Penalties for Fighting

[DanSawyer]

I can certainly see that, and I don't have a fixed view, but it occurs to me that making the ref's job easier isn't necessarily the most important aim. Of course it's nice, but the good of the game is paramount, along with the safety of all involved.

The problem with a blanket ban is that it can penalise those who are trying to protect the game and/or another player. Now I'm all in favour of saying that people playing a sport should never use the heat of the moment as an excuse. If you allow that, then you end up with football.

On balance I think I favour the intention view, allowing the ref some discretion. Another illustration:

Red 1 checks Blue 1. Blue 1 thinks it was a slash/head check/unnecessary/push from behind/on his knees etc. Now...

a) Blue 1 turns on Red 1 in anger, but before he can say or do anything, Blue 2, his mate, leaps between them and tells him to can it. Situation averted. I think we can all agree no penalties needed (unless the check was illegal). Same if it's Red 2 who steps in the way.

b) Blue 1 swears and draws his fist back before Blue 2 steps between. Possible consequences for 1, but not for 2.

c) As above but this time Blue 2 comes from behind Blue 1 and pulls him away before he can throw his punch/push. Again, 2 is safe.

d) 1 actually throws his punch but 2 stops it from connecting. Was 2 the third man into a fight or did he stop it before it became one?

e) You know where this is going: 1's punch connects and 2 pulls him off before Red can retaliate. Is 2 the third man in? What if it's Red 2 pulling Red 1 away before he can retaliate?

And so it goes on. This kind of problem isn't solved by the automatic expulsion because you still need to say when the fight actually began. I think it's better to look at the whole incident and let the ref decide it on its merits.

[mandy]

I find it also depends on the level your playing at and whose reffing.

In some cases with inexperienced refs at uni level and the like they may not know how to deal with any fight situation let alone that it's up to them to break it up, or, and I mean no disrespect to some our distinguised zebras here, but they're not all spring chickens, and it'd be interesting to see some try to break up two guys going for it without other players stepping in to help out

[jameskellam]

It's not "up to us (refs)to break it up". If someone gets hurt in a fight, it's the fault of the bloke who hit him, it's no good saying "the ref should have stopped me earlier". All we can sensibly do is tell participants to stop.

[Moaning Git]

And that is what I have always been told is the case. The 3rd man may well intend to stop the ruck, but the opposition players do not know that and may see the intervention as further aggression and be tempted to join in themselves. If the rule is clear, get involved- then you walk, there is no ambiguity.

That said i do not agree that Refs should never get involved in phsically breaking up a fight. If someone is getting a battering then the officials have a moral and legal obligation to step in and break up the fight, even at risk to themselves. This is especially true when the rules prevent anyone else,intervening for whatever reason.

[DanSawyer]

Which puts us back to 'when is a fight a fight?'

[kjk20]

Watch ice hockey, two guys go for it or look like they're gonna go for it, the linesmen are in there straight away to break them up. If they're gonna be allowed to fight, then the linesmen don't jump in until one of the combatants hits the ice. Then again, the NHL is the only professional non-contact sport which has explicit rules for fighting. They don't have a 3rd man in rule though.

3rd man in obviously stops rucks and if you see two guys fighting, my guess is that they're in a fight. Generally let a little bit of chatter or some facewashing go, but if it's anything more than that you've obviously got a fight on your hands.

[FarmerDan]

And that is what I have always been told is the case. The 3rd man may well intend to stop the ruck, but the opposition players do not know that and may see the intervention as further aggression and be tempted to join in themselves. If the rule is clear, get involved- then you walk, there is no ambiguity.

That said i do not agree that Refs should never get involved in phsically breaking up a fight. If someone is getting a battering then the officials have a moral and legal obligation to step in and break up the fight, even at risk to themselves. This is especially true when the rules prevent anyone else,intervening for whatever reason.

Not so sure about the legal obligation on a ref to physically step in as any contact you make with someone to break it up would technically constitute an assualt (although there may be defences available depending on how you do it) There certainly isn't a legal obligation to put yourself at risk of harm.

[DanSawyer]

Not so sure about the legal obligation on a ref to physically step in as any contact you make with someone to break it up would technically constitute an assualt (although there may be defences available depending on how you do it) There certainly isn't a legal obligation to put yourself at risk of harm.

Not quite right, but close. If you (anyone, ref or not) step in to break up a fight then it will not be an assault if you act with reasonable force in defence of another. It's not that it's an assault but you have a defence, it's just not an assault.

[HawkUK]

I understand what everyone has said so far, and what I have been told in the past. But I would far rather let guys padded up go in to break it up rather that wadding into break up two guys in full pads, because if they want to fight they will.

I think like has been said it is judgement call on the refs part.

