Anthony Watson RC

[Ricardowensleydale]

I think it was Ashton who stopped it being a fair challenge

Not only wasn't it a fair challenge it wasn't a challenge of any kind. He didn't challenge for the ball, he was barged into the path of the opposing player.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

From Law Application Guidelines
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=8

Enforcement of Current Law
May 2015

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

I had high-ball FB/Winger/FB challenge for the ball on Saturday. Blue FB running forward ran and jumped to collect ball and collided with Red winger and FB who had also jumped for the ball. Blue FB was higher but because of he two oppos challenging didn't manage to hang on to ball and Blue FB knocked on and landed on his front. I awarded PK only. I was concerned that Blue were less than satisfied with PK only with mumble mumble Anthony Waston mumble mumble Red Card going on behind me as I stood with my arm up.

At the time I hadn't seen the AW RC incident but I was happy with my call.

The incident got me thinking though. Would it be feasible/reasonable to YC or RC more than one player for 10.4(i) offence

 

[DocY]

The incident got me thinking though. Would it be feasible/reasonable to YC or RC more than one player for 10.4(i) offence

I'd say so - a spear tackle where two players each have one leg, for example.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see the (i) on first reading. Maybe when two players each grab a jumpers leg?

 

[TheBFG]

As an ex Bath man I was unhappy with GG generally, but I don't think he had an option with the RC, but agree with all the others that said CA should have gone for 10mins, Big no no for a ref, don't say you're going to do something then not follow it through!

So CA for the push on AW, Kruis for his reaction to Cook after the harsh YC (think the tackled player right foot flying up in the air made it look worse). Oh and why I'm at it...... need to check the wording on this one, but just before HT Mako gives another PK at scrum and I'm sure GG says something like "that's his 3rd PK if he give another it'll be a YC" 1st PK of the second half, Mako not rolling away at the tackle?

Now GG could have been talking about "another PK at the scrum", but still that was his 3rd/4th PK, talk about losing credibility!

 

[The Fat]

Not only wasn't it a fair challenge it wasn't a challenge of any kind. He didn't challenge for the ball, he was barged into the path of the opposing player.

Ashton does not barge anybody. He starts off by running a legitimate line to get back to support his team mate (AKA The Catcher). IMO he sees Watson late and if anything, checks his run (but does not alter his running line) and braces for Watson to crash into him. Obstruction? quite possibly but at no stage does he barge, push, propel or in any other way force Watson into and under the catcher. Possibly a PK against Ashton, a YC at an absolute stretch but the restart should have been and indeed was for the RC offence by Watson.
It may not sit well with some or many, but Garner got it right.

PS:
Ashton is one of my least favourite players and I am not a Sarries supporter.

 

[RobLev]

Ashton does not barge anybody. He starts off by running a legitimate line to get back to support his team mate (AKA The Catcher).

How does he propose to "support" his team-mate from an offside position - other than, of course, by obstructing opposition players trying to get to him?

IMO he sees Watson late

Disagree again; he looks straight at him well before the collision...

and if anything, checks his run (but does not alter his running line) and braces for Watson to crash into him.

..and moves to force a collision.

Obstruction? quite possibly but at no stage does he barge, push, propel or in any other way force Watson into and under the catcher.

Here we can agree: he merely moves into him as he goes past so that by the time he gets to the catcher he is off balance and unable to take off.

Possibly a PK against Ashton, a YC at an absolute stretch but the restart should have been and indeed was for the RC offence by Watson.
It may not sit well with some or many, but Garner got it right.

PS:
Ashton is one of my least favourite players and I am not a Sarries supporter.

Lack of partiality would never stop me getting it wrong :biggrin:

 

[didds]

just before HT Mako gives another PK at scrum and I'm sure GG says something like "that's his 3rd PK if he give another it'll be a YC" 1st PK of the second half, Mako not rolling away at the tackle?

presumably cos it was not a scrum offense which is what was really being discussed?

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

How does he propose to "support" his team-mate from an offside position - other than, of course, by obstructing opposition players trying to get to him?

Agree

he looks straight at him well before the collision...

