The 2005 Penalty Point versus 1:4:1 debate.

[SiXplicit]

I'm with the Pinkster!

Originally posted by MrPink
Tom, if the player argues the call, then the Ref doesn't shout back but merely removes another player off the field. I find that most teams calm down very quickly if they lose two or three players for a single infrigment

Exactly what I did when marshalling the very first leg of Dartford last year. We were dishing out 1-4-1's at least every 3-4 games & most players just accepted it & walked. Until I pulled one guy for playing on & 1-4-1'd him & he didn't like it. So I warned him once to make his way off the field but he continued to argue. So I pulled a 2nd player. The offender soon made his way to the dead box!

Every team was informed that we were being strict & that if there were any problems that they had to be sorted between the Team Captain & the Head Field Judge at the end of the game. The problem would not be discussed until all other players were off the field as we all know what it's like having 7 people all shouting their own version of the story. Had very few problems all day.

Marshalls just need to be confident in what they do & do it. If a player cheats - punish his team. Cheating is becoming more & more regular & will continue to do so unless reffing tightens up. Plus if you see or hear rumours that a certain field of judges are taking no prisoners it kinda makes you think about attempting to cheat on that field, & if you do & get caught, it's not so bad because they've been consistency handing out the punshments all day!

Just my 2p's worth.

 

[Collier]

I'm with the Pinkster!

Originally posted by Barbie@AFGM

Every team was informed that we were being strict & that if there were any problems that they had to be sorted between the Team Captain & the Head Field Judge at the end of the game. The problem would not be discussed until all other players were off the field as we all know what it's like having 7 people all shouting their own version of the story.

Which is cool and I appreciate the mentality but even if a mistake is made by the end of the game it's too late isn't it?

 

[shamu]

Re: I'm with the Pinkster!

Originally posted by Collier
Which is cool and I appreciate the mentality but even if a mistake is made by the end of the game it's too late isn't it?

Once the armband comes off it's too late, isn't it? The difference between 141 and penalty points is that the 141 is assessed on the spot. Penalty points are assessed, argued and discussed after the game.

In my experience, debating whether or not to assign a post-game penalty takes more time than whether or not a call was right, as both teams are going to fight harder over penalty points that might be "up for grab".

 

[Collier]

Re: Re: I'm with the Pinkster!

Originally posted by shamu
Once the armband comes off it's too late, isn't it? The difference between 141 and penalty points is that the 141 is assessed on the spot. Penalty points are assessed, argued and discussed after the game.

True

 

[SiXplicit]

Re: I'm with the Pinkster!

Originally posted by Collier
Which is cool and I appreciate the mentality but even if a mistake is made by the end of the game it's too late isn't it?

Granted, the majority of current rulings/penalties mean exactly that - it is too late. Mistakes often happen, there's no denying that. Near enough every field we walk on today, whether it be on a punter site or at a tournament we are told the judges decision is final. How many times do you see a ref overturn his decision once made? I'm betting fairly close to never! I've never seen the point in arguing a bad call or when a mistake has been made, sitting with the head judge bitching & moaning at him about it. Heels get dug in & decisions never change.

I guess one practical & easy to manage rule could be that once a game is called over, every player still on the field should be live, right? So, imagine if you will, Team X have hung the flag, the flag carrier is checked & is clean, game over is called. Then the rest of the 'live' players on Team X are checked. If a player claiming to be live has a mark on him then the points for his elimination are added to Team Y's score sheet (this happens anyway as far as I am aware). If the mark is in a self check area then Team X will also incurr, say for arguments sake, 5 penalty points. At the moment the player is simply told, 'you've got a hit there mate' & however many points for an elimination are added to the oppositions scoresheet. Now, the 'marked' player could've played for a considerable amount of time & maybe had a big impact on the game, so it would be just deserves if you penalised them 5 points for losing a player instead of just 1. You could even go as far to say that because the mark was in a self check zone you can 1-4-1 AND give the 5 penalty points. That way you'd be giving the opposition, say, 6 points (3 for each elimination) & -2 (2 dead players) + -5 (penalty points) = -7 points for the offending team.