Hopefully it wont come to a point where a ref is having to defend themselves for reasonable force.

[jameskellam]

I don't think that a ref has a legal duty to step in between two adults who are fighting (or even between two adults one of whom is attacking the other) and try and stop the situation getting any worse.

Morally, do as much as you feel comfortable with and read Don's guide on how to do it without getting coldc*cked yourself.

As ever, this isn't legal advice. You have to pay for that and you wouldn't want to pay me because personal injury isn't my department.

[dblacklock]

Robbo and Hawk have it in one. Third guy entering the altercation is thrid man in and gets tossed.

Here is an interesting one for the lawyers out there. In order to have a thrid man in, do you have to call a fight between the two combatants. If no fight is called, how can you have a third man in.

What say you counsel?

[DanSawyer]

Robbo and Hawk have it in one. Third guy entering the altercation is thrid man in and gets tossed.

Here is an interesting one for the lawyers out there. In order to have a thrid man in, do you have to call a fight between the two combatants. If no fight is called, how can you have a third man in.

What say you counsel?

I say there is no need for fight to have been called.

78.2 Where a fight occurs on the field of play, and the officials have “frozen” the benches, by indicating to the team personnel who are on the benches that they should remain there, then any team personnel pushing past an official in order to join in a fight may be expelled from the game.
78.3 Where two players from competing teams are fighting and a third participant enters the altercation, then the third man into the altercation may be expelled from the game.

Quite apart from the fact that there is no mention of the call, the wording is simply when they are fighting. That suggests that it's the act rather than the call.

I think that this could use clarifying. Leaving aside questions of when a player is stopping a fight and when he's joining one that has started, what happens if Red 1 is attacking Blue 1, who is just backing away and covering up? Are the 'two players...fighting'?
I'm also intrigued to see that they must be from competing teams. Blue on blue is a free-for-all!

[Mort rotu]

I'm also intrigued to see that they must be from competing teams. Blue on blue is a free-for-all!

surely then you'd get called for unsportsmanlike conduct towards your own player same as you do for swearing at your own team loud enough for the ref to hear it.

[cheekylaxstuff]

Guilty as charged at least twice for that one

[laxwill11]

Robbo and Hawk have it in one. Third guy entering the altercation is thrid man in and gets tossed.

Here is an interesting one for the lawyers out there. In order to have a thrid man in, do you have to call a fight between the two combatants. If no fight is called, how can you have a third man in.

What say you counsel?

i can see it now - 2 guys kick off, ref shouts "FIGHT!" and both teams circle the combatants shouting "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" until a teacher appears and everyone scarpers....

or was that just at school?

[Moaning Git]

I don't think that a ref has a legal duty to step in between two adults who are fighting (or even between two adults one of whom is attacking the other) and try and stop the situation getting any worse.

Interesting one this as i ran it past some personal injury solicitors a couple of years back when the refs were getting their knickers in a twist about personal liability. If the ref, or in the case of multiple refs takes no action , even if it is stepping forward, blowing his whistle and instructing the players to break it up, and one is the injured or even worse, is the ref culpable. The advice I was given (in typical lawyer speak), he or she may be! personally, I think i would feel far more able to defend my own position if I tried to prevent somone coming to harm than just standing and watching, and given the current rules, only the officials can do this.

[jameskellam]

Is the ref culpable? Nothing like as culpable as the blokes doing the fighting (or the bloke who hits an opponent).

Bear in mind, "possibly" may be lawyerspeak for "I can't see how but I won't say "never"" - we lawyers never say "never". Not (see above) that this is legal advice.

[DanSawyer]

i ran it past some personal injury solicitors a couple of years back when the refs were getting their knickers in a twist about personal liability. If the ref, or in the case of multiple refs takes no action , even if it is stepping forward, blowing his whistle and instructing the players to break it up, and one is the injured or even worse, is the ref culpable. The advice I was given (in typical lawyer speak), he or she may be!

That advice may well be right. Or possibly not.

In any event we need to draw a distinction between civil and criminal law. I think (on a non-legal basis, as James says) that you would be extremely unfortunate to find yourself in criminal trouble as a ref for not stepping in. Like they'd need to change the law...

Civil I think it unlikely that you'd be in trouble, although I haven't done civil law in years. The main exception would probably be in a junior game, but again, this is on a non-legal advice setting.

[Moaning Git]

And yet referees have been held culpable for injuries sustained during matches!

I think that the Officials cannot simply stand back and take no action, that to me would seem to be negligence, but I am not going any further down that road, lets wait for the test case!

[dblacklock]

being the sideline lawyer - voluntary assumption of risk for the two willing combatants

Don't forget, there is the referee's health and safety that has to be taken into account. Much easier to break up after they have tired themselves out and have gone to the ground.