Jump to content

When is a hand off not a hand off?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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.

Incorrect.

An illegal contact is illegal contact. Being accidental is not an excuse.

The grade adds relevance to the punishment - it does not change the fact that it is illegal.

I'll give you another example to help you understand = when a ball carrier slips, is falling, but is hit in the head by the defender.

It's not a deliberate act; it's an accident. It's still a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, dboy said:

Incorrect.

An illegal contact is illegal contact. Being accidental is not an excuse.

The grade adds relevance to the punishment - it does not change the fact that it is illegal.

I'll give you another example to help you understand = when a ball carrier slips, is falling, but is hit in the head by the defender.

It's not a deliberate act; it's an accident. It's still a penalty.

No, I think the example you have given is careless. So foul play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

No, I think the example you have given is careless. So foul play.

There is no "accidental".

It's a foul contact, or it's a legal contact.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dboy said:

There is no "accidental".

It's a foul contact, or it's a legal contact.

 

 

Laws of the game.

...............

SECTION 16

DUTIES OF REFEREE AND TOUCH JUDGES

Enforce Laws 2. The Referees shall enforce the Laws of the Game and may impose penalties for any deliberate breach of
the Laws. He shall be the sole judge on matters of fact except those relating to touch and touch in-goal.

................

If the laws of the game state specifically that the referee is there to penalise 'deliberate ' breaches of the law, it is logical therefore that there are also accidental breaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dboy said:

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.

I feel you are underestimating just how fine of a line it is between the two though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dboy said:

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.

I feel you are underestimating just how fine of a line it is between the two though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, langpark said:

I feel you are underestimating just how fine of a line it is between the two though. 

No I'm not.

If the ref sees a legal fend, it's a legal fend.

That's how it works.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the googly eyes Langpark?

You ref, you call what you see.

If you see a fend, you call a fend.

If you see a punch, you call a punch.

I know every call you make is your interpretation - so interpret, it's what you are there for.

Call it as you see it. Why is that contentious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The still looks bad but if that incident came from the try shown on the video, Holroyd had no time to do anything other than react instinctively. 

As for it being illegal regardless of intent, every game there are countless "by the letter of the law" illegal contacts. Most don't cause any injury and are rightly ignored.  That's because in almost all cases they are accidental.

If that injury was caused in this incident, maybe the disciplinary should send Holroyd a letter asking him to watch his technique.  That's about all its worth. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope he makes a fast and full recovery. 

Are those pictures supposed to inform the debate as to whether Holroyd should be punished? There are plenty of gruesome injuries over the course of a season, most of which are complete accidents.

All I've seen is a still which looks as though Holroyd might have deliberately tried to turn Brierley's face to mush, and a video which shows there was no way on earth Holroyd had time to even think about what he was doing.  

Like I said, if I were the RFL I'd maybe send Holroyd a letter reminding him of his duty of care towards opponents.  That would tell Holroyd - and everyone else - that they're keeping an eye on any further incidents.  I don't think there's a need for anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The still looks bad, the video looks pretty innocuous.

I have to say though that you'd have to grab at a face pretty hard to create those injuries so I'm coming down on the side of thinking it must've been intentional.  Maybe not the extent of the injuries caused, but the grabbing action.

But the evidence is inconclusive, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what injuries Brierley actually sustained? It looks nasty but hopefully it's just superficial and nothing he's going to have lasting damage from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

I hope he makes a fast and full recovery. 

Are those pictures supposed to inform the debate as to whether Holroyd should be punished? There are plenty of gruesome injuries over the course of a season, most of which are complete accidents.

All I've seen is a still which looks as though Holroyd might have deliberately tried to turn Brierley's face to mush, and a video which shows there was no way on earth Holroyd had time to even think about what he was doing.  

Like I said, if I were the RFL I'd maybe send Holroyd a letter reminding him of his duty of care towards opponents.  That would tell Holroyd - and everyone else - that they're keeping an eye on any further incidents.  I don't think there's a need for anything else.

