NZ v South Africa

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,682
Post Likes
1,768
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
While the first YC was a crock, he just needed to be careful after that.

Pulling off the elbow in the throat trick was just dumb on his part when he knew he was on a yellow.
 
Last edited:

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
While the first YC was a crock, he just needed to be careful after that.

Pulling off the elbow in the throat trick was just dumb on his part when he knew he was on a yellow.
This.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Via the IRB, surely. Otherwise 6.A.4(a) is undermined.
The IRB is entitled to say that the referee made a mistake. Law 6.A.4 (a) only applies during the match.
 

Jacko


Argentina Referees in Argentina
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,514
Post Likes
79
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
Do they normally do this?? I can remember various mistakes being made, some being high profile and don't recall there being a statement like this released.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,682
Post Likes
1,768
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Do they normally do this?? I can remember various mistakes being made, some being high profile and don't recall there being a statement like this released.

Paddy did, and got told off?

However, there have been others, the most recent being their statement over the substitution cock-up last year in the South Africa v Australia match, where the entire TO3 plus the 4th official conspired to make a complete meal of the issue...


http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2063781.html

[rant]
Interesting that the iRB seem to have changed their tune when it comes to publicly acknowledging referee errors. Its not hard to understand where that started! They should now retrospectively apologise to Paddy for the way they treated him and acknowledge that he was right to do what he did. But they won't.

At least one thing Paddy can be proud of is that he changed the mindset at the iRB, opening the "closed shop" attitude that prevailed where referees were declared to be never wrong and were never rebuked publicly. We all know that referees were (and are) thoroughly reviewed and privately reprimanded when they made bad mistakes, but that process needed to have a public outlet, and with his open criticism of Stuart Dickinson, Paddy made sure that it got one.
[/rant]
 

JP_Rocks


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
60
Post Likes
7
Playing a little bit of devils advocate here- Bismark was stationary when being tackled by an opponent, and Messam was the second man in to tackle him. He raises his arm in defence of himself/the ball, and this then makes contact with Messam's throat. The contact was caused partly by him raising his arm, and partly by Messam coming into the tackle in such an upright fashion.

If you think Bismark did this deliberately to try and hurt Messam? If so, then YC fine.

If you think Bismark did this recklessly, and as a result, caused undue danger to Messam? If so, then YC fine, if somewhat marginal.

However, I think one could suggest that Bismark's action was one that would occur many, many numbers of through the course of any game, and that attention was only drawn to it because Messam went down hurt. If the contact had been cetimetres to the left or right, there likely would have been no harm done, and none of us would even be aware of it. This isn't tiddlywinks, it is a brutal sport, and guys will take unintentional knocks sometimes that cause them damage.

Expanding upon this, have a look at the replay of Sam Caine's try (sadly, we dont have access to youtube here at work). After he has grounded it, Tony Woodcock dives into the pile to held drive him forward, however, in doing so, his first contact with the pile is striking Morne Steyn's head/shoulder with his shoulder (think a standard Bakkie's Botha cheap shot). I dont think Woodcock had any intention of hurting Steyn, and thankfully Morne bounced off and up quickly. However, if he had stayed down, we could have seen a similar TMO intervention as above resulting in Woodcock getting binned for an action that goes unobserved and unpunished the vast majority of the time.

Bottom line is that the YC for Bismark was ultimately correct within the laws of the game. He raised his arm and contacted a player in a sensitive area= dangerous play. But going back to Lyndon's comments in his article about 'accuracy v relevancy', was the second YC truly relevant, especially to those of us who knew the first YC was a crock?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,682
Post Likes
1,768
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Bottom line is that the YC for Bismark was ultimately correct within the laws of the game. He raised his arm and contacted a player in a sensitive area= dangerous play. But going back to Lyndon's comments in his article about 'accuracy v relevancy', was the second YC truly relevant, especially to those of us who knew the first YC was a crock?

Well I think the whole idea of issuing a RC for a second YC is flawed anyway. Players can an do end up being YC for pretty lame reasons. See Drew Mitchell's RC for throwing the ball away v Australia a couple of years back. Both YC he got were probably deserved, but together, did they really warrant a team playing a man down?


I'd like to see the Foul Play laws separated into three distinct categories.

1. Dangerous Play: Acts of foul play that are likely to cause injury to other players, e.g. punching, striking, kicking. Late, early, high and no-arms tackles etc.

2. Misconduct: Acts of foul play that bring the game into disrepute, e.g. referee abuse verbal and physical, player abuse, hair pulling etc

3. Unfair Play: Acts of foul play in which the player intentionally infringes of the Laws (other than Dangerous Play Laws) to gain an unfair advantage, such as throwing the ball away in touch, intentional knock on or knock into touch etc.

Why should a dangerous tackle carry the same in-match punishment as a a deliberate knock-on? IMO, a player should only get a RC for a second YC if both are in either 1 or 2 above.
 

winchesterref


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,014
Post Likes
197
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
If someone keeps flouting the laws what better punishment than to remove them from the pitch? Having been on a yellow already, for DM to then throw the ball away is stupid and as you say on the last page, he should have been more careful!
 

Account Deleted

Facebook Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,089
Post Likes
1
If someone keeps flouting the laws what better punishment than to remove them from the pitch? Having been on a yellow already, for DM to then throw the ball away is stupid and as you say on the last page, he should have been more careful!

Agreed. Repeated offending shows a disregard to the laws ans principles of the game.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
Why should a dangerous tackle carry the same in-match punishment as a a deliberate knock-on? IMO, a player should only get a RC for a second YC if both are in either 1 or 2 above.
I don't go with that - the sly professional foul or "minor cheat" is a cancer that brings the game into disrepute, and for that reason alone it needs to be dealt with firmly. But I do think there's a case for excluding Team Repeat Offending from the double-yellow peril. Imagine a player earns a YC in the 2nd minute, but then displays exemplary behaviour for the rest of the game. Meanwhile, his team mates are under the cosh and engage in repeat offending to slow down their oppo, incurring the displeasure of, adn a warning from, the referee. In the 65th minute, our hero goes off his feet for the first time in the game. YC for Team Repeat Offending; RC to him. The ref has a choice; treat his offence differently to that of anyone else; or get pilloried for carrying out the consequences of his warning. Neither is good. I'd prefer a different coloured card for team repeat offending - thoughb I'm happy if Our Hero gets his second YC for personal repeat offending.
 

Robert Burns

, Referees in Canada, RugbyRefs.com Webmaster
Staff member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
9,650
Post Likes
7
From Twitter:

@SanzarTRC: The red card shown to Bismarck du Plessis was rescinded at a Judicial Hearing on Monday. Full details here: http://t.co/jIn3b60FRd #TRC2013
 

Red Cap Ref

Getting to know the game
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
29
Post Likes
11
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Ref always has the option for team repeat of yellow for the captain in this instance surely?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Ref always has the option for team repeat of yellow for the captain in this instance surely?
No. You cannot (correctly*) penalise a player who has not committed an offence.

* caveat to cover the BDP case.
 

Loïc


Referees in Finland
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
78
Post Likes
10
So if I sum up :

- According to Wales, Alain Rolland should stop
- According to NZ, Wayne Barnes should stop
- According to Frenchies, Craig Joubert should stop
- According to SA, Romain Poite should stop

Damn, being a top ref is hard :knuppel2:
 

dave_clark


Referees in England
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,647
Post Likes
104
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
it makes me chuckle when "fans" say things like:

- why are top referees allowed to get away with sub-par performances, why are they allowed to continue without sanction?
- the standard isn't good enough, we need to find better refs.
- why don't we sack the top refs and promote the next batch to that level, surely they can't be any worse.

funny how they go quiet when asked whether they want to step up and take the whistle!
 
Top