
If the penalty is initially given in good faith then I would let it stand.
Law 15.5 states what the tackled player must do. Red player has not complied.
Law 15.8 deals with doubt about failure to comply. There is no doubt about who infringed, only doubt about why he infringed.
Tough call admittedly. Not particularly good for reds I accept. But I am not going to penalise blue because a red player got injured.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 08 October 08 09:00 GMT
|
As for not pinging injured players I have lost count of the number of times in 30 years I've personally got pinged for something when in no position to change things. I just refuse to believe it happens that way. I have NEVER seen a ref change a PK award because it transpired the "perpetrator" couldn't actually do anything about his or her actions.
Once it becomes common practise it can only ever end up being used as I described. Of course I sympathise with the genuine case - but thems the breaks (maybe quite literally).
On the other sdie of the coin, its not the fault of the side receiving the PK in this example that their 5 on 1 overlap and resultant winning try etc was prevented either.
didds
|
|
|
dr seoul
|
Tue, 07 October 08 23:25 GMT
|
a ref can only ref what he sees...and if you genuinely believed the player was injured,that's the best you can do.Excess mobility in the bar can presumably be reported.
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 07 October 08 14:33 GMT
|
Go back and replay the last 10 seconds of the game under the revised conditions.
Seriously though folks, how on earth could you take that into account? You have to trust the medics on the spot at the time.
You don't penalise a player who is unable to move because of the opposition. What if he were unconscious?
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 07 October 08 12:55 GMT
|
scenario...
Last 30 seconds of cup tie. Red are 2 points up defending valiantly in their own 22 under huge pressure from blue.
Red player is tackled and goes to ground <insert previous scenario in here>.
Ref awards PK, player is treated for AC injury and leaves field. Ref now awards scrum instead, with 10 seconds on the clock.
An hour after the game you hear that
1) Red player is undegoing emergency surgery
OR
2) Red player is seen bar diving and boogying away to "We are the champions".
Discuss.
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 06 October 08 10:32 GMT
|
Under the heading "Equity", I would certainly approve.
But I believe Equity has been replace by Enjoyment?!
Pity the player did not shout "Safety" to get play stopped.
|
|
|
meldt11
|
Mon, 06 October 08 09:34 GMT
|
Red ball carrier goes to ground. Ruck forms over him. Blue drive over ball carrier who remins curled around the ball. No Blue boots go on Red player. Referee penalises Red player for not moving. Players move away except Red player who remains on the ground injured. He tells physio he has put out AC joint when he went to ground and has to leave the field permanently after 5 minutes stop in play. Blue players ask "our penalty ref ?" Referee says "he was clearly injured and couldn't move so we will have a scrum, Blue ball" Correct decision?
Andy Melrose
This message edited on Mon, 06 October 08 by meldt11
|
|
|
|
|
|