The pictures I've supplied to give more evidence for the discussion.

 

The video looks pretty innocuous.

 

The photo doesn't look great.

 

The result also doesn't look great.

 

Personally I don't think there's a punishment required and there's no way he could have thought about gouging the defender during the fend/deliberately doing it.

 

However, there's clearly some damage there, and I guess that's not done easily,  he definitely needs a word in his ear that his technique needs to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dboy said:

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.

Clearly not as stupid as you. The photo does not prove anything 

Edited by LeeF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LeeF said:

Clearly not as stupid as you. The photo does not prove anything 

It proves it was not an open handed fend.

It proves the contact was illegal.

It proves the Leeds player made dangerous contact with the Leigh players eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, dboy said:

It proves it was not an open handed fend.

It proves the contact was illegal.

It proves the Leeds player made dangerous contact with the Leigh players eyes.

As I posted yesterday, the laws of the game clearly state that the referee is there to enforce the Laws of the Game and may impose penalties for any deliberate breach of the Laws.

I don't know how anyone watching the play unfold can state that there was deliberate illegal contact. Even in the still shot, Holroyd is not even looking at Brierley. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dboy said:

It proves it was not an open handed fend.

It proves the contact was illegal.

It proves the Leeds player made dangerous contact with the Leigh players eyes.

It doesn’t. It’s a still which may or actually may not capture any alleged offence. Both on this thread & at least one other you seem to be wanting to not debate but create basically a straw argument out of nothing so I will leave you to it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

As I posted yesterday, the laws of the game clearly state that the referee is there to enforce the Laws of the Game and may impose penalties for any deliberate breach of the Laws.

I don't know how anyone watching the play unfold can state that there was deliberate illegal contact. Even in the still shot, Holroyd is not even looking at Brierley. 

An accidental foul, which I'm sure this is, is still a foul.

And what relevance has where Holroyd is looking on the matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

It doesn’t. It’s a still which may or actually may not capture any alleged offence. Both on this thread & at least one other you seem to be wanting to not debate but create basically a straw argument out of nothing so I will leave you to it

I'm baffled by your "thought" process.

The still clearly, without a doubt, shows Holroyd did not contact the tacklers head with an open hand. It's not a legal fend.

If it's not a legal fend, it's a strike. It's a foul contact.

I have no issue with the ref not seeing it - how could he?

I have no issue with the disciplinary not citing it - they only see match video, not stills.

There will be a multitude of foul contacts going unpunished in every game.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

An accidental foul, which I'm sure this is, is still a foul.

And what relevance has where Holroyd is looking on the matter?

The relevance is that it is also weighting towards the conclusion that it was not deliberate. However, we are agreed that it is accidental so we can put this to one side.

Question. If an accidental foul is still a foul, why do the laws of the game explicitly say that the referee's duty is to penalise deliberate infringements?

If every foul was a foul (accidental or otherwise) then that distinction would not need to be made, but it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

The relevance is that it is also weighting towards the conclusion that it was not deliberate. However, we are agreed that it is accidental so we can put this to one side.

Question. If an accidental foul is still a foul, why do the laws of the game explicitly say that the referee's duty is to penalise deliberate infringements?

If every foul was a foul (accidental or otherwise) then that distinction would not need to be made, but it is.

You are selectively misquoting the Laws - a foul is a foul, regardless of the intent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

You are selectively misquoting the Laws - a foul is a foul, regardless of the intent.

 

I am not misquoting them.  This is exactly what they say.

I accept that I am selectively quoting them but that is what quoting is.

As we have discussed previously, the various laws allow for illegal contact to be judged as deliberate, reckless or careless. Each of these is punishable. 

I believe that the laws as stated also provide an option to be purely accidental which I believe that this is and so not a punishable act of foul play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the laws do not state that a foul act won't be punished if it's accidental.

A foul is a foul.

The thread question is "when is a hand-off, not a hand-off?"

When it's not done with an open hand is the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...