..and moves to force a collision.

He merely moves into him as he goes past so that by the time he gets to the catcher he is off balance and unable to take off.

This is exactly how I see it too.

The test for me is similar to that which we apply at a PT; if Ashton is not there, does Watson simply run into Goode's legs? For mine, obviously not., He very likely jumps to contest for the ball, but in this case he is denied that opportunity by the illegal actions of Ashton, who intentionally obstructs and makes deliberate contact with him and all from an offside position.

 

[DocY]

I've only seen a short reply of the incident - did the referee go to the TMO? To me, on first viewing I'd have said a RC, but after replaying it I'm not so sure.

 

[TheBFG]

presumably cos it was not a scrum offense which is what was really being discussed?

didds

Which was why I said, "need to check the wording on this". He probably meant at the scrum, but I'm not sure that's what he said?

 

[TheBFG]

Yes he did, initial thoughts were that the TMO was trying to edge him towards a lesser sanction, but after the TMO said he landed on his shoulder, there was no option

 

[irishref]

My tuppence worth is that Ashton runs a blocking line to impede Watson, who then is forced into the airborne player.

I hope the red is rescinded during the hearing.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

Ashton does not barge anybody. He starts off by running a legitimate line to get back to support his team mate (AKA The Catcher). IMO he sees Watson late and if anything, checks his run (but does not alter his running line) and braces for Watson to crash into him. Obstruction? quite possibly but at no stage does he barge, push, propel or in any other way force Watson into and under the catcher.

He altered his run to collide with Watson.

 

[OB..]

Ashton ran across in front of Watson from right to left ie between Watson and the catcher. To support Goode he might just as well have stayed to the right, after all he has to get behind him before he can support and that is a shorter line. I think he chose a line which would in fact obstruct hoping it would look legitimate.

I think Watson might actually have been in the air when he came into contact with Ashton, but he certainly stumbled. The question in his case is whether or not he used the stumble as an excuse to run into Goode, or had no realistic time to recover and avoid contact.

Whatever happens to Watson, Ashton was lucky.

 

[FatherFlipper]

Has there been any citing/punishment for this yet? Haven't seen anything in the usual places yet, considering Kruis and Wilson got nothing for their incidents.

And moreover, anything with regards to his toy-throwing after getting the red? Was there any sanction against Chris Cook for being just an all-round nob? Kinda feel sorry for GG, he could have been up all night writing reports for that game!

 

[Camquin]

Cited for the dangerous tackles and for an act contrary to good sportsmanship for the language used afterwards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/36018364

 

[TheBFG]

2 weeks :wow:

People thoughts on that?

Apparently it was agreed that a different outcome could have been given for the "tackle"?

However the verbal he aimed at the 4th, is just not on, players will be diving next to get players sent off!!!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

2 weeks :wow:

People thoughts on that?

Apparently it was agreed that a different outcome could have been given for the "tackle"?

However the verbal he aimed at the 4th, is just not on, players will be diving next to get players sent off!!!!

The RC was a crock of shite, but I'm probably among the few who think that.

IMO, Ashton was more culpable for what happened than Watson. If Ashton doesn't infringe, Watson doesn't run into Goode's legs... its that simple!

 

[crossref]

isn't it another fudge. I am guessing that the panel agreed with him that he didn't really deserve a RC, and then because of that that they felt that his subsequent outburst was somehow more excusable.

the guardian says

He did not challenge the red card when he faced the panel and admitted using offensive language to the fourth official.

He faced an eight-week ban in total under World Rugby’s sanction guidelines but received one week on each count.

His guilty plea would have been taken into account, together with his previously good disciplinary record and apology.

The short statement released by the Rugby Football Union after the hearing did not explain how the panel decided the length of Watson’s suspension.

The panel’s written judgment will be made available in the coming days.

 

[RobLev]

The RC was a crock of shite, but I'm probably among the few who think that.

IMO, Ashton was more culpable for what happened than Watson. If Ashton doesn't infringe, Watson doesn't run into Goode's legs... its that simple!

You are definitely not alone.

It was contact with Alex Goode that got Jared Payne into bother, of course...