Watson wants a brake on yellow cards

André Watson, South Africa's refereeing boss, has expressed his concern in the use (overuse?) of yellow cards (sin bin) for players who infringe at the tackle.

He has told his referees that he fears that general warnings are given too early and that as a consequence the issue of yellow cards that produces a mismatch in that one side plays on a man short. Watson insists that the mechanical counting of penalties or free kicks resulting in a yellow card is wrong. The problem with the general warning is that it then paints the referee into a corner and a yellow card follows.

He gives as a criterion for a general warning the negative and repeated infringement by a team in order to spoil possession.

He also states that conceding a penalty when on defence is not necessarily negative. He quotes Tappe Henning, saying the game is not meant to be played faultlessly. The aim is not to have a game totally free of penalties and free kicks.

Watson says: “It is ok to award penalties and free kicks as it is part of the game. What a referee should not allow is negative play that is clearly intended to spoil.

"I would much rather see 3 or 4 more penalties/freekicks than a player sent off for 10 minutes unnecessarily."

Watson then quotes something he wrote last year on the matter of yellow cards.

One of the management tools available to referees is the yellow card, but it’s a subject that continues to cause debate, with two schools of thought prevailing.

Those against its use claim that:

• the team with a player in the sin bin concedes an average of 10 points during that period,

• the outcome of the game is changed when a player is sent to the bin, and

• referees play cards and, like a card game, they make a lottery of the game.

Proponents maintain that:

• if a player plays dirty or negatively affects the game, he needs to be yellow-carded, and

• players transgress the Laws, not the referee – the latter simply has to apply the Law.

SANZAR, the body governing both Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations competitions, is considering proposals that will see 15 players from each team on the park at all times. This will mean that should a player be sent off by the referee, the player will be replaced from the bench in order to ensure equality in numbers.

I can already hear the shouts of victory from the one camp! But what about negative play, for example, if the coach instructs his second-best flank to go onto the field and late-tackle the opposition star flyhalf and ‘write him off’? The referee will order him off but we'll then send our best flank on and have a better chance of winning the game as their star No.10 will be off the field because of injury. Clearly this is not the objective of maintaining the 15-vs-15 status.

In order to stop this, it’s proposed to severely punish the player sent off to discourage both players and coaches from being party to this type of behaviour.

Those supporting the retention of the current system would argue that one should not point fingers at only the referees but that the players and coaches are equally, in fact, more responsible for what happens on the field. Referees are human and will miss infringements but players also make mistakes.

It’s clear that both camps’ viewpoints have merit. I probably won't change your particular viewpoint but I do want to talk to the family of match officials of which I continue to be a proud member.

The referee should:

• protect the ethos of the game, as it is bigger than any coach, player, administrator, referee or supporter; ensure a fair contest, never an equal one, as the players determine the latter; and

• apply the Laws according to the game in front of you, not the Law book.

Watson quotes the chairman of Western Province Referees’ Society, Dan de Villiers, a top Currie Cup referee in the ‘90s in a letter sent to his Society: "Don't get me wrong: foul or dangerous play must not be tolerated and those players intent on ruining the game as a sport must be removed from the field and dealt with through the correct channels. But I'm concerned that some referees use the yellow card to control players instead of brushing up on their people-management skills.

"What it comes down to is communication. Within the Laws, it’s our job as referees to keep everyone on the field playing within the bounds of a fair contest. The action of removing one player from the field is severe and in many instances can swing the game completely to the advantage of the non-offending team. This is fine if the sanction is warranted; let’s just ensure we've done our part before the card is used."

So, what can we do about this? While understanding and accepting that the man with the whistle – and his assistants on the side – will make errors from time to time, we all need to keep in mind the following regarding the issue of cards:

• Do not enforce, rather adjudicate.

• Do not issue a card when you feel you need to take control – you probably have already lost it.

• Do not take player infringements personally – if they don't listen, they need to feel the pain.

• Do not issue a card for repeated infringements too quickly. It’s part of the game that players will infringe. They don't always infringe in order to spoil, but in desperation to defend, for example. Simply penalise the infringement.

• Do not be scared or hesitant to remove from the field players who are guilty of foul and dangerous play. The game does not need this and no-one will blame a referee who is hard on foul and dangerous play.

• Do not always nail the retaliator harder than the instigator. Why not penalise both equally?

• Do not be a bean counter and keep score of the number of infringements. It will colour your water and, in fact, paint a picture in your mind that is inaccurate. It might just be desperation, which is as much part of the game as missing a short putt is part of golf.

• Do not get involved in debates on the field of play.

• Use downtime to communicate with teams – use the captain – when a negative tendency develops. (Note that I say ‘tendency’ and not a one-off incident.)

• Do manage and communicate to an offender when he’s foolish.

• Do distinguish between blatant intent to spoil (deliberate infringement) and over-eagerness.

• Do ask yourself whether the game of the day actually deserves the card or not.

• Do distinguish between a blatant infringement for negative play and a technical infringement.

• Do realise that the players and spectators are looking to see a contest, and don't spoil this contest unless the infringement leaves you no option.

I know it’s not easy, but like the application of advantage, I believe the excellent refereeing performance separates itself from the average performance when the referee and not the cards manage the game.

http://www.rugby365.com/laws_referees/home/2702542.htm

Good article. Very mature and responsible outlook.

Always liked him as a fair and competent referee. A very commonsense and timely article. I'm not sure if we need to go to replacements just yet. It is a sad but accurate commentary on the competence, or lack of, among the current crop.

All sounds fair to me, especially the final dot point, which as I recall was Sharpies argument at the time.

Where do you draw the line though? Take for example offside in defence. Whether you are just being over-eager or intentionally cynical doesn't matter; either way you are unfairly advantaged and if you keep on doing things like that you must receive higher punishment.

I agree that the receipt of a yellow card should depend entirely on the situation in which the penalty occured. The yellow more likely if you are hot on attack for example. But do we really want to make things more subjective for referees? It's bad enough as it is.

The dishing out of Yellow cards is generally fine the way it is. It could be better but it could also be a lot worse.

I think what is implied by Watson is that if players are repeatedly giving away penalties, then they are obviously repeatedly being penalised (loss of ground, shot on goal etc) and that is punishment enough.
As you say though James, when then is the expectation that enough is enough.
I would suggest that any more than two infringements in a couple of minutes deep in defence by the same player should be looked at very dimly.
I'd argue that there probably needs to be less cards and more penalty tries in that zone.
I think many officials forget the implications of this quote too:

"He quotes Tappe Henning, saying the game is not meant to be played faultlessly. The aim is not to have a game totally free of penalties and free kicks."

Look at where the Force are at the moment. Any time we build up momentum and look like scoring a try any Tom, Dick or Harry can come into a ruck from the side, for example, and either slow down or completely stop the attack. Because its only coming in from the side its almost never going to earn a yellow card, but what could easily have been 7 points turns into three at best. The Reds did it a couple of times with Peter Hynes being offside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

Where do you draw the line though? Take for example offside in defence. Whether you are just being over-eager or intentionally cynical doesn't matter; either way you are unfairly advantaged and if you keep on doing things like that you must receive higher punishment.

I agree that the receipt of a yellow card should depend entirely on the situation in which the penalty occured. The yellow more likely if you are hot on attack for example. But do we really want to make things more subjective for referees? It's bad enough as it is.

The dishing out of Yellow cards is generally fine the way it is. It could be better but it could also be a lot worse.

---

I guess that's the judgment call though isn't it? I don't think anybody would have argued Sidey getting a yellow, and probably would be ok with a couple of weeks off as a result, but it is clear to see in the aftermath, that it was foolish, and overeager not malicious. if the ref can't see that, with discussion with the captain, and the unsurpressed mirth o the faces of the opposition, who had recently torn the head off our best player with impunity, how well has the game been read?


It simply turns a spectacle into a dirge.......you can't tell me that's in the interest of anybody.....especially since the foul play which was ignored is the foul play that keeps a player off the park for six weeks!


And now, apparently, sanzar don't cite players unless a complaint is raised? Why the he'll do they have a video review panel? Is that some gig where people get paid a shit load of money to watch rugby replays and not comment upon them at all?....I'll sign up for that!

I just hope we are not horrendously disappointed by someone getting a yellow and no suspension for effectively the same tackle this weekend.

Unless it's a Force player :P
Actually, if it is a Force player then Graham will probably suspend them himself for being so damn stupid after last week!

Sideys tackle couldve been construed as a red card offense at the time i have no issue with that but the Yellow given to Cullet was outrageous.. it was a marginally late tackle but even in that regard he was unsighted as he had already turned his head away (as you do for face on tackles)

In the context of the moment, it could have been construed as a red, sure, I don't argue that point. In the context of the greater match though, it seems harsh in comparison to the penalty handed out for duplessi's transgression.

Which one of the many?
Posted via Mobile Device

Well........isn't that my point?