Thought this was going to be cut down on?

winchesterref


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,014
Post Likes
197
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
More disgraceful conduct from PP. Quelle surprise.
 

Rushforth


Referees in Holland
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,300
Post Likes
92
According to the commentators at around 2:10 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOam_DtGesk&t=129 - 'contacte proche des yeux'.

For those of you that can't understand French: https://translate.google.com/#fr/en/'contacte proche des yeux' - 'Contact close to the eyes'.

I don't know what had gone on before, and the video is of relatively low quality, but according to http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resour...ok/EN/pubData/source/files/Regulation17_1.pdf the ENTRY LEVEL sanction for contact with the eyes is 12 weeks, with a maximum sanction all the way up there at 208 weeks.
 

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
French Speaking Alert
The commentators are wondering if the ref want to see if Black twelve had any contact close to the eyes for assessing a possible Red Card.

Loved the way the TMO tried to talked him out of the Red and tried to talked him into looking at Pape's behaviour.
No to avail!...

If Pape gets a YC out of that. I have no issue.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Both players should have been carded.
 

ianh5979


Referees in England
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
468
Post Likes
59
I thought we had a directive about simulation, looked like he made a meal of very light contact
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I thought we had a directive about simulation, looked like he made a meal of very light contact

but as always the Law doesn't really say what they probably wanted it to say - the Law doesn't actually penalise exageration

[LAWS]10.4 (d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

but of course in this case he WAS subject to an act of foul play - and RC given for it.

Yes he made a meal of it, but he didn't make up an imaginary offence

(I think this Law was very poorly worded!)
 

Rushforth


Referees in Holland
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,300
Post Likes
92
A slightly better video feed (and full game) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imAVynsRPt8&feature=youtu.be&t=4139

It has English-language commentary, insisting that "he's absolutely made the most of it", but this is not the TMO.

The video still shows the initial contact being in the eye area, and also with quite enough force to displace the head by a headswidth before any kind of deliberate reaction can be expected, as opposed to reflex.

Let me set a simple scenario. Under 15 game, you are not the ref. Black slaps White in the face, White goes down like a sack of bricks. The ref comes over to you, wants to confirm whether or not the strike connected. You are in fact the coach of Black, and know that the strike did connect. Do you say "yes, the strike connected" or "it was just a slap, nothing in it really mate, actually it may not even have connected, white is having a bit of a larf, in'e"?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
it wasn't a very forceful slap but, let's face it, if a slap like that DID happen catch you in right in the eye, anyone might go down...
 

Drift


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
1,846
Post Likes
114
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
It has English-language commentary, insisting that "he's absolutely made the most of it", but this is not the TMO.

That's on both versions, it's the TMO.
 

Rushforth


Referees in Holland
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,300
Post Likes
92
That's on both versions, it's the TMO.

You are of course absolutely right about that.

For some reason I convinced myself that the TMO wouldn't have been blaming the victim.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Let me set a simple scenario. Under 15 game, you are not the ref. Black slaps White in the face, White goes down like a sack of bricks. The ref comes over to you, wants to confirm whether or not the strike connected. You are in fact the coach of Black, and know that the strike did connect. Do you say "yes, the strike connected" or "it was just a slap, nothing in it really mate, actually it may not even have connected, white is having a bit of a larf, in'e"?



Why would the ref ask you? Would you are a ref ask the coach of a player you susspect of Foul Play to comment?

However, to answer your question, most coaches would, I suspect, claim to have seen nothing.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
A slightly better video feed (and full game) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imAVynsRPt8&feature=youtu.be&t=4139

Let me set a simple scenario. Under 15 game, you are not the ref. Black slaps White in the face, White goes down like a sack of bricks. The ref comes over to you, wants to confirm whether or not the strike connected. You are in fact the coach of Black, and know that the strike did connect. Do you say "yes, the strike connected" or "it was just a slap, nothing in it really mate, actually it may not even have connected, white is having a bit of a larf, in'e"?

In england the ref wouldn't be asking the question of the coach. for what that's worth.

In another thread we are discussing swings and misses and "thems the rules". Well this ref/tmo chat talks about a "directive" so maybe them's the rules?!

That aside -

RC for the slap - fair enough.

More interesting is that the tmo makes a point about the recipient making a meal of it at least twice and the ref totally ignores it. however, as previously mentioned this seems redundant given that the actual slap was C&O.

neither of the ref or TMO i noticed mentions anything about eye contact. They aren't even considering it.
I'm not even sure what eye contact they are on about in the commentary ... white on black (hence retaliation) or black 12's slap getting close to white's eyes?

didds

didds
 
Last edited:

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
but as always the Law doesn't really say what they probably wanted it to say - the Law doesn't actually penalise exageration

[LAWS]10.4 (d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

but of course in this case he WAS subject to an act of foul play - and RC given for it.

Yes he made a meal of it, but he didn't make up an imaginary offence

(I think this Law was very poorly worded!)

You can always use 10.4(m). In fact, I think the law you've quoted is somewhat superfluous.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
either way - I think that once you RC a player for striking an opponent in the head, it's hard to then penalise the victim for grossly over-reacting.

Or, if you do, you are rather undermining the validity of the RC
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
either way - I think that once you RC a player for striking an opponent in the head, it's hard to then penalise the victim for grossly over-reacting.

Or, if you do, you are rather undermining the validity of the RC
A gutsy call would be to issue the RC and reverse the penalty!
 

winchesterref


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,014
Post Likes
197
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Could have managed situation with 2 x YCs here, but RC understandable.
 

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
but as always the Law doesn't really say what they probably wanted it to say - the Law doesn't actually penalise exageration

[LAWS]10.4 (d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

but of course in this case he WAS subject to an act of foul play - and RC given for it.

Yes he made a meal of it, but he didn't make up an imaginary offence

(I think this Law was very poorly worded!)

consider different from believe
As such, the law covers faking, exaggerating and even the "Ref, he's not rolling away on purpose" when it's absolutely true.
And I agree with you: that law is horribly worded (what's new).

You can always use 10.4(m). In fact, I think the law you've quoted is somewhat superfluous.
Exactly!
And so could you before that new, confusing (and rather useless) law was introduced.

either way - I think that once you RC a player for striking an opponent in the head, it's hard to then penalise the victim for grossly over-reacting.

Or, if you do, you are rather undermining the validity of the RC
I disagree with that.
Giving two RC for: "a punch in the face by Red followed by a retaliating punch in the face by Blue" does not undermine the first punch, does it?

IMO it's actually the exact opposite: if you do not deal with the exaggeration, everyone believe you got influenced by the dive.

If you deal with it, everyone knows you made your now decision. Twice. One for each incident:
Punch/slap in the face --> RC, YC, contextual decision or guided by Union directives...
Soccerish Behaviours --> RC, YC, PK, a word...

Honestly, if in that situation, the ref doesn't even have a word with Pape, I reckon he missed something.

A gutsy call would be to issue the RC and reverse the penalty!
Gutsy, but I believe it would be the perfect decision.


At the end of the day, a punch has no place in our game, but it has always happen and it will always happen: particularly as a reaction to something.
We will deal with it when it happens.

What we need to eradicate from the game (IMHO) is the intentional c**p that creeps at all levels.
Being that unsolicited slap (Black 12 confesses it to the ref on the video) or someone faking or exaggerating as if he/she was playing for an Italian soccer team...

I hope at least Paper got a proper fine at the after game dinner!

Cheers,
Pierre.
 
Top