Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

[Ian_Cook]

Revised 9.11 [LAWS]Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others, unless they have jumped poorly and are off balance, and their shirt color is mostly black, then this law can be disregarded.
[/LAWS]

Very droll and not even remotely funny. The Judiciary chair was a South African High Court judge, and the remainder of the committee were another South African and a former Argentinian rugby referee. How do you reconcile that with with your anti-NZ bigotry?

 

[Ian_Cook]

JBs legs were already extended, changing the angle they were extended wouldn't stop his rotation, only help to protect himself because he was going to get throttled as soon as he landed. So he kicked his opponent in the face, recklessly.

Again

He didn't just change the angle, he extended them as well. Not by much, but by enough.

Sorry, I know what I can see on that video, I am not going to be convinced to deny what I can clearly see.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have no idea what you are trying to demonstrate here. In this instance, there IS a reason for his leg to be there, he is attempting to kick a ball. With the jump, his leg is in an unnatural position, raised as a defensive measure. If he chooses to jump like this he accepts the risk of RC if he makes contact with another player.

1. As I said I the quote, the dangers of generalising

2. There was a reason for Barrett's leg to be where it was. In my view, and in the view if the independent Judiciary, he was trying to stop his backwards rotation; a rotation that I have clearly, graphically and irrefutably demonstrated, was actually happening.

You’re contorting yourself through all angles to justify something that is not correct. His leg didn’t end up there due to physics.

Except that it did. Watch the video. You can see his rotation STOPS when the leg goes out BEFORE his foot makes contact with Korobete's face. This is an observational fact that you can't just hand-wave away like a conspiracy theorist would.

I have presented clear, compelling evidence that my claim is valid. So far, all I have had in reply is handwaving, dogma, appeals to authoirty and accusations of bias.

 

[chbg]

Has any-one actually seen / read the judiciary decision?

I have been present at a court case when the defence produced an expert witness who addressed a perspective not foreseen by the prosecution. In the absence of an alternative expert witness view (yes they do exist), the prosecution case was unable to be proven. The defendant could not be punished for what he had done. That is / was our adversarial court system.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Has any-one actually seen / read the judiciary decision?

I have been present at a court case when the defence produced an expert witness who addressed a perspective not foreseen by the prosecution. In the absence of an alternative expert witness view (yes they do exist), the prosecution case was unable to be proven. The defendant could not be punished for what he had done. That is / was our adversarial court system.

I will try to find it for you

I know they had two biomechanics experts who provided evidence; Professor Patricia Hume (Professor of Human Performance at AUT), and Dr Mark Sayers (Associate Professor of Sports Biomechanics at USC)

The Judiciary panel was

Senior Counsel Robert Stelzner (South Africa)
Former test rugby player De Wet Barry (South Africa)
Former international referee José Luis Rolandi (Argentina)

Interestingly, one of the precedent cases they brought up was a player was from Northampton who faced a similar citing post-match and the hearing resulted in that citing being thrown out for much the same reasons as this red card was overturned.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think we may be at risk of concentrating on the wrong issues.

Barrett got himself up there. He has an obligation to look after himself in a way that doesn't endanger other players. He signally failed to do that. Him. No-one else. He got himself into that situation, and intentional or noit, it was boots to the head.

Red.

Rotation? Don't care. His fault.
Leg raise to slow himself? Don't care. His fault.

He did this to himself, and the SANZAAR Judiciary has let the game down.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think we may be at risk of concentrating on the wrong issues.

Barrett got himself up there. He has an obligation to look after himself in a way that doesn't endanger other players. He signally failed to do that. Him. No-one else. He got himself into that situation, and intentional or noit, it was boots to the head.

Red.

Rotation? Don't care. His fault.
Leg raise to slow himself? Don't care. His fault.

He did this to himself, and the SANZAAR Judiciary has let the game down.

I see the opinions of two sports biomechanics experts and one former international rugby referee, against a few grass roots refs posting on a rugby forum

Its not hard for me to work out who to believe


We'll have to agree to differ Simon

 

[thepercy]

I see the opinions of two sports biomechanics experts and one former international rugby referee, against a few grass roots refs posting on a rugby forum

Its not hard for me to work out who to believe


We'll have to agree to differ Simon

So what you are saying is that he intentionally put his foot near the face of his opponent, but that it wasn't reckless, because he jumped poorly?

 

[Ian_Cook]

So what you are saying is that he intentionally put his foot near the face of his opponent, but that it wasn't reckless, because he jumped poorly?

I'm saying that he unintentionally put his leg up as a result of a natural reaction to regain his balance when he felt he was rotating over backward. Dr Mark Sayers stated that "It’s just a biomechanical consequence of the movement”. If Koroibete had been half a metre further back, we would not even be having this discussion.

And this goes right back to what I said at the beginning. World Rugby and the clueless morons who make the Laws are 100% to blame for this, and situations like it. They have put in place a system that encourages players to take risks, by warning them that if they don't jump higher than the other guy, then regardless of intent, they will be blamed if anything goes wrong. When you make people take risks, in this case, encouraging players to attempt to perform beyond their limits, it is inevitable that there are going to be mistimings and misjudgements.

