Refs and Sarries

[Tiglon]

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/9/

Not that simple, there are a lot of things that fall under the heading of Foul Play. Repeated infringement is in there, as is any intentional infringement of any law.

[Grannyman]

As it currently stands these are the card totals for the teams so far in the Premiership

Leicester - 17 yellows
Saracens - 4 yellows
Harlequins - 10 yellows
Exeter - 3 yellows - 2 reds
Northampton - 11 yellows
Sale - 7 yellows - 2 reds
Gloucester - 13 yellows
London Irish - 12 yellows - 3 reds
Wasps - 9 yellows - 2 reds
Bristol - 16 yellows - 2 reds
Newcastle - 7 yellows - 2 reds
Worcester - 12 yellows - 3 reds
Bath - 14 yellows - 2 reds

That’s a lot of reds with a lot of games to go isn’t it?

[mightymouse]

That’s a very interesting stat.. what it shows is exactly what this thread is about .. Saracens seem to able to keep on the right side of referees .. that cannot be an accident. They must train very specifically to stay on the right side of “the law” with a 13 card difference to us for example.
That’s 2 hours and ten minutes of rugby with an extra man .. or more than a match an a half.

[Offside]

Exeter with 3 yellows and 2 reds is an interesting balance between the two options. Suggests an attempt at the dominant hit that was not successful. It would also be interesting to look at the number of penalties in comparison too.

[wigworth]

Exeter with 3 yellows and 2 reds is an interesting balance between the two options. Suggests an attempt at the dominant hit that was not successful. It would also be interesting to look at the number of penalties in comparison too.

One was for a head on head tackle and the other red was for a ruck clear out where they lift Marler beyond horizontal and dump him on his head. Yes I agree to get the full picture the number of penalties conceded and where they were conceded would be very useful. I think that there are a few companies that provide this info but I am pretty sure it is a service you have to pay for.

[Rugbygramps]

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/9/

Not that simple, there are a lot of things that fall under the heading of Foul Play. Repeated infringement is in there, as is any intentional infringement of any law.

So in theory if say 3 of his 4 yellows on the bounce we’re for deliberate knock ons that could be repeated infringement

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

In football if you get a set number of yellow cards in a set period of time regardless of what they are for you get an automatic one game ban, that is probably a cross transferable rule.
You would think in Care's case that many in consecutive games should at least be a hearing.
When it comes to a penalty count in a game i presume the number quoted is it only the total "Sir" blows for not how many offences committed, multiple offences in one period of play tends to lead to a card quicker than one offs, so maybe if you are going to offend, make it a play stopper?
The Sarries & Chiefs card figure does seem rather low on comparison to the league in general.

[Scott1]

In football if you get a set number of yellow cards in a set period of time regardless of what they are for you get an automatic one game ban, that is probably a cross transferable rule.
You would think in Care's case that many in consecutive games should at least be a hearing.
When it comes to a penalty count in a game i presume the number quoted is it only the total "Sir" blows for not how many offences committed, multiple offences in one period of play tends to lead to a card quicker than one offs, so maybe if you are going to offend, make it a play stopper?
The Sarries & Chiefs card figure does seem rather low on comparison to the league in general.

Yes,I think there should be something along the lines of an automatic 1 game ban for say 3 yellow cards regardless of the offences. But some teams would have to be given yellow cards first!

[Scott1]

That’s a very interesting stat.. what it shows is exactly what this thread is about .. Saracens seem to able to keep on the right side of referees .. that cannot be an accident. They must train very specifically to stay on the right side of “the law” with a 13 card difference to us for example.
That’s 2 hours and ten minutes of rugby with an extra man .. or more than a match an a half.

But they are not keeping on the right side of referees though (although I suppose they are,they are certainly not keeping on the right side of the laws ) most of the time they are just not being given cards that other teams have been given cards for for virtually the same offences. The refereeing inconsistencies seem to be favouring them.

[wigworth]

That’s a very interesting stat.. what it shows is exactly what this thread is about .. Saracens seem to able to keep on the right side of referees .. that cannot be an accident. They must train very specifically to stay on the right side of “the law” with a 13 card difference to us for example.
That’s 2 hours and ten minutes of rugby with an extra man .. or more than a match an a half.

But they are not keeping on the right side of referees though (although I suppose they are,they are certainly not keeping on the right side of the laws ) most of the time they are just not being given cards that other teams have been given cards for for virtually the same offences. The refereeing inconsistencies seem to be favouring them.

Hard to disagree with this given the figures, and the excuses of it is not a card because the referee says it is not is pretty weak imo, with those saying this failing to provide any reason as to why it should only be a penalty and not a card.

[Scott1]

That’s a very interesting stat.. what it shows is exactly what this thread is about .. Saracens seem to able to keep on the right side of referees .. that cannot be an accident. They must train very specifically to stay on the right side of “the law” with a 13 card difference to us for example.
That’s 2 hours and ten minutes of rugby with an extra man .. or more than a match an a half.

But they are not keeping on the right side of referees though (although I suppose they are,they are certainly not keeping on the right side of the laws ) most of the time they are just not being given cards that other teams have been given cards for for virtually the same offences. The refereeing inconsistencies seem to be favouring them.

