When is a hand off not a hand off?

[langpark]

As someone who refereed (still does) at amateur level and in areas where many were new to the game, I was often asked this very question.

I always told them to avoid contact with the face. That is not to say I penalised players if they made contact with the face, but all too often the hand off, did become more of a 'slapping' action, which I would penalise.

I think to remove all doubt and have a clear, consistent rule, then this should be it. No contact with the face or throat.

Edited July 4, 2021 by langpark

[dkw]

Do people genuinely think there was intent in that? The video shows it was a split second thing, contact was less than a second, he would have to have Bruce Lees reflexes to intentionally gouge him like that. Its a contact sport, accidents will happen unfortunately. Its a horrible injury and hopefully it doesn't cause him a problem, but it was accidental. 

[dboy]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

Do people genuinely think there was intent in that? The video shows it was a split second thing, contact was less than a second, he would have to have Bruce Lees reflexes to intentionally gouge him like that. Its a contact sport, accidents will happen unfortunately. Its a horrible injury and hopefully it doesn't cause him a problem, but it was accidental. 

Neither lack of intent, or it being accidental mitigate the fact that it was an illegal contact - why is it so hard to understand?

A legal hand-off is open-handed (and can be to the face).

That is not an open hand and the damage to the tackler is severe, if not extremely dangerous, judging by the pictures of the injury.

[dboy]

17 minutes ago, langpark said:

As someone who refereed (still does) at amateur level and in areas where many were new to the game, I was often asked this very question.

I always told them to avoid contact with the face. That is not to say I penalised players if they made contact with the face, but all too often the hand off, did become more of a 'slapping' action, which I would penalise.

I think to remove all doubt and have a clear, consistent rule, then this should be it. No contact with the face or throat.

A slapping action would indicate a strike - you would be correct to penalise that.

An open-handed push (fend), contacting the face is perfectly legal.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

Do people genuinely think there was intent in that? The video shows it was a split second thing, contact was less than a second, he would have to have Bruce Lees reflexes to intentionally gouge him like that. Its a contact sport, accidents will happen unfortunately. Its a horrible injury and hopefully it doesn't cause him a problem, but it was accidental. 

Agree , although I'd be interested in how this would have been construed had it been the opposite way round and a Leigh player handing off ?

[dkw]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Agree , although I'd be interested in how this would have been construed had it been the opposite way round and a Leigh player handing off ?

Wibble...

 

[dboy]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Agree , although I'd be interested in how this would have been construed had it been the opposite way round and a Leigh player handing off ?

Again, intent has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That's an illegal contact.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

Wibble...

 

Mock all you like , you know what I mean though

[GUBRATS]

Just now, dboy said:

Again, intent has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That's an illegal contact.

I agree with your point as well , plenty of times players have received long bans for unintentional foul play 

[Chrispmartha]

33 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Agree , although I'd be interested in how this would have been construed had it been the opposite way round and a Leigh player handing off ?

Maybe he wouldn’t have even been put to the judiciary just like Jordan Thompson who led with his elbow, Dwyer was lucky to be ok after that clear elbow to the head

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Maybe he wouldn’t have even been put to the judiciary just like Jordan Thompson who led with his elbow, Dwyer was lucky to be ok after that clear elbow to the head

I agree , it surprised me as well 

[Marauder]

1 hour ago, langpark said:

As someone who refereed (still does) at amateur level and in areas where many were new to the game, I was often asked this very question.

I always told them to avoid contact with the face. That is not to say I penalised players if they made contact with the face, but all too often the hand off, did become more of a 'slapping' action, which I would penalise.

I think to remove all doubt and have a clear, consistent rule, then this should be it. No contact with the face or throat.

Best hand off I've ever seen was by a lad called Cliff Key, it was better than most guys punches as for no contact to the head, isn't this the area that most are executed on. Maybe the tackler should get their head down further.

[daz39]

Give over, unfortunate injuries but absolutely nothing untowards at all in that.

[fighting irish]

4 hours ago, Derwent said:

I think Brierley had to have emergency eye surgery, but I’m not sure what your point is.

It was merely a request for more information.

This incident had passed me by, so I knew nothing about it.

If I was making a point, I would have made a statement (of my opinion).

You seem touchy about this event but I'm not about to argue with you.

Do you have an  update (or a picture) of Brierly's injuries/recovery? 

[dboy]

6 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

 

Do you have an  update (or a picture) of Brierly's injuries/recovery? 

Eh? It's opening post of the thread.

[LeeF]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

Neither lack of intent, or it being accidental mitigate the fact that it was an illegal contact - why is it so hard to understand?

A legal hand-off is open-handed (and can be to the face).

That is not an open hand and the damage to the tackler is severe, if not extremely dangerous, judging by the pictures of the injury.

So you would either have penalised & presumably sent off the Leeds player at the time based on either the video posted above or you having attended the game? 
 

If not what would you have presumably charged the Leeds player with? What punishment would have been appropriate? 

[Dunbar]

Watching the video of the try at full speed, it is inconceivable that Holroyd has deliberately held his hand in such a way to injure Brierley. A very unfortunate accident. 

[dboy]

7 minutes ago, LeeF said:

So you would either have penalised & presumably sent off the Leeds player at the time based on either the video posted above or you having attended the game? 
 

If not what would you have presumably charged the Leeds player with? What punishment would have been appropriate? 

I can't see how you can realistically expect the ref/officials to see that in real time, so I would expect play on.

In respect of the match review, they do not have access to stills, only to official club video. The still is from a press photographer.

Neither of those factual statements change the fact that it was a foul by the Leeds player. 

I don't understand the point you are making.

[dboy]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Watching the video of the try at full speed, it is inconceivable that Holroyd has deliberately held his hand in such a way to injure Brierley. A very unfortunate accident. 

I don't think anyone in this thread has said he meant to cause that injury, or that the act was deliberate.

It does not change the fact it was an illegal contact.

It (understandably), wasn't seen. It happens.

[Dunbar]

Just now, dboy said:

I don't think anyone in this thread has said he meant to cause that injury, or that the act was deliberate.

It does not change the fact it was an illegal contact.

It (understandably), wasn't seen. It happens.

I don't think it was illegal contact.

There is deliberate, there is reckless and there is careless.  Each of these can be penalised. 

But there is also purely accidental, which I think this is, and I don't think that should be penalised.

[dkw]

6 minutes ago, dboy said:

.

Neither of those factual statements change the fact that it was a foul by the Leeds player. 

 

That's not a fact at all, no matter how many times you say it. 

[LeeF]

11 minutes ago, dboy said:

I can't see how you can realistically expect the ref/officials to see that in real time, so I would expect play on.

In respect of the match review, they do not have access to stills, only to official club video. The still is from a press photographer.

Neither of those factual statements change the fact that it was a foul by the Leeds player. 

I don't understand the point you are making.

So you agree with both the decision made by the referee and by the MRP

If it was a foul then there should be some punishment or even a note that an onfield penalty should have been awarded.

I’ll further help you out by confirming that the photo proves absolutely nothing in support of your argument

Edited July 4, 2021 by LeeF

[dboy]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think it was illegal contact.

There is deliberate, there is reckless and there is careless.  Each of these can be penalised. 

But there is also purely accidental, which I think this is, and I don't think that should be penalised.

A hand off HAS to be with an open hand.

It wasn't.

Therefore it was an illegal action.

What is so hard to understand?

Yes, it was accidental.

It's still an illegal act.

Edited July 4, 2021 by dboy

[dboy]

6 minutes ago, LeeF said:

So you agree with both the decision made by the referee and by the MRP and by definition agree that a photo cannot be used to determine exactly what happened 

Are you stupid??

The MRP have not seen the still. They only see the video. The video will not be of sufficient quality and definition to see any foul play.

The ref and MRP haven't done anything "wrong" . They have called on the basis of the evidence they see, which is absolutely correct.

Other evidence clearly shows it was not a legal contact. That does not change anything, but it's a fact that that is what it was.

Edited July 4, 2021 by dboy

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, dboy said:

A hand off HAS to be with an open hand.

It wasn't.

Therefore it was an illegal action.

What is so hard to understand?

Yes, it was accidental.

It's still an illegal act.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying. It was an accident that the hand wasn't open. Not careless, not reckless... an accident.  Accidental contact is not illegal contact as illegal contact is defined as deliberate, reckless or careless.