[Tackle] Foul play or accident ?

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#22
No. The reversal could be technical eg kicking the ball away at a penalty to prevent a quick tap. That could be followed by a vicious punch.
Where would you look to kick away your own ball to prevent your own quick tap?

I can see an upgrade to the same side in certain situations but in a situation where a reversal is given, any change back is hard for me to envisage?
 

SimonSmith

, Referees in America, Rank Bajin!
#23
Two thought processes:
I'm likely to penalize the worst instance of foul play that I observe.
In most circumstances, that's the man running in from far away to something that doesn't concern him.
 

Hillbob

Rugby Club Member
#25
Didds, you are correct. As far as i know kicking the ball away is either Law 10.4 (m) or 10.4 (n) there´s even an example video on the World Rugby site.
So upgrade to PK or if there´s already a PK an advance 10m and new PK + maybe a stern word while waiting for the ball to be brought back.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#26
For me the penalty remains reversed. And additional sanctions are dealt with separately.
So you come offside and prevent me getting to the ball. PENALTY KICK against you.

I shove you out of the way. PENALTY reversed.

You react by puching me knocking me out.

Are you suggesting I get a PK against me and a trip to the hospital and you get a red card and a possibly three points for your team?

Sorry but I can't see that one.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#27
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?
Because the first act of retaliation is what takes the game outside normal (incl. foul) play and into uncontrolled escalation, and the referee has to maintain control of the game for the safety and enjoyment of everybody. At the next flashpoint, the aggrieved side has the knowledge that retaliation loses you the penalty.

Clearly there's proportionality involved: if the retaliation is a shove and it's met by a headbutt and repeated stamps, that's going to take priority.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#29
Two things for me here.

I suspect such a spontaneous and brutal retaliation will have come before the referee has a chance to reverse the first infringement.

In any event, the situation takes it beyond a straight reversal and is not relevant to the game.

However I can perhaps envisage a situation where the referee may indicate, once the melee has died down, he might have reversed the initial infringement but due to the escalation it is the most serous infringement that drives the final decision. In practical terms it is not technically a reversal of a reversal!
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#30
Two things for me here.

I suspect such a spontaneous and brutal retaliation will have come before the referee has a chance to reverse the first infringement.

In any event, the situation takes it beyond a straight reversal and is not relevant to the game.

However I can perhaps envisage a situation where the referee may indicate, once the melee has died down, he might have reversed the initial infringement but due to the escalation it is the most serous infringement that drives the final decision. In practical terms it is not technically a reversal of a reversal!
I think the important point is that a referee should deal with the actual events in front of him, rather than follow a pre-determined course of action. That means penalising the most serious offence. Anything else is sophistry, which is not an approach naturally associated with rugby players.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#31
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.
Based in the fact that you can give a card without actually awarding a PK against that player (see Jerome Garces/Bryan Habana, 2015 RWC Semi), I would stay with the RC, and YC the retaliator without reversing the PK.

In this case, B14 should have been PK for the dangerous throw IMO.
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#32
In this case, B14 should have been PK for the dangerous throw IMO.
I believe the PK was for a high tackle by B14, are you suggesting the another PK should have been at the point of the "judo/suplex throw"? or did you mean a YC for dangerous throw?, or what do you mean?

And what law Paragraph and line item is a dangerous throw? PMWOB?
 

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#33
... And what law Paragraph and line item is a dangerous throw? PMWOB?
One of the good points of the Foul Play law is that some parts are so vague, they can cover anything we want to cover really.

DEFINITIONS
Foul play is anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.
 
Last edited:

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#34
l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#35
l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
So would you always reverse the penalty even if the retaliation is relitively trivial in relation to the original offence?