I know it's not total justice for the losing team but would make me feel better in the position of a losing team.

 

[toecutter]

1.4.1 all the way.... instant justice

 

[ascutt]

Hmm, wrong

Barbie. if players are hit at the end of the game, 1-4-1 etc can still be applied and if there are not enough live players to complete the 1-4-1 then the result swings to the other team.

I am with Chicago on this, the rules (1-4-1 etc) are right and all it takes is strong judges to enforce it. I judged 80% of the Millenniums this year and made my judging teams be strict and strong with everyone. I berated them when they didn't pull 1-4-1's and I think most teams that played 2004 will agree that the judging in 2004 was way better. Now the Millennium is moving to Pro Judges I hope to see that judging strength grow as we get more repected and known Pro judges on the scene.

 

[stongle]

And where is Russ?

This thread was for him to put the pro's for penalty points.

Off to buy a cricket box?

 

[SiXplicit]

Hmm, wrong

Originally posted by ascutt
Barbie. if players are hit at the end of the game, 1-4-1 etc can still be applied and if there are not enough live players to complete the 1-4-1 then the result swings to the other team.

Yes, and that's all good, but where there are more than enough players when the 1-4-1 is enforced after a game, the losing team will pick up 6 points for 2 eliminations (I think that's what it is!) which ok, is better than a kick in the proverbials, but the winning team, bearing in mind the player with the hit could have had a large impact on the game, only lose 2 points, 1 for the dead player & 1 for the 1-4-1'd player. 2 points isn't going to make people think, hold on a moment, we lost 2 points there, better not do that again!!!

Scutty, I am totally in agreeance with you when it comes to Millenniums. The judging is 99% of the time spot on, and having played several games on your field in Germany last year, I'm not gonna kiss your arse but I will say I have never had any complaints & you do an excellent job! However, this is expected at Millenniums. Where the problems seem to lie are in the smaller domestic leagues where people know the standard of judging (and this is with no disrespect to any judges out there as I know everyone does the best job they can) is such that it gives the opportunity to, dare I say it, cheat more!

 

[Russell Smith]

Hmm, wrong

Originally posted by ascutt
I judged 80% of the Millenniums this year and made my judging teams be strict and strong with everyone. I berated them when they didn't pull 1-4-1's

Sorry everyone I meant to come on here a few days ago but The Blues won and the Reds lost and I was in not going to come on when all it was, was a blues fest .

Anyhow back to the topic in hand.
Thanks first to Andy for giving me a quote to work with.
Right honest cards on the table,

141s work it is the better system. If you have the staff to do it, and that is very sadly lacking.
141s are far better for the organisers its easy, the refs will either do it or not do it.
We have tested both and the same offence was given no penalty its part of the game/ 141/241/ and one thought about 341 but would have gave a 141.
and that is the problem. there is no common element on the field, in the same offence we asked how many penalty points they should be given and there was a difference in that as well most going for 50 penalty points some going for 25 and the same one who thought it was part of the game still did but the thing with penalty points is that only the most experienced guy on the field gives out the penalty points (The Ultimate) so we believe it brings some level of consistency and if they (The players)think they have been hard done by they can appeal to the tournament Ultimate, And that puts in another level of consistency in the tournement itself.
Another reason why 141s are better is when the tournament Ultimate is weak and changes decisions unfairly on appeal. it takes them out of the loop and lets the team who did wrong get punished, or does it .

At the world cup I was talking to some very experienced euro refs and they was braging about how many penaltys they had given the pros.
One bragging that he gave an high level team(top four) a five minute major because he asked for a check.
Now that is a dicks atitude and the wrong way to ref, and he was supposed to be one of the best, whats the rest of you going to get.
And back to Andys quote, first of all let me say Andys a very good ref, Iv'e seen him but as he says above "I berated them when they didn't pull 141s" See thats why they dont work, in the above case they got away with it.
When we get a field full of great refs then 141 all the way until then the players deserve the best we can give them.


Russ