Ball hit me

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#21
I guess you were reffin at or v near your grade, how many players actually knew what the law stated :chin:

I guess at that level what you did seemed fair as you say, but you were wrong in law and in the past you've played that "fair card", not what the assessors want to see if you intend to progress :wink:
Really?

Doing everything by the book is the easy thing - it's deviating from the book and getting it right that's hard!

Personally, if I've been able to justify to an assessor why I've deviated from the law it's not (always) been marked down as a negative. Sure, sometimes they disagree, but also sometimes they agree that deviating was the better thing to do.
 

Phil E

, Referees/Trains Referees in England
#22
If you give the scrum or lineout to Blue because it seems fair; and Blue score the winning try that gets them promoted, or the Reds relegated; then hell yes it will make a difference.

So context is everything and what might work in a Level 10 friendly wont work in a Level 7 league game.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#23
We have an interesting couple of philosophical cases - this one and the Wellington offside query. In each the strict interpretation of the law says one thing whereas equity says another. Both situations are pretty rare, which is why they are not covered in the laws. It is almost certainly true that referees below the stratosphere will not be able to recall the exact wording of the law at the time, so strict interpretation may not be realistic.

I would have every sympathy with a referee who favoured equity. I would take a moment post-match to check the precise wording, and then discuss the problem, but would be unlikely to mark the referee down for simply trying to be sensible.

My personal preference is for giving Red the scrum in this case (they will probably make another attempt to kick for touch and be slightly better off) , because it brooks little argument; and ignore the offside in Wellington because the consequences of applying the law in every such case would surely cause WR to modify the law.
 

winchesterref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#24
What happens if Red are getting dominated in the scrum, but winning everything at the line out?

Only truly equitable solution is to apply the law the way it tells you to.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#26
the original claim was that "But pressure does not always get it's reward.".

Blue's pressure HAD got it reward - a lineout and probably ball control.

But that was denied by the unfortunate appearance of the ref.

Clearly the earned reward had been lost by a 3rd party's interference.

didds
 

winchesterref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#27
See my post up a couple didds.

Say this happens twice, exactly the same during the same game. First time (as above) you give a line out because it seems fair, and Red win it back. Second time it Red kick it again but they have been stuffing Blue's line out. What are you doing this time?
"Line out because it's what we did before"
"Scrum because....?"

It isn't equitable, it is making your own law up.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#28
See my post up a couple didds.

Say this happens twice, exactly the same during the same game. First time (as above) you give a line out because it seems fair, and Red win it back. Second time it Red kick it again but they have been stuffing Blue's line out. What are you doing this time?
"Line out because it's what we did before"
"Scrum because....?"

It isn't equitable, it is making your own law up.
I don't think how each team is faring has much to do with it. It's just about what would have happened if the ref hadn't been in the way.
 

winchesterref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#29
But the ref was, and the law book gives you the decision.

I can understand giving something if it's there for interpretation, or is unclear, but this isn't. We moan about consistency between referees, and then we produce this decision.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#30
But the ref was, and the law book gives you the decision.
And the lawbook also gives you the decision for a scrum half reaching into a ruck...

For people advocating giving the scrum, would there be any circumstances where you wouldn't give a red scrum?

As a (far-fetched) example, if in the original post it was a good kick, but the ref hadn't kept up with play and stopped the ball going into touch on the 10m line, would you consider not giving the red scrum?
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#31
the original claim was that "But pressure does not always get it's reward.".

Blue's pressure HAD got it reward - a lineout and probably ball control.

But that was denied by the unfortunate appearance of the ref.

Clearly the earned reward had been lost by a 3rd party's interference.

didds
And the claim stands. Things happen sometimes you get your reward sometimes you don't. This time the team has not because the, unfortunate, ref got in the way. The law makers have considered that and made a call. Scrum as instructed.
 

TigerCraig

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#32
And if it hadn't hit the ref there could have been a freak gust of wind which blew the ball back into play into the arms of an onside red chaser who ran the length and scored, ..... who knows ???

Its got to be a red scrum. And in any case they will more than likely win the scrum, kick to touch and blue will get their lineout, just 10 to 20 metres further down the park.
 

winchesterref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#33
And the lawbook also gives you the decision for a scrum half reaching into a ruck...

For people advocating giving the scrum, would there be any circumstances where you wouldn't give a red scrum?
World of difference between global convention and unilateral cock-eyed make belief!

No, there are no circumstances that I would not give a scrum here.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#36
But the ref was, and the law book gives you the decision.

I can understand giving something if it's there for interpretation, or is unclear, but this isn't. We moan about consistency between referees, and then we produce this decision.
I will repeat as obviously the passage of a day or so had erased memories.

I am not seeking to change the law, or interpretations. Its clear now I am reminded that it is a red ball.

This is now intended to be a philosophical discussion.

Didds
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#37
I will repeat as obviously the passage of a day or so had erased memories.

I am not seeking to change the law, or interpretations. Its clear now I am reminded that it is a red ball.

This is now intended to be a philosophical discussion.

Didds
This.

It has a broader context than just this incident and there are two parts:

Is it ever acceptable to ignore a law, or deliberately misapply a law in the interests of fairness?

If so, under what circumstances is it acceptable?

FWIW, I'd emphatically say 'yes' to the first question, following the safety, equity, law mantra.
And to the second question, I'd say "when it is a situation for which the specific law is very rarely used, or a situation for which it was probably not intended".
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#38
"By the 14th century it appears that Chancery was operating as a court, affording remedies where the strict procedures of the common law worked injustice or provided no remedy to a deserving plaintiff. " [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)]

What I asked the late-lamented Biggsy why "equity" was changed to "enjoyment", I was told that equity meant treating everybody identically, and that was impractical because they did not all get the same problems. I followed up by asking whose enjoyment we were supposed to judge, but there was no reply. I got the impression that he shared my view that the change was nonsense.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#39
That's an interesting post OB, thanks.

For me, "equity" is plain and simple - i don;t see that it means equally equitable to both teams at the same time of course. Following from that I find that "enjoyment" is far too abstract.

others' MMV of course.

didds
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#40
I was told that equity meant treating everybody identically, and that was impractical because they did not all get the same problems.
I think he misunderstood 'equity' (and it frequently gets misunderstood and not just within rugby). It doesn't mean treating everyone identically - that would be nonsense - it means giving everyone the same opportunity.

But anyway, why was it not changed to "fairness"? Which, TBH, is what I thought it actually was for ages.