- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Yes, folks, its true...
http://www.allblacks.com/News/32583/benjamin-fall-red-card-hearing-outcome
"The Independent Judicial Committee found:
“As demonstrated in the video footage, the Player, at all times, had his eyes on the ball whilst it was in the air, which showed, in our opinion, a clear intention, on the part of the Player, that he intended to contest it. From the moment the ball leaves France #10’s boot the Player is observed running a line at pace to a position which he believes will put him in the best possible position to catch it. The line that the Player is running is then altered by his collision with NZ #13. This collision then causes the Player to lose his balance, stumble and be propelled or pushed towards the path of NZ #10. By reason of those matters the Player’s attempt to contest the ball was compromised. In our opinion, the direct and proximate cause for that outcome was the result of the Player’s collision with NZ #13. As a result of his collision with NZ #13 the Player was denied the time (less than 1 second) and the space to put himself in a position to avoid a collision with NZ #10 or to contest the ball as he had initially planned.
“Whilst it is unfortunate that NZ #10 sustained a concussion after landing on his head, was removed from the match and is unlikely to be available for the third Test match we did not consider that the Player’s actions, in the circumstances of this case, were deliberate or reckless. In our opinion, as supported by all the video footage, the Player’s actions were accidental as they were brought about by his collision with NZ #13, the effect of which changed his initial running line thereby pushing him towards NZ #10. We did not consider that the Player would have foreseen the events, which ultimately unfolded, and therefore could not have, in our opinion, given the speed of the events and the dynamics at play, taken any preventative steps to avoid the collision with NZ #10 or to have put himself in a position to contest the ball as he had initially planned.
“Therefore, having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Judicial Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the referee’s decision to issue the red card was wrong. In reaching that conclusion, it is important to record, that no criticism is made of the referee nor, in our opinion, would any be warranted. Unlike the referee we had the benefit of all the video footage, which showed various angles of the incident. Unlike the referee we had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident. In contrast, the referee was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes in the full gaze of the public and without the benefit of all the relevant material.
“Accordingly, the red card is dismissed and the Player is free to resume playing rugby immediately. We direct World Rugby to expunge the Ordering Off (red card) from the Player’s disciplinary record.”
http://www.allblacks.com/News/32583/benjamin-fall-red-card-hearing-outcome
"The Independent Judicial Committee found:
“As demonstrated in the video footage, the Player, at all times, had his eyes on the ball whilst it was in the air, which showed, in our opinion, a clear intention, on the part of the Player, that he intended to contest it. From the moment the ball leaves France #10’s boot the Player is observed running a line at pace to a position which he believes will put him in the best possible position to catch it. The line that the Player is running is then altered by his collision with NZ #13. This collision then causes the Player to lose his balance, stumble and be propelled or pushed towards the path of NZ #10. By reason of those matters the Player’s attempt to contest the ball was compromised. In our opinion, the direct and proximate cause for that outcome was the result of the Player’s collision with NZ #13. As a result of his collision with NZ #13 the Player was denied the time (less than 1 second) and the space to put himself in a position to avoid a collision with NZ #10 or to contest the ball as he had initially planned.
“Whilst it is unfortunate that NZ #10 sustained a concussion after landing on his head, was removed from the match and is unlikely to be available for the third Test match we did not consider that the Player’s actions, in the circumstances of this case, were deliberate or reckless. In our opinion, as supported by all the video footage, the Player’s actions were accidental as they were brought about by his collision with NZ #13, the effect of which changed his initial running line thereby pushing him towards NZ #10. We did not consider that the Player would have foreseen the events, which ultimately unfolded, and therefore could not have, in our opinion, given the speed of the events and the dynamics at play, taken any preventative steps to avoid the collision with NZ #10 or to have put himself in a position to contest the ball as he had initially planned.
“Therefore, having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Judicial Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the referee’s decision to issue the red card was wrong. In reaching that conclusion, it is important to record, that no criticism is made of the referee nor, in our opinion, would any be warranted. Unlike the referee we had the benefit of all the video footage, which showed various angles of the incident. Unlike the referee we had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident. In contrast, the referee was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes in the full gaze of the public and without the benefit of all the relevant material.
“Accordingly, the red card is dismissed and the Player is free to resume playing rugby immediately. We direct World Rugby to expunge the Ordering Off (red card) from the Player’s disciplinary record.”
The represents a MASSIVE backpedal. Take everything you have been told about these issues ..
1. intent is not taken into account.
2. that the player had his eyes on the ball is irrelevant
3. the issue is to be judged on outcome
...and throw it out the window. None of this applies any more
The burning question now is, will WR appeal?
ETA: IMO, the judiciary has shown a whole shitload of commonsense here, much of it exactly what some of us critics of the Law have been saying ever since the Dan Biggar v Finn Russell incident.
Last edited:
