Spirit of the Game- Time wasting

[jdeagro]

which clearly wasnt going to happen in this game. the one player that started top do something was told by his coach not to. watch the full video.

Right, because time was still on, and everyone else got their way by doing nothing. But if the ref took time off, then no one (coaches included) are going to sit there doing nothing all day. 1 of the remaining 13 will do something, and there's nothing for a coach to be mad about. In this case, it would've been the one guy who started to do something even with time on, heh.

 

[jdeagro]

and what happens when the clock is topped the player then dot down and scores? isnt the ball dead when the clock is off ?

Technically true, but if stopping the clock to prevent these kinds of shenanigans was the norm, then I would say that would be pedantically technically true because now it's just a race between the ref hitting the start button on his watch vs when the ball actually dotted down. I think we can ignore the difference of 1 second, knowing the intention was to start the game again at that point.

Similar to when we take time off while waiting for a ball at kickoff because the previous conversion blasted the previous ball to outer space. If I forget to hit start on my watch until a few seconds after kickoff is taken, I'm not going to be a knob and have all 30 players lineup for another kickoff kick again. It's just play-on at that point, for practicality.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

" Didds: which as others have demonstrated in this thread don't really fit this scenario in the video, given you have two teams content with running down the clock with the scoreline as it is - witness the coach telling his player to NOT pressurise the attacker standing in goal with the ball."

Does not stop the ref seeing the bigger picture. We are there to see the game is played within the spirt of the game (the law book tells us so) we use the laws as a fremework to do that. If it is a tournament we, potentially, affect EVERY team in the tournament by our action / inactions

 

[Rich_NL]

" Didds: which as others have demonstrated in this thread don't really fit this scenario in the video, given you have two teams content with running down the clock with the scoreline as it is - witness the coach telling his player to NOT pressurise the attacker standing in goal with the ball."

Does not stop the ref seeing the bigger picture. We are there to see the game is played within the spirt of the game (the law book tells us so) we use the laws as a fremework to do that. If it is a tournament we, potentially, affect EVERY team in the tournament by our action / inactions

So you have a game in which, through the tournament rules, neither team have any interest in scoring after the try is scored.

You tell the player in in-goal to touch it down for a try in 10 seconds, or you blow for a FK/penalty. He waits 10 and touches down. Takes the maximum time for the conversation, and jogs back to the mid line. Waits there until you tell him to take the kick or you'll penalise him, and the opponents receive the ball. No-one moves, so you've had enough, and you penalise them. The other team indicate a shot at goal, use up their 60 seconds standing around, you order a scrum. Another 15 seconds to pack down...

At what point are you contributing anything to the game or the spectators' enjoyment here? The problem is not with the laws, you can't force people to play when it's not in their interests.

 

[Decorily]

Well personally if neither team have any interest in playing, to the extent you suggest, I equally have no interest in refereeing.

So you have a game in which, through the tournament rules, neither team have any interest in scoring after the try is scored.

You tell the player in in-goal to touch it down for a try in 10 seconds, or you blow for a FK/penalty. He waits 10 and touches down. Takes the maximum time for the conversation, and jogs back to the mid line. Waits there until you tell him to take the kick or you'll penalise him, and the opponents receive the ball. No-one moves, so you've had enough, and you penalise them. The other team indicate a shot at goal, use up their 60 seconds standing around, you order a scrum. Another 15 seconds to pack down...

At what point are you contributing anything to the game or the spectators' enjoyment here? The problem is not with the laws, you can't force people to play when it's not in their interests.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So you have a game in which, through the tournament rules, neither team have any interest in scoring after the try is scored.

You tell the player in in-goal to touch it down for a try in 10 seconds, or you blow for a FK/penalty. He waits 10 and touches down. Takes the maximum time for the conversation, and jogs back to the mid line. Waits there until you tell him to take the kick or you'll penalise him, and the opponents receive the ball. No-one moves, so you've had enough, and you penalise them. The other team indicate a shot at goal, use up their 60 seconds standing around, you order a scrum. Another 15 seconds to pack down...

At what point are you contributing anything to the game or the spectators' enjoyment here? The problem is not with the laws, you can't force people to play when it's not in their interests.

If teams willnot play no you can't make them but a few cards will effect the future of their tournament. i'd not give hi, 10 I'd tell him to put it down he gets one chance.

 

[jdeagro]

So you have a game in which, through the tournament rules, neither team have any interest in scoring after the try is scored.

You tell the player in in-goal to touch it down for a try in 10 seconds, or you blow for a FK/penalty. He waits 10 and touches down. Takes the maximum time for the conversation, and jogs back to the mid line. Waits there until you tell him to take the kick or you'll penalise him, and the opponents receive the ball. No-one moves, so you've had enough, and you penalise them. The other team indicate a shot at goal, use up their 60 seconds standing around, you order a scrum. Another 15 seconds to pack down...

