[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
zackly
|
Fri, 28 March 08 12:13 GMT
|
simon thomas. Spot on !!
I'd like to hear your view on "Zackly's Creative Variant" - YC for Stamper (as in Ben Cohen) BUT still PK against Ball-Killer (as in Troy Flavell) - even tho stamping took place in response to & therefore after ball-killing !
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Fri, 28 March 08 10:58 GMT
|
As a junior club lock forward in pre-League days I never used boot on body. But if anything got my goat it was players illegally denying posession - not rolling away or doing it unnecessarily slowly, denying possession at penalties by hanging on to the ball or kicking it away. I think these are still the main flashpoints. Maybe refs should be readier to use the yellow card for these.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 25 March 08 15:39 GMT
|
Paul Daniels, I may well have presumed too much, but as we have never met I have to go on what you write in public forums. It is easy when dashing off a note to convey an unintended meaning, and if you did this then I apologise for reacting to it as though you intended what came across.
As I read your note, you seem to be strict on a deliberate stamp with a downward or forward motion, but tolerant of (and perhaps in favour of) removing a player from a ruck using a backwards motion of the boot. However, you will penalise any such action if directed at a head or joint.
In fact, it is no less acceptable to target a head or knee than it is to target a back, buttock, thigh or any other fleshy bit. Any deliberate use of the boot on any part of another player's body is illegal, and an automatic PK. Most society refs will be asking themselves in such cases whether there is any reason not to award a red card; if they find one, the most likely outcome should be yellow.
When you say: "If a player knows that he will get rucked out if he hangs around AND he will give away the penalty, it won't be too long before he gives it up as a bad job! ", you seem to feel that the PK for not rolling away is inadequate, and a good shoeing will reinforce the point. I hope this is not your view.
As to the idea of minor offences, a YC can only be given for a Law 10 offence. Killing the ball only falls within Law 10 as part of a repeated pattern of such offending. In consequence, it is more minor than the boots on bodies offence, which can (and often does) warrant straight red for an isolated incident.
This message edited on Tue, 25 March 08 by the whistleblower
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
paul daniels
|
Fri, 21 March 08 22:54 GMT
|
To Whistleblower
I do not understand your attack on me. With regard to the first four comments, you appear to be in agreement with me on three of them; as to the <Any motion downwards or forwards is forebidden>; these simply mean stamp or kick - (I do a little demonstration as an illustration).
I do not recall saying that boot on head was OK. Never have done, never will. I do say <ruck the ball>.
Killing the ball is NOT a minor offence (just ask the players).
My comment about discplinary hearings stands - having red-carded one player, why do referees fail to take the opportunity to YC the player killing the ball?
As to your paragraph, let me assure you that
1. I keep my pre-match talk brief because I concentrate on safety issues such as (a) correct scrum engagement, (b) jumper safety in the line-out, and (c)a precise explanation as to body positions of those arriving at the tackle.
2. The first thing I say to the players is that I expect them to have a thorough knowledge of the Laws and that they exercise a duty of care to all other players.
Frankly, you presume too much; I hope that those who know me would tell you that my approach to refereeing - particularly at the tackle - is anything BUT nonchalent.
|
-------------------------
PD |
|
|
p.daniels3@ntlworld.com
|
Fri, 21 March 08 22:54 GMT
|
To Whistleblower
I do not understand your attack on me. With regard to the first four comments, you appear to be in agreement with me on three of them; as to the <Any motion downwards or forwards is forebidden>; these simply mean stamp or kick - (I do a little demonstration as an illustration).
I do not recall saying that boot on head was OK. Never have done, never will. I do say <ruck the ball>.
Killing the ball is NOT a minor offence (just ask the players).
My comment about discplinary hearings stands - having red-carded one player, why do referees fail to take the opportunity to YC the player killing the ball?
As to your paragraph, let me assure you that
1. I keep my pre-match talk brief because I concentrate on safety issues such as (a) correct scrum engagement, (b) jumper safety in the line-out, and (c)a precise explanation as to body positions of those arriving at the tackle.
2. The first thing I say to the players is that I expect them to have a thorough knowledge of the Laws and that they exercise a duty of care to all other players.
Frankly, you presume too much; I hope that those who know me would tell you that my approach to refereeing - particularly at the tackle - is anything BUT nonchalent.
|
-------------------------
PD |
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 14 March 08 15:18 GMT
|
paul daniels - "If a player knows that he will get rucked out if he hangs around AND he will give away the penalty, it won't be too long before he gives it up as a bad job! "
It used to happen in the past, and it was ineffective. I have been in many dressing rooms where players were boasting about the stud marks on their back because it showed they had been "doing their job".
Apparently you expect the players to distinguish between players who are illegal, and those who are trapped. In fact they don't care.
It is not clear if your pre-match brief sticks to the law or not, but if you do in fact tell players you will allow boots on bodies, your society should act immediately to stop you.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Fri, 14 March 08 14:45 GMT
|
Paul Daniels, I can't let your post go unchallenged. It's hard to know where to start! Let's take it chronologically.
<<I have lost count of cases where a player has been sent off for rucking out a player who was making no attempt to roll away; is that second player yellow-carded? NEVER!!>> As such a seasoned observer, you'll know that you are talking about two completely different offences, of different severity, which will be dealt with separately by the disciplinary committee, and neither will impinge on the consideration regarding the other. The first (killing the ball) is minor, and normally cardable only in the red zone or as part of a sequence of repeat infringements. The second is dangerous play, could kill or maim someone, and is always cardable. It would be extraordinary if the cardability or otherwise of the original offence played any part in the disciplinary for the second. It's just not a relevant factor.
<<Let a player do something illegal and he will keep doing it.>> And yet, in your pre-match brief, you give explicit licence to illegal use of the boot, which in a properly regulated game should always receive a card. What message does that send?
<<If a player knows that he will get rucked out if he hangs around AND he will give away the penalty, it won't be too long before he gives it up as a bad job! >> And if players on the ground know that the oppo will kick hard at the faces of players on the deck, ideally with studs showing, all players will make more of an effort to stay on their feet. That is not, IMO, a rational justification for the act of kicking anyone's face in.
My view is -
<<Players on the ground - put some distance between you and the ball>> The law requires it
<<Those on their feet - ruck the ball; if the player who is lying next to the ball comes out at the same time, so be it.>> iRB ruling confirms this
<<'Responsible rucking' means -
Stepping over the player on the ground.>> LoTG confirms this
<<The rucking motion STARTS with the foot BEHIND the hip. Any motion downwards or forwards is forebidden>> pure invention, no justification for this interpretation whatever
<<Any contact with the head or knee & ankle joints is forebidden.>> Obviously; this is implicit in the wider requirement that no part of the body of the man on the ground may be touched by a boot, other than accidentally in the process of moving the ball back with the boot.
<<I devote the majority of my (already brief) pre-match talk to this topic so that all players are fully aware of their responsibilities at the tackle/ruck.>> No. You tell them you have no interest in refereeing the LoTG as required of a referee under the game's charter, and you tell them that illegal and dangerous practice is acceptable under your controllership. Having done so explicitly in front of multiple witnesses from both sides, I admire your nonchalence in continuing to ref, bearing in mind that it is your house and possessions that will fund the compensation when someone is injured as a result of your idiosyncratic and unilateral approach.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
pauldg
|
Fri, 14 March 08 14:30 GMT
|
>Should we not address the cause of the problem - the player on the ground?
Of course.
But that doesn't excuse the "rucker" taking the Law into his own hands.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
zackly
|
Fri, 14 March 08 14:05 GMT
|
paul daniels - AND p.daniels3 !!
I posted this elsewhere. Might interest you if you're creative & brave !
<<< Zackly's creative variant is sometimes to try to bring natural justice to bear on the events. Assuming I see the White hand sneak out in the ruck to hold the ball illegally before the Blue stamp on the White hand : YC to Blue stamper but PK AGAINST White initiator of the sequence = PK to Blue. Down-in-the-weeds I don't always feel impelled to award sanctions in strict time sequence order !
I got there having seen Troy Flavell NZ diving over a ball emerged from a ruck only to be raked by Ben Cohen. That ref. gave PK to NZ ! >>>
|
|
|
paul daniels
|
Fri, 14 March 08 13:44 GMT
|
Should we not address the cause of the problem - the player on the ground?
In my view some players go off their feet, accept a few studs on their torso as a 'badge of honour' but more importantly seek to (i) kill the game and (ii)better still get a penalty reversal.
Having attended, as an observer, many disciplinary hearings I have lost count of cases where a player has been sent off for rucking out a player who was making no attempt to roll away; is that second player yellow-carded? NEVER!! What message does that send out to players - the referee will protect you if you kill the ball. Let a player do something illegal and he will keep doing it.
If a player knows that he will get rucked out if he hangs around AND he will give away the penalty, it won't be too long before he gives it up as a bad job!
My view is -
Players on the ground - put some distance between you and the ball
Those on their feet - ruck the ball; if the player who is lying next to the ball comes out at the same time, so be it.
'Responsible rucking' means -
Stepping over the player on the ground.
The rucking motion STARTS with the foot BEHIND the hip. Any motion downwards or forwards is forebidden
Any contact with the head or knee & ankle joints is forebidden.
Having listened to referees who are vastly more experienced than myself, I devote the majority of my (already brief) pre-match talk to this topic so that all players are fully aware of their responsibilities at the tackle/ruck.
All I can say is that it seems to work for me (and the players).
|
-------------------------
PD |
|
|
p.daniels3@ntlworld.com
|
Fri, 14 March 08 13:44 GMT
|
Should we not address the cause of the problem - the player on the ground?
In my view some players go off their feet, accept a few studs on their torso as a 'badge of honour' but more importantly seek to (i) kill the game and (ii)better still get a penalty reversal.
Having attended, as an observer, many disciplinary hearings I have lost count of cases where a player has been sent off for rucking out a player who was making no attempt to roll away; is that second player yellow-carded? NEVER!! What message does that send out to players - the referee will protect you if you kill the ball. Let a player do something illegal and he will keep doing it.
If a player knows that he will get rucked out if he hangs around AND he will give away the penalty, it won't be too long before he gives it up as a bad job!
