Retaliation worse?

Rees and Ibañez

We are going to look at some incidents from the Heineken Cup this past weekend but really make retaliation and the retaliator the focus of our attention. It is an interesting topic. We shall deal with it on its own and then talk about other things.

Retaliator vs Perpetrator

Wasps' Raphaël Ibañez throws in at a line-out but the Scarlets win the ball. They win it in untidy fashion and are scrambling back in the Llanelli mist to get the ball. One of those hunting for it is Ibañez, no doubt hurt that his throw had not meant ball for his side.

As Ibañez goes after the ball, Matthew Rees, the Scarlets' hooker, tugs his jersey to slow him down. This annoys the already annoyed Ibañez who swings at Rees.

The referee, who had been well positioned to see events as he was at the front of the line-out, blows his whistle and consults his touch judge. He has the teams colour-coded – Red for Scarlets and Black for Wasps.

It was more imparting of information than consultation, for he said: "I'm dealing with Red No.2 for taking a player out without the ball. I know Black 2 retaliated but I'm just dealing with Red 2."

The touch judge says nothing but nods briefly.

The referee then deals with No.2 briefly. "Don't do that again."

He has a conference with the two 2s and the captains and says: "I saw the offence and the retaliation. I'm going to stay with the penalty for Black."

We shall debate the merits of the direction of the penalty, but one thing was clear – the absolute clarity of the referee's communication and his willingness to make the decision himself in a matter where he had a perfect view himself. After all he is the man in charge – as the law says.

Now the retaliation.

Let's go quickly to law.

Law 10.4 (j) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

That is what the law says and it's clear. But perhaps we should just look at proviso – Even if a player is infringing the laws.

Sure that includes foul play, but not only that.

Law 10 deals with foul play and says that each aspect of it merits a penalty. But it does not say that retaliation is worse than other aspects of foul play. It says that if an opponent is off-side and you kick him, you will be penalised. It does not say that if he punches you and you punch back, you should be penalised. But that seems to have become the refereeing practice. Retaliation gets penalised.

But what about the agent provocateur?

If Rees had not tugged Ibañez's jersey – which is an act of foul play – Ibañez would not have tried to clobber him.

It is hard to believe that Ibañez is more guilty than Rees.

It is, surely, much to expect a rugby player, having been punched, to turn the other cheek and say with utter piety: "The referee or the touch judge or the citing commissioner will act against you if they see you. Till then I am your punchbag."

Remember the Moody-Tuilagi incident when England played Samoa.

Tuilagi tackled Mark Cueto in the air. Foul play.
Cueto had aggressive things to say to Tuilagi. Foul play.
Tuilagi hit Cueto. Foul play.
Moody hit Tuilagi. Foul play.
Semo Sititi hit Moody. Foul play.

Was Cueto's act retaliation? In that case, if nothing else had happened, would the referee have been obliged to penalise Cueto? But words don't break bones. Surely what Tuilagi did was worse.
When Tuilagi hit Cueto, did he then become a retaliator, thus reversing the penalty again.
When Moody entered the fray, did he become the retaliator and hence subject to penalty, his offence overriding both Tuilagi's offences?

That seems the case, as the penalty went against England.

Sititi, for some reason, got off scot free. What he did was visible to the citing commissioner who presumably decided not to cite because it was not a red card offence but to ordinary folk it would seem that what he did to Moody was no different from what Moody did to Tuilagi which merited a red card and a long suspension.

But to our muttons.

The matter of retaliation was discussed at recent meeting of referees, coaches and administrators in Sydney. There it was affirmed that retaliation would take precedence over the original offence.

This sort of decision makes matters simpler for the referee. He does not have to judge in the matter. Making it simpler can help to effect uniformity/consistency.

But should a committee decision take the decision from a referee? After all he is required to judge on many actions – from knock-on and forward pass to deliberately throwing into touch and a penalty try.  There he is a top man in the refereeing world, one of 16 out of many thousands, surely he should be allowed to judge the severity.

Judges do that in court. They can find a man guilty of using excessive force in self-defence, whether of his person or his property. So, too, can a referee. If Ibañez had attacked Rees violently, then probably the referee would have acted more vigorously against Ibañez.

Is it fair that the Laws of the Game should demand heroic and unnatural virtue of a player personally offended in the heat of an emotional game?

It may just be that the referee in the match between the Scarlets and the Wasps got it completely right.