Hard to disagree with this given the figures, and the excuses of it is not a card because the referee says it is not is pretty weak imo, with those saying this failing to provide any reason as to why it should only be a penalty and not a card.

Yes there is absolutely ZERO chance that Sarries have only committed 4 yellow card worthy offences in the league this season!

[Tiglon]

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/9/

Not that simple, there are a lot of things that fall under the heading of Foul Play. Repeated infringement is in there, as is any intentional infringement of any law.

So in theory if say 3 of his 4 yellows on the bounce we’re for deliberate knock ons that could be repeated infringement

I think it means in a game. But an intentional knock on is, by definition, an intentional infringement of the laws and therefore foul play. That's how I interpret it anyway.

I'm sure one of his recent yellows was for diving over the top of a ruck on his own try line to prevent a try, which would 100% be foul play.

[chris111]

That’s a very interesting stat.. what it shows is exactly what this thread is about .. Saracens seem to able to keep on the right side of referees .. that cannot be an accident. They must train very specifically to stay on the right side of “the law” with a 13 card difference to us for example.
That’s 2 hours and ten minutes of rugby with an extra man .. or more than a match an a half.

But they are not keeping on the right side of referees though (although I suppose they are,they are certainly not keeping on the right side of the laws ) most of the time they are just not being given cards that other teams have been given cards for for virtually the same offences. The refereeing inconsistencies seem to be favouring them.

Hard to disagree with this given the figures, and the excuses of it is not a card because the referee says it is not is pretty weak imo, with those saying this failing to provide any reason as to why it should only be a penalty and not a card.

I guess you’ll be including me in those you characterise as providing “weak excuses”. My default position is that officials have to interpret the laws of the game as they apply to countless complex decisions in every game. They don’t always get it right, but having spent 1000s of hours officiating, reviewing (individually and collectively) and reflecting on their performance, the odds are they are far more likely to be getting things right than anyone posting here.
I’d also say that my idea of a weak argument is the type that goes something like “Billy V’s offence was identical to Nadolo’s so should have had an identical sanction”. They were not identical, no two incidents on a rugby are ever going to be. Where they similar? Yes. Where they comparable? Yes. Did the referee have to consider a host of contextual factors when making a decision? Yes again. Is the referee obliged to give exactly the same sanction whenever comparable incidents occur? A resounding no.

Whilst we’re on this topic - just exactly what do posters believe lies behind the Premiership referees’ (presumably all of them, not just a few) supposedly pro-Sarries agenda? Are they all closet supporters risking their professional credibility to aid them to victory? Are they corrupt, taking stuffed brown envelopes from the owners and/or crooked bookies?

[wigworth]

But they are not keeping on the right side of referees though (although I suppose they are,they are certainly not keeping on the right side of the laws ) most of the time they are just not being given cards that other teams have been given cards for for virtually the same offences. The refereeing inconsistencies seem to be favouring them.

Hard to disagree with this given the figures, and the excuses of it is not a card because the referee says it is not is pretty weak imo, with those saying this failing to provide any reason as to why it should only be a penalty and not a card.

I guess you’ll be including me in those you characterise as providing “weak excuses”. My default position is that officials have to interpret the laws of the game as they apply to countless complex decisions in every game. They don’t always get it right, but having spent 1000s of hours officiating, reviewing (individually and collectively) and reflecting on their performance, the odds are they are far more likely to be getting things right than anyone posting here.
I’d also say that my idea of a weak argument is the type that goes something like “Billy V’s offence was identical to Nadolo’s so should have had an identical sanction”. They were not identical, no two incidents on a rugby are ever going to be. Where they similar? Yes. Where they comparable? Yes. Did the referee have to consider a host of contextual factors when making a decision? Yes again. Is the referee obliged to give exactly the same sanction whenever comparable incidents occur? A resounding no.

Whilst we’re on this topic - just exactly what do posters believe lies behind the Premiership referees’ (presumably all of them, not just a few) supposedly pro-Sarries agenda? Are they all closet supporters risking their professional credibility to aid them to victory? Are they corrupt, taking stuffed brown envelopes from the owners and/or crooked bookies?

I am not sure in any of these posts in this thread you will find I have said that referees have a implicit pro Sarries agenda, I have very purposely not made such claims. Also I have never made such claims about incidents being identical and therefore deserving the same punishment, my point was that every poster on here who has pushed back against the seeming lenience in some of the decisions against Sarries has at no point explained why any of these decisions have not resulted in card when very similar incidences have been.

I will give an example so we don't get crossed up trying to talk about different things.
In the recent Sale vs Saracens game Faf de Klerk was tackled off of the ball with a tackle that did not involve any arms, what in your opinion mitigates this to only a penalty when similar offences have had yellow cards issued.
The incident occurs at 1:12 in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt_kCsNzRUo

[Tiglon]

The problem with the tackle off the ball situation, unless there is head contact involved, is that the laws are quite vague about sanctions and there are no particular directives about it that I am aware of.

9 Foul play
Principle

A player who commits foul play must either be cautioned or temporarily suspended or sent off.

.......

14. A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.

So it can be either warning, yellow or red - entirely up to the ref. Unless I've missed something?