At what point are you contributing anything to the game or the spectators' enjoyment here? The problem is not with the laws, you can't force people to play when it's not in their interests.

Fwiw, the ref can be just as much of a knob as well then, and escalate to the other extreme. Theoretically you can start carding for repeated infringements. After the first red card, when the players realize they'll be done for the day in the tournament, that behavior will stop pretty immediately.

Obviously things aren't going to shake out well when you eventually return to your ref society. But nothing stops the ref from being equally rediculuous to make a point.

I wouldn't do this, but maybe someone braver and / or dumber (hard feat) than me would. I stand by the time-off idea. Whoever suggested that has a good point.

 

[jdeagro]

If teams willnot play no you can't make them but a few cards will effect the future of their tournament. i'd not give hi, 10 I'd tell him to put it down he gets one chance.

Didn't get a chance to read your response before I wrote mine, but agreed!

 

[crossref]

A ref can't really stop the clock when the ball is live.

What's the restart ?

 

[didds]

Right, because time was still on, and everyone else got their way by doing nothing. But if the ref took time off, then no one (coaches included) are going to sit there doing nothing all day. 1 of the remaining 13 will do something, and there's nothing for a coach to be mad about. In this case, it would've been the one guy who started to do something even with time on, heh.

and others have already explained stopping the clock creates issues with

* what happens when the ball carrier then does score - clock is off - ball is effectively dead ?
* 7s tournaments have to run to a strict schedule. Unless the last game of the day _maybe_ there is no flexibility for a game to over run cos its stuffs the next game.

 

[didds]

A ref can't really stop the clock when the ball is live.

What's the restart ?

This.

 

[didds]

I stand by the time-off idea. Whoever suggested that has a good point.

so when youve stopped the clock and both teams are still standing around and the next game's teams and To3 are all standing on the sideline wanting to start their game which is scheduled to kick off NOW what do you do then?

 

[jdeagro]

so when youve stopped the clock and both teams are still standing around and the next game's teams and To3 are all standing on the sideline wanting to start their game which is scheduled to kick off NOW what do you do then?

Sounds like a dilemma that consequently then gets forced upon the tournament organizers (who we all agree should be responsible for addressing ultimately, instead of penalizing or rule changes) to fix the problem moving forward. Aka not the refs problem.

I appreciate that's a crappy perspective to have as the ref though.

 

[jdeagro]

A ref can't really stop the clock when the ball is live.

Sure they can, why not? Any time there's an infringement, the ball is still live until the ref stops the clock. It's the difference of playing advantage or not, at the discretion of the ref in the moment.

What's the restart ?

The restart is time is back on. Doesn't need to be more formal than that.

I realize this is kind of stupid. So is the original issue.
Let's just play rugby.

 

[crossref]

you cant turn the clock off and have the players continue playing

The sequence is 'peep' "time off".
The ball is dead and play stops

Then later 'peep' "time on"

It would have to be a scrum restart

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Didn't get a chance to read your response before I wrote mine, but agreed!

I've had the situation where one team is thrashing the other and they start similar nonsense to goad the other team. I've told them to: "Put the ball down now!" and I've never needed to escalate. MANAGE it. Remember few if any player know the law. Even fewer coaches do.

Of course the other point is sensible players know not to piss the ref off. The threat may be smoke and mirrors and the odd player kay challenge but in general you will get the game going.

Sounds like a dilemma that consequently then gets forced upon the tournament organizers (who we all agree should be responsible for addressing ultimately, instead of penalizing or rule changes) to fix the problem moving forward. Aka not the refs problem.

I appreciate that's a crappy perspective to have as the ref though.

It's the ref's problem on the field.

 

[didds]

Sounds like a dilemma that consequently then gets forced upon the tournament organizers (who we all agree should be responsible for addressing ultimately, instead of penalizing or rule changes) to fix the problem moving forward. Aka not the refs problem.

I appreciate that's a crappy perspective to have as the ref though.

yes. agreed.

BUT

what as the ref do you do now?

 

[didds]

Sure they can, why not? Any time there's an infringement, the ball is still live until the ref stops the clock. It's the difference of playing advantage or not, at the discretion of the ref in the moment.

errr... exactly. The ref hasnt stopped the clock during advantage. The ball is live until the ref stops the clock.
Thats the whole point.

 

[didds]

Sure they can, why not? Any time there's an infringement, the ball is still live until the ref stops the clock. It's the difference of playing advantage or not, at the discretion of the ref in the moment.



The restart is time is back on. Doesn't need to be more formal than that.

I realize this is kind of stupid. So is the original issue.
Let's just play rugby.

so how does the game restart? You stated that the ball is dead when the clock stops.

 

[jdeagro]

what as the ref do you do now?

In what regard?