My view is -
Players on the ground - put some distance between you and the ball
Those on their feet - ruck the ball; if the player who is lying next to the ball comes out at the same time, so be it.
'Responsible rucking' means -
Stepping over the player on the ground.
The rucking motion STARTS with the foot BEHIND the hip. Any motion downwards or forwards is forebidden
Any contact with the head or knee & ankle joints is forebidden.
Having listened to referees who are vastly more experienced than myself, I devote the majority of my (already brief) pre-match talk to this topic so that all players are fully aware of their responsibilities at the tackle/ruck.
All I can say is that it seems to work for me (and the players).
|
-------------------------
PD |
|
|
Dan Cottrell
|
Wed, 12 March 08 16:26 GMT
|
The prone players has become a problem as seen in the professional game in the last few weeks - "running down the clock rucking".
Create a ruck, with enough players lying on the ground and so no chance of driving it back, pick and go and do the same ad nauseam until final whistle goes and the game is won.
Back fired for Munster against Cardiff, but lots of sides are using it.
|
|
|
ctrainor
|
Mon, 10 March 08 21:16 GMT
|
Pete A you are absolutely right and most of us ref the game like that.
Sadly (if you are not aware) Showbiz rugby has it's own rules which ruins it for the rest of us
|
-------------------------
Ciaran Trainor |
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Mon, 10 March 08 17:07 GMT
|
Sam, can't agree about the trip. You can break a leg like that. Isn't that a red card (or citing if not seen by the match officials) followed by suspension?
|
|
|
zackly
|
Mon, 10 March 08 16:53 GMT
|
pete andjelkovic (and others interested).
You might like to review "Sealing & Parking" thread which I've just (sadly) revived/freshened.
|
|
|
stewie
|
Mon, 10 March 08 16:18 GMT
|
Oldmanmartin, I can't recall the thread but a wise man said not too long ago words to the effect that "professional players always do what they do deliberately and get to where they need to get to on purpose". The "accidental" going off the feet at a pretend ruck we see on the box week in and week out is anything but accidental. On the contrary, I believe it is coached probably with collusion from referees!
|
|
|
sam skennel
|
Mon, 10 March 08 15:49 GMT
|
Re jackman - thought that was the least consistent part of Barnes' game. Certainly a good deal worse than a cynical trip.....
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Mon, 10 March 08 15:38 GMT
|
I imagine the ruck is the hardest thing to refereee. There must surely be some leeway when players accidentally go off their feet in the initial formation, but none thereafter, and none for a player who fails to roll away thereafter. The dogs must be allowed to see the rabbit so as to compete for it fairly.
|
|
|
pete andjelkovic
|
Mon, 10 March 08 12:21 GMT
|
As a former player, current coach (Under19 Level) and occasional club referee, the one area that seems to be totally under-managed at all levels is the tackle situation. A ruck by definition means players contesting the ruck are on their feet. Anyone not so must move away being preseumably the tackled or tackling player. So why at all levels do we see prone bodies who are either slowing down delivery of the ball or creating a human barrier to prevent the "defending" team from legitimately rucking? IMHO referees at all levels should deal with the tackle situation as follows
1. Tackler should release tackled player and move away. Not doing so PK
2. Any player arriving immediately and going beyond the ball off their feet - PK
3. Tackled player - place ball and move away
By referees consistently doing this the temptation to "ruck" players will disappear ( as there should be none on the ground)and the speed of the game will improve.
|
-------------------------
PeteA |
|
|
gerard_jenkins
|
Mon, 10 March 08 11:50 GMT
|
I thought there was quite a lot of foot on bodies by the Irish at the start. It should have been nipped in the bud, it's great watching it on ESPN Classics but difficult to explain to my 12yo that this is not allowed and under no circumstances should he be doing it.
Set the example for conduct, discipline and skill..... children do try to emulate.
Yes Jackman should have had 10 mins.
|
-------------------------
Gerard Jenkins |
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Mon, 10 March 08 11:42 GMT
|
I agree that Barnes had a good game.
I don't recall the incident in question, but you can get too pious. If the forward in question was off his feet and obstructing, raking his backside is perhaps understandable where stamping is not. Of all the body parts, the buttocks are presumably least vulnerable to serious injury!
And shouldn't Jackman have been have been binned for his mugging of Ryan Jones, as Phillips was for kneeing?
|
|
|
acmethunderer
|
Sun, 09 March 08 00:10 GMT
|
I'm with you. Thought this penalty should have been reversed, in line with IRB guidelines, and captain warned. Barnes accepted the unacceptable without a word of criticism to the guilty, (Still thought he had a decent game overall).
|
-------------------------
AT |
|
|
pg
|
Sat, 08 March 08 22:40 GMT
|
18th minute Ire vs Wal, Welsh forward falls offside, penalty, fair enough, to Ire which they subsequently kicked.
But before the whistle was blown two Ire players 'rucked the same player' right in front of Wayne Barnes sufficiently vigorously to tear his shorts. Was this not an immediate penalty reversal?
Or does 'no boots on bodies' no longer apply?
|
|
|
|
|
|
