I suspect that for the previous 100 years Jordie Barrat would have got a RC !
Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...
- Thread starter SimonSmith
- Start date
I suspect that for the previous 100 years Jordie Barrat would have got a RC !
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
This is the main issue for me.
If you charge at another player and clatter him at any other time in the game, you get penalised, but because you choose to jump, you magically get immunity, and the person you clatter gets to sit down for 10 minutes or more.
For mine, this wrong. It goes against everything the game is about.
Last edited:
So therefore Barrat SHOULD have been penalised
Arabcheif
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2018
- Messages
- 680
- Post Likes
- 74
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 1
In a word, No.
It used in rucks and mauls an when there's a jackler being cleared out.
Rich_NL
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,621
- Post Likes
- 499
No, it's all head contact.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Not an ice-cube's chance in hell.
Firstly, for the vast majority of the last 100+ years, there wasn't even any such thing as a red card.
Secondly, for the vast majority of the last 100+ years, player never jumped for kicks in general play, they stood their ground.
Lastly, for the vast majority of the last 100+ years, sendings off were very rare, and almost always for obvious and intentional acts of foul play (punches, stamping, bag-snatching, eye gouging, coathanger tackles etc).
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Yes and no!
As I have posted previousy, the current state of affairs where we have players being allowed to sprint at full speed, jump 3-6 metres recklessly into a crowd of players and be granted immunity for any damage they do, is a complete ****ing farce, and we have the idiocracy at WR to thank for it.
Last edited:
Flish
Referees in England
Not entirely, and I think we have this mentality because it does replace the old high tackle framework, however from the process doc;
"The Head Contact Process is a Law Application Guideline. Under 9.11, the referee is always entitled to issue a red or yellow card for anything deemed to be reckless orLAW 9 Foul play
dangerous. However, this process is intended to aid consistency in the application of
sanctions by providing guidance on how contact with the head should be approached by
REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
match officials and disciplinary personnel."
Specifically it mentions high tackles, but also shoulder charges, clean outs, leading arms, some of the red card recipients have been ball carriers and ruck engagements, so not just tacklers, or tackle situations, the victim of the head contact was a would be tackler. Does it apply? Not sure, I think the logic applies, and the end goal applies, and certainly doesn't say that it doesn't apply. It is the 'Head Contact Process' after all, and that happened.
Alternative approach, why wouldn't is apply?
Flish
Referees in England
Exactly, I've never understood this logic, luckily I've not had to make a call on this yet, but I struggle to penalise someone stood still on the ground that's being jumped on!
Flish
Referees in England
*shrug* can't comment, before my time in the middle, but in terms of mental processes, outcome is black and white, it's happened, I can process that backwards and come to a decision. I can't do that with intent as I can't judge it (being apologetic after the fact is not the same thing).
I can have sympathy, and empathy for the recipient of the card, but if they do a thing, that ends badly, then they need to take some responsibility for it, just like if they do a thing that *could* end badly, good chance they'll get punished for that too.
If I'm playing with my car stereo and mow someone over should I not be punished because I didn't mean it?
thepercy
Referees in America
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 923
- Post Likes
- 147
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 1
I think it is applied at rucks/tackle zone clear outs and for ball carriers that strike their opponents as well.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,094
- Post Likes
- 2,356
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
Thumbs up to that.
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,130
- Post Likes
- 2,151
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
no offence. Accidental
I don’t know how many we have on this forum but what does your average New Zealand referee think of this decision? Every referee I have spoken to here, including a professional referee, was rather surprised by the outcome. Community referees are certainly asking where does this leave them.
Arabcheif
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2018
- Messages
- 680
- Post Likes
- 74
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 1
So who made that decision? WR or SAANZAR? Does that mean all previous Red Cards for High Tackles, contact in the air when the player in the air lands on Head/neck and accidental head contact with a shoulder etc. should be rescinded because there was no intent? I really think that sets a dangerous precedent and supports the view of the ex players who are suing WR for head injuries sustained while playing. While I don't think he intended to kick it was definitely to discourage the incoming hit when he landed.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Missed seeing this earlier
Firstly, I would say that the blue card is completely unnecessary. Why not just signal with a tap on the side of the head like they do at elite level and in countries where they don't use the blue card.
Secondly, Black card was just a suggestion. You could show both the yellow and the red together, or not card at all. If a player commits such an egregious, intentional act of Foul Play play such as a clear and obvious punch or eye-gouge or head stomp, just take the advice of English former international referee Fred Howard... "When you find yourself pointing to the sideline, you know its a sending off"
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Short version...
Long version...
In his finding, the judicial committee chair Robert Stelzner said it was clear Barrett's act was neither dangerous nor reckless.
“He legitimately went up in the air to collect a high ball, when in trying to regain his balance on the downward trajectory, his boot inadvertently made contact with his opponent’s head,” said Stelzner via a Sanzaar release.
“The accidental nature of the incident lead the judicial committee to find that there was no intentional nor reckless act of dangerous play, with the result that the red card is expunged from the player’s record.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...arrett-escapes-further-ban-for-perth-red-card
Jz558
Referees in England
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 386
- Post Likes
- 132
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
I havent really thought too much about the constitution and remit of disciplinary committees before but what powers do World Rugby have, if any, if they believe that the disciplinary committees of tournament organisers such as the 6 Nations or Sanzaar are not following World Rugby guidelines? In this instance, it seems that the committee ruled that no offence occurred because the actions were accidental. As a standpoint I dont have a problem with that but World Rugby have spent considerable time and money on issuing directives and flow charts over the past few year to try to make decision making more consistent and removing intent from the process. Following this review it would seem that most of this work is now obsolete and providing a player's actions are ruled accidental by the referee then play on.