6.4.1.10. No harm, no foul—In the case of a minor offense that
has not given either team an advantage, a referee may decide “no
harm, no foul” and may choose to verbally warn players about a
potential infraction rather than calling a foul.
United States Quidditch Rulebook 9
No harm, no foul is there to give referees the discretion to let some fouls go in favour of letting the game flow. Evidently, the foul has to have no impact on the game (that's the no harm part), and the referee should also warn the player committing the foul so they don't do it again. Generally it will be in the quaffle game - as that is what the head referee should be focused on - so the quaffle-carrier should have been unimpeded by the foul: be it a tackle or otherwise. They should be able to continue play as if the foul had never happened and the player was not there; they should not have been disadvantaged by the foul. It is different to playing advantage however, as when you are playing advantage you are judging whether the team as a whole would be disadvantaged rather than the one player being affected - also you penalise the fouling player after advantage has played out.
One of the most common mistakes I see referees make with regards to NHNF is using it as an excuse when they are unsure on the call to make. If you did not see a situation clearly but feel there was a foul committed, it is always best to call for a brooms down and consult with the other referees on pitch - play advantage if you must, but unless there truly was no effect on the quaffle-carrier then there is no place for NHNF. Sometimes it may transpire that there was no foul occurred, but that's okay - it's always best to check. Every referee has stopped play for something which only ended up being a back to hoops offense occasionally. Equally, if you are not sure on the penalty for a foul, the answer is definitely not NHNF - all of them will be at least a back to hoops, and by definition NHNF would mean not calling any penalty and just giving a warning.
There have been many instances in games where my application - or lack of - NHNF has been questioned by players. Sometimes this is just down to players' belligerence, other times it is due to differing opinions on what constitutes a 'minor' foul. I don't believe that what I class as 'minor' should be the standard for all referees, though finding some internal consistency would be helpful. But I shall detail my own guidelines anyway, because this is my blog.
Probably the most frustrating contact rule to referee is contact from behind, or back tackles as they are more commonly known. The tackler is almost always convinced that they were way in front of the navel, whilst the tacklee is rarely not complaining about how obviously the person slammed into them from behind. Turns and spins just add complexity, but this post isn't about that. As a referee, if I see someone go in for a tackle which is technically from behind, but the person runs through barely being touched or slowed down by the contact (so the tackle barely exists), then I'm very much inclined to use NHNF. The only exception to this would be if the player being tackled had no awareness of the person making the tackle, in which case I would probably send them back to hoops because that is more dangerous. When the contact becomes from behind due to the player having an awareness and accelerating or spinning away, there is far likely to be no harm done.
A theme here, perhaps - attempted neck tackles or tackles below the knee will nearly always get at least a back to hoops from me along with the warning. This is because these are both dangerous; I know low tackles are legal in rugby, but they are not in quidditch and they are thus not expected so receivers wouldn't know how to safely fall. They are also both a lot less likely to be completely avoided with no consequence, especially if the player has to jump or duck significantly to avoid it. As per the rulebook, immediately adjusted illegal contact should be a back to hoops call. As I personally judge NHNF calls on how much they endanger the opposition in these cases, it would only be if the contact brushes insignificantly that I may only issue a warning.
Now I will admit that picks and the rules regarding them are not something I totally understand. However, picks between chasers/keepers and beaters won't ever be dismissed as NHNF for me, as for the pick to exist then it must be assumed to be successful. The player being picked may not have been moving at the time, but if the pick is there then their options are limited, thus the foul has been committed. Obviously a beater being picked by a chaser may be spotted by an assistant referee rather than the head referee, and then a delayed penalty will be called - assistants cannot call NHNF.
Later this year I hope to bring out a post on why referee signals are important for everyone to know, not just head referees - how many times have I shown the signal for 'keeper's ball' and then still seen people go in for the tackle? Too many, my friends, too many. If the keeper is unaffected by the tackle (as they are often the tallest person on a team, and the point chaser attempting the tackle much smaller) then I am likely to give a warning of 'keeper's ball' and then if the chaser backs off, use that as NHNF. However if the contact continues, or the keeper has been pushed backwards/had the quaffle obstructed/been taken down then I will be less likely to (read, won't) look kindly upon the tacklee. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse!
