[Tackle] Foul play or accident ?

Shelflife

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#1
https://youtu.be/LDhdBM_L0lM?t=1380

Replays start at 23.00 on the video.

Watch the action of Wiliams (blue 14) on Griffen (green 12).

For me its a strange way to get rid of a player , most would push them to one side and return to the defensive line.

It looks wrong and deliberate. Griffen left the field with a head injury and didnt return.
 

ianh5979

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#3
I agree foul play but what was green 12 doing clearing out that far away from ruck ( when he went down he had driven blue 14 at least 5 yards from where the ruck formed).
 

TheBFG

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#4
I think the ref prob got it about right, but if anything more I would look at a pair of yellow cards.
 

Pinky

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
#8
I think g12 was reacting to the high tackle previously carried out by b14, which was worthy of a YC in my opinion, as was the subsequent dumping of g12.
 

VM75

Player or Coach
#9
Blue was IMO justified in trying to throw off the Green player who was continuing a prolonged hold & drive far beyond the ball.

Did Blue intend for green to be face/shoulder planted when he was discarded him?, i'm not convinced he did.

So, benefit of the doubt & accidental, for me.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#10
The first Penalty for the HT was correct. G12 is out of order and Blue's reaction is retaliation. As long as we allow player to act like G12 did we are giving players the wrong message. Two YCs could have been considered.
 

Hillbob

Rugby Club Member
#11
As G12 was out of line after the HT by B14 and then B14 retaliated an interesting question comes to mind.
If a player tackles high, say red 11, and another player pulls him away, black 12, in a fashion that constitutes a retaliation. The HT is dealt with accordingly (YC or RC) and PK is reversed for retaliation. So far so good, but what if black 12 retaliates the red retaliation? Would you reverse the PK again?
As i am clearly inexperienced as a ref i think i would give the PK to red because of the re-retaliation. Am i correct?

Edit: i agree with Pegleg that we shouldn´t allow players to act like G12, but what other consequence is there but a card, since there is only one PK available to restart the game.
 
Last edited:

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#12
As G12 was out of line after the HT by B14 and then B14 retaliated an interesting question comes to mind.
If a player tackles high, say red 11, and another player pulls him away, black 12, in a fashion that constitutes a retaliation. The HT is dealt with accordingly (YC or RC) and PK is reversed for retaliation. So far so good, but what if black 12 retaliates the red retaliation? Would you reverse the PK again?
As i am clearly inexperienced as a ref i think i would give the PK to red because of the re-retaliation. Am i correct?

Edit: i agree with Pegleg that we shouldn´t allow players to act like G12, but what other consequence is there but a card, since there is only one PK available to restart the game.
What would you do if a red player tackled a blue player high and dangerous (red card) and the blue player got up and, as the red player is getting to his feet, pushed the red player to the ground with medium level of force? Would you issue the red card for the tackle and then reverse the penalty or would you chat to the blue retaliator and let the original PK stand? Maybe a question for the more experienced refs to answer but have a think about what you would do while others respond.
 

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#13
.... So far so good, but what if black 12 retaliates the red retaliation? Would you reverse the PK again?
I know what you mean - where do you draw the line, because there could be dozens of retaliations?

Personally, I would penalise the most serious. Eg if Blue accidentally high tackles a Red player, who then headbutts a Blue player - given that you can only give one PK, I would penalise the Blue player because a deliberate headbutt is more serious than an accidental high tackle.
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#14
Edit: i agree with Pegleg that we shouldn´t allow players to act like G12, but what other consequence is there but a card, since there is only one PK available to restart the game.
I believe G12 suffered a consequence. The term, frontier justice, may apply. Frontier justice is probably how B14 is dealt with also. Maybe not in that game.
 

Hillbob

Rugby Club Member
#15
Taff, your scenario is much more simple, since the retaliation is much more severe than the initial Foul play. easy choice.
Fat, i would give the RC for the dangerous HT (no brainer) than probably (depending on the situation, the force of the push and so on) reverse the PK. And make it quite clear why the PK is reversed, maybe let the captains have a word with thgeir teams not to retaliate. I´m afraid, if i allow retaliation and don´t sanction it accordingly i´m opening pandora´s box.
However my question was, what would you do if the original offender, or one of his teammates, retaliates against the blue player. My thinking is that i would probably reverse the PK again, according to the law. However that would mean, that the first retaliation would be without effect to the retaliator.
Hope you can follow me.
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#16
hilbob,

3 blasts

#1 high tackles, arm up to blue, 2ndary signal

#2 retaliate, arm up to green, 2ndary signal as appropriate

#3 retaliate, arm up to blue, 2ndary signal as appropriate

#4, #5, #6, #7 blasts also, but just for fun and turning back and forth with PK arm
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#17
Taff, your scenario is much more simple, since the retaliation is much more severe than the initial Foul play. easy choice.
Fat, i would give the RC for the dangerous HT (no brainer) than probably (depending on the situation, the force of the push and so on) reverse the PK. And make it quite clear why the PK is reversed, maybe let the captains have a word with thgeir teams not to retaliate. I´m afraid, if i allow retaliation and don´t sanction it accordingly i´m opening pandora´s box.
However my question was, what would you do if the original offender, or one of his teammates, retaliates against the blue player. My thinking is that i would probably reverse the PK again, according to the law. However that would mean, that the first retaliation would be without effect to the retaliator.
Hope you can follow me.
The first retaliation is what escalates things from foul play to brawl.

If you keep the original reversed penalty, you make it clear that you sanction the first escalatory act, and so the next time you reach a potential flashpoint the emphasis is on the aggrieved team not to retaliate. The message is: the ref has seen it, and if you escalate the situation you lose the penalty.

Similarly, when there's a bit of shoving and shouting between two players, it's generally the third one running in that is the problem.
 
Last edited:

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#18
Just playing Devil's advocate. Does that give Carte Blanche for the second etc retaliation?

Surely take the WORST foul play and penalise that one. Warn / Yellow / Red the other acts according to their (de)merits.
 

Hillbob

Rugby Club Member
#19
NL, you´re right and i agree. However isn´t the further escalation of the re-retaliation not worthy of sanction? If the message is supposed to be: the ref hass seen it, escalate and you lose the penalty, than why not put the message on the further escalation as well? Or ignore the second escalation and keep it reversed, but then why only acknoledge the first escalatory act?
I Guess in reality it would come down to a brawl. Which would be completely different. I guess in that situation the ref is between a rock and a hard place.