2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

[Dickie E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhFaVdzH_Hw

2 incidents that hopefully will be reviewed by citing officer.

1. in the 50th minute, Gold #10 suffers an eye injury which may have been foul play by Green #16 (or is it 18?)

2. in the 79th minute, direct contact to head by Green #21. Earned himself a yellow but with no mitigation that I could see, was that the right colour card?

 

[Ian_Cook]

1st incident: Hard to tell what happened without a better angle. From Gold 10's reaction and that of the medical staffer, he had obviously suffered some sort of eye-injury.

2nd incident: Straight RC for mine. Leading with shoulder into Gold's head. No mitigation - it was premeditated. Green 21 lined him up and ploughed into him. What surprised me about this was how hard the TMO had to work to convince the referee this was even PK at all despite the fact there were at least two angles that clearly showed direct contact to the head, with force.

Actually I didn't think much of this referee at all. Not a patch on Luke Pearce from last week.

 

[Dickie E]

this is a still for incident #1. While I appreciate stills can be deceiving, certainly worth a look by the blazers



Noting too that this contact wasn't just an incidental part of a tackle. The Green player came back to make this contact intentionally

 

[Balones]

Both RC for me.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Second one clear red, 1st one could be red but can't see that being taken any further. nothing clear and obvious.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

1st worth a look.

Second RED 100%

 

[tim White]

Both Red for me -tell me where the doubt is!

 

[Dixpat]

1st incident: Hard to tell what happened without a better angle. From Gold 10's reaction and that of the medical staffer, he had obviously suffered some sort of eye-injury.

2nd incident: Straight RC for mine. Leading with shoulder into Gold's head. No mitigation - it was premeditated. Green 21 lined him up and ploughed into him. What surprised me about this was how hard the TMO had to work to convince the referee this was even PK at all despite the fact there were at least two angles that clearly showed direct contact to the head, with force.

Actually I didn't think much of this referee at all. Not a patch on Luke Pearce from last week.

Also the TMO had to talk hard to the ref to make him change his red card decision in respect of the Gold head contact in an early incident

 

[SimonSmith]

I was yelling at the tv for the second incident and just couldn't understand their rationale.

The unkind bit of my persona wondered if there was hangover from the Swinton yellow; I felt that was an orange, and wonder if Carley was equating the two.

 

[Dickie E]

I reckon with 90 seconds to go and the game not in doubt, Carley just wanted to get out of there with no controversy and get onto the XXXX.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Weise has been cited for the second incident

https://www.theroar.com.au/rugby-un...e-cited-for-kerevi-clear-out-shocker-1152955/

Still can't believe that the referee even needed encouragement to consider a card

 

[Dickie E]

Interestingly they're using 9:12

[LAWS]A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking. [/LAWS]

and not (as I would have expected) 9.20(a)

[LAWS]A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul. [/LAWS]

 

[SimonSmith]

I reckon with 90 seconds to go and the game not in doubt, Carley just wanted to get out of there with no controversy and get onto the XXXX.

Christ. At least around here they give us Great Northern...

 

[UpandUnder]

Interestingly they're using 9:12

[LAWS]A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking. [/LAWS]

and not (as I would have expected) 9.20(a)

[LAWS]A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul. [/LAWS]

I would say because it's easier to get a result with 9.12, no need to get into the specifics if it was still a ruck and if the action was actually charging.
Striking with the should here is clear and obvious.

I'm not one for refs being stood down etc but I'm beginning to see where fans are coming from when they call for consequences for bad refereeing decisions. It was as plain as day RC and the TMO had to stick to his guns to even get a PK. Carly has been derelict in his duty in not giving a RC for it and more so he was willing negligent by going outside WR Protocol and obviously trying to avoid giving a RC

 

[Dickie E]

I'm not one for refs being stood down etc but I'm beginning to see where fans are coming from when they call for consequences for bad refereeing decisions. It was as plain as day RC and the TMO had to stick to his guns to even get a PK. Carly has been derelict in his duty in not giving a RC for it and more so he was willing negligent by going outside WR Protocol and obviously trying to avoid giving a RC

which is interesting because he was quite ready to give Swinton a RC until the TMO talked him out of it

 

[Ian_Cook]

Interestingly they're using 9:12

[LAWS]A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking. [/LAWS]

and not (as I would have expected) 9.20(a)

[LAWS]A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul. [/LAWS]

Hmmm...

Law 9.20(a) LE – 2 weeks, MR – 5 weeks, TE – 10+ weeks max 52 weeks

but

Law 9.12 LE – 12 weeks, MR – 18 weeks, TE 24+ weeks Max 208 weeks

No that I'm suggesting anything here :Zip:

 

[SimonSmith]

which is interesting because he was quite ready to give Swinton a RC until the TMO talked him out of it

My take was TMO talking him up to a red card, then suddenly realizing that was a bit harsh and trying to walk him back from the ledge that he put him on.
Pearce would have handled that differently.

 

[UpandUnder]

My take was TMO talking him up to a red card, then suddenly realizing that was a bit harsh and trying to walk him back from the ledge that he put him on.
Pearce would have handled that differently.

I got the impression that BC copped that Carley didn't want to go RC and wound it back so as not to have an embarrassing episode play out on live TV

 

[Dickie E]

Jasper has been cleared

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/wiese-cleared-to-play/

 

[Ian_Cook]

Jasper has been cleared

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/wiese-cleared-to-play/

"Whilst the Australian player was vulnerable, the contact with the head was not intentional or highly reckless. Wiese was shown to be grabbing for the ball rather than targeting the head of the Australian player. The low force, modest speed, indirect contact and the turning motion used by Weise, meant that the situation was not a highly dangerous one [when compared to the World Rugby examples]."

What was that you said in the "horrible tackle" thread about "intention based decision making" Dickie?Here's one that went through the head contact protocols, and yet they still took intent into account!