This Judiciary Panel (a Senior Counsel of the High Court of South Africa, and former international rugby player from the same country, and a former international rugby referee from Argentina) saw the video evidence put forward by NZ Rugby, and heard the testimony of expert witnesses with qualifications and years of experience in Sports Biomechanics. They made their decision based on the evidence put before them. They found that evidence to be sufficiently compelling to show that this was an accident and not act of recklessness. Would you prefer they ignore the evidence they have seen and just rubber stamp the Laws of Rugby? I find that evidence compelling as well.

This Judiciary has not let the game down, World Rugby has done that!

 

[SimonSmith]

I see the opinions of two sports biomechanics experts and one former international rugby referee, against a few grass roots refs posting on a rugby forum

Its not hard for me to work out who to believe


We'll have to agree to differ Simon

1. Coming from the man whop rejected the opinion of other international experts in the area who weren't being paid by the ABs, that's a bit ****ing rich.
2.You seem to have missed my point. Regardless of what his body was doing, he was solely responsible for it. He has a duty of care to other players in which he failed as a result of his own actions.

 

[Ian_Cook]

1. Coming from the man whop rejected the opinion of other international experts in the area who weren't being paid by the ABs that's a bit ****ing rich.

Which two "international experts" were those? Have they been named? Did they provide their evidence before the Judiciary?

If not, then what they said has no relevance whatsoever to the descision made by that Judiciary

Also, are you now implying that two expert witnesses, a Professors and a Doctor, were bribed to lie to the Judiciary? Really? Because it sure as hell looks like it!!

2.You seem to have missed my point. Regardless of what his body was doing, he was solely responsible for it. He has a duty of care to other players in which he failed as a result of his own actions.

And you seem to have missed mine, and that is that accidents will happen. Its unavoidable, and they are going to happen more often as long as WR continue to increase the likelihood of accidents like this through their bat shit crazy policies.

I would never want to become involved in the game now, not at any level; playing, coaching or refereeing. If you want to know why the sport has so much trouble getting referees to take up the whistle, look no further than the utterly feckless morons at WR. They have written up a series of stupid laws and protocols; told referees to substitute rulings on outcomes for using their own judgement, thereby tying referees' hands behind their backs. Then when some people with experience, integrity, expertise, commonsense and an ability to understand what they are looking at, decide that the referee's decision was wrong, the poor old ref, who was only doing what he has been told to do, gets thrown under the bus. Well, **** that! I'm not having any of it.

I would not advise anyone to become involved in refereeing the game now, in fact, if asked, I would advise them to stay away and find another sport. There is no satisfaction in being told what to do, and then being screwed over when you do it.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I think we may be at risk of concentrating on the wrong issues.

Barrett got himself up there. He has an obligation to look after himself in a way that doesn't endanger other players. He signally failed to do that. Him. No-one else. He got himself into that situation, and intentional or noit, it was boots to the head.

Red.

Rotation? Don't care. His fault.
Leg raise to slow himself? Don't care. His fault.

He did this to himself, and the SANZAAR Judiciary has let the game down.

100% agree Simon I still wonder if the judgement had been different were he blinded for life!

 

[OB..]

When Jordie took off, he drove up with his knee as most people do, but when he caught the ball he was definitely NOT in a tucked position.

The judicial review said

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.

"regain his balance" does not really address the rotation question.

It would be helpful if someone could find other examples of players jumping to catch the ball and sticking a leg out, but when there are no opponents in front of them.

 

[BikingBud]

I'm saying that he unintentionally put his leg up as a result of a natural reaction to regain his balance when he felt he was rotating over backward. Dr Mark Sayers stated that "It’s just a biomechanical consequence of the movement”. If Koroibete had been half a metre further back, we would not even be having this discussion.

And this goes right back to what I said at the beginning. World Rugby and the clueless morons who make the Laws are 100% to blame for this, and situations like it. They have put in place a system that encourages players to take risks, by warning them that if they don't jump higher than the other guy, then regardless of intent, they will be blamed if anything goes wrong. When you make people take risks, in this case, encouraging players to attempt to perform beyond their limits, it is inevitable that there are going to be mistimings and misjudgements.

This Judiciary Panel (a Senior Counsel of the High Court of South Africa, and former international rugby player from the same country, and a former international rugby referee from Argentina) saw the video evidence put forward by NZ Rugby, and heard the testimony of expert witnesses with qualifications and years of experience in Sports Biomechanics. They made their decision based on the evidence put before them. They found that evidence to be sufficiently compelling to show that this was an accident and not act of recklessness. Would you prefer they ignore the evidence they have seen and just rubber stamp the Laws of Rugby? I find that evidence compelling as well.

This Judiciary has not let the game down, World Rugby has done that!

He jumped and put his boot out, all of his own volition. As he is not gifted with the powers of levitation, I think:chin:, he had to come down at some point. The fact another player was in that space and he recklessly made contact with that other player's face/head is fully deserving of a red card:