Other instances where I might not give cards include going a little outside of the soft boundary when the pitch is only marked out with cones - or when the pitch is marked out in red and the person in question is colourblind - and if as a head referee I see it, two beaters from one team calling for immunity at the same time and one immediately correcting it, with no disadvantage to the other team's beaters. Obviously no red card penalty can ever be 'minor', even if there is no harm seemingly done.
All of the above come with a stipulation - if I've warned you for it once and you do it again, I am going to be much more inclined to penalise you even if no harm was done. A warning should be just that; enough to dissuade you from doing the same thing again.
In the UK, there can be a tendency to overuse NHNF incorrectly. Often referees will use it as an excuse - if they are worried about pissing off a player, or if the player has already been given a yellow card and they don't want to send them off with a red. But there can also be a tendency to not use it enough, something I have certainly been guilty of in the past. Every foul needs a conscious, engaged decision: NHNF can be that decision, but it must be made with full concentration and full understanding of its meaning.
Probably the most frustrating contact rule to referee is contact from behind, or back tackles as they are more commonly known. The tackler is almost always convinced that they were way in front of the navel, whilst the tacklee is rarely not complaining about how obviously the person slammed into them from behind. Turns and spins just add complexity, but this post isn't about that. As a referee, if I see someone go in for a tackle which is technically from behind, but the person runs through barely being touched or slowed down by the contact (so the tackle barely exists), then I'm very much inclined to use NHNF. The only exception to this would be if the player being tackled had no awareness of the person making the tackle, in which case I would probably send them back to hoops because that is more dangerous. When the contact becomes from behind due to the player having an awareness and accelerating or spinning away, there is far likely to be no harm done.
A theme here, perhaps - attempted neck tackles or tackles below the knee will nearly always get at least a back to hoops from me along with the warning. This is because these are both dangerous; I know low tackles are legal in rugby, but they are not in quidditch and they are thus not expected so receivers wouldn't know how to safely fall. They are also both a lot less likely to be completely avoided with no consequence, especially if the player has to jump or duck significantly to avoid it. As per the rulebook, immediately adjusted illegal contact should be a back to hoops call. As I personally judge NHNF calls on how much they endanger the opposition in these cases, it would only be if the contact brushes insignificantly that I may only issue a warning.
Now I will admit that picks and the rules regarding them are not something I totally understand. However, picks between chasers/keepers and beaters won't ever be dismissed as NHNF for me, as for the pick to exist then it must be assumed to be successful. The player being picked may not have been moving at the time, but if the pick is there then their options are limited, thus the foul has been committed. Obviously a beater being picked by a chaser may be spotted by an assistant referee rather than the head referee, and then a delayed penalty will be called - assistants cannot call NHNF.
Later this year I hope to bring out a post on why referee signals are important for everyone to know, not just head referees - how many times have I shown the signal for 'keeper's ball' and then still seen people go in for the tackle? Too many, my friends, too many. If the keeper is unaffected by the tackle (as they are often the tallest person on a team, and the point chaser attempting the tackle much smaller) then I am likely to give a warning of 'keeper's ball' and then if the chaser backs off, use that as NHNF. However if the contact continues, or the keeper has been pushed backwards/had the quaffle obstructed/been taken down then I will be less likely to (read, won't) look kindly upon the tacklee. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse!
Other instances where I might not give cards include going a little outside of the soft boundary when the pitch is only marked out with cones - or when the pitch is marked out in red and the person in question is colourblind - and if as a head referee I see it, two beaters from one team calling for immunity at the same time and one immediately correcting it, with no disadvantage to the other team's beaters. Obviously no red card penalty can ever be 'minor', even if there is no harm seemingly done.
All of the above come with a stipulation - if I've warned you for it once and you do it again, I am going to be much more inclined to penalise you even if no harm was done. A warning should be just that; enough to dissuade you from doing the same thing again.
In the UK, there can be a tendency to overuse NHNF incorrectly. Often referees will use it as an excuse - if they are worried about pissing off a player, or if the player has already been given a yellow card and they don't want to send them off with a red. But there can also be a tendency to not use it enough, something I have certainly been guilty of in the past. Every foul needs a conscious, engaged decision: NHNF can be that decision, but it must be made with full concentration and full understanding of its meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment