First off, thanks again for this forum, there are always a few things I pick up when looking to see if my question has already been addressed!
This weekend we had some comments about non players participating in calls on the field. So our doubts resolve around Rules 1.8, 1.10, 1.11 and Interpretations 1.1 and 1.6. I apologize for the length, I've tried to divide the main questions into clear sections.
Rule 1.8. In the case where a novice player commits a breach out of ignorance of the rules, experienced players are obliged to explain the breach.
Rule 1.10. Rules should be interpreted by the players directly involved in the play, or by players who had the best perspective on the play. Non-players, apart from the captain, should refrain from getting involved. However players may seek the perspective of non-players to clarify the rules, and to assist players to make the appropriate call.
Rule 1.11. Players and captains are solely responsible for making all calls.
Int. 1.1 (Extra) Team captains and team mates should get involved if they think their team’s player is wrong or does not behave correctly.
Int. 1.6 (Rule 1.10) It is still up to the players involved to make the final call. Non players must not provide advice regarding a call unless they are requested to by the players involved.
The most basic question was, while Interpretation 1.6 says non players should not provide unsolicited advice, we understand that non players (or players on the field) ARE allowed to actively ask for clarification of the call, in order to echo the hand signals or understand what's happening (or how it affects their position). Is that correct?
Next, rules 1.10 and 1.11 both seem to imply that team captains can have a role in call resolution. Is that only in the case where the players involved request advice (as in interpretation 1.6)? Or can captains actively become involved to help clarify rules (from on or off the field, especially when Rule 1.8 may be invoked)?
More specifically to the situations at hand, Interpretation 1.1 at first glance seems to apply when your team's player makes a call that is wrong, but can it be applied when your team's player accepts an incorrect interpretation by the other team? Or is this on the player for not understanding or applying the rules correctly in the moment? At what point should a more experienced player feel obligated to explain the breach (Rule 1.8 )?
For example, a pick is called, and the defender recovers significantly more distance than they are entitled to, which the cutter doesn't contest as they didn't see the defender's position when the call was made. Can the cutter's teammates (on or off the field) advise her that she should have a larger advantage?
Or if a pick is called, and the marker announces that the stall will start on 8 (when rule 9.5.4 indicates that it should be on 6) and the thrower accepts, through ignorance of the rules or simply not catching the mistake in the heat of the moment. Can the thrower's teammates (on or off the field) actively advise him that the rule is not being applied correctly? Technically the player that is wrong is the marker, but the thrower is also wrong for accepting the incorrect stall count, so Interpretation 1.1 could possibly apply.
Finally, what are the responsibilities of the captain and experienced players to ensure that the rules are applied correctly (Rule 1.8 )? Can they actively become involved if they see their own team or the other team applying the rules incorrectly to their advantage, or is the only recourse to address it afterwards and apply a penalization in the spirit score?
For example, a pull lands out of bounds, and there are players on the sideline indicating where it left the field. The thrower ignores their indication and establishes a pivot foot 5m closer to her attacking end zone. Obviously, the marker (or another player on the field) should call travel. But if the marker isn't aware of the infraction, or the thrower begins play quickly and no one calls the travel, the rest of the team has no recourse, is that interpretation correct? The offending team can get a one-off advantage that may make a large difference in a close game, and it would only cost them 1 SOTG point?
Do Rule 1.8 and Interpretation 1.1 allow a captain or more experienced player to stop play at any point to explain the mistake being committed, or is the "obligation to explain the breach" supposed to be applied after play has finished?
Thanks for reading and any input!
Last edit: 1 month 6 days ago by Justino. Reason: Quote instead of code
Q2 Captains actively become involved to help resolve it (from on or off the field)
Q3 The cutter's teammates (on the field) can suggest that she should have a larger advantage.
The thrower's teammates (on the field) can actively advise him that the rule is not being applied correctly
Q4 People on the sideline should never stop play to try and correct a missed call.
The last follow up to Q2/Q3, would a captain off the field be right in suggesting a larger advantage after a pick or clarifying that the defender catches up instead of the cutter returning to the spot of the uncontested pick? Or should this be left to the involved players and players on the field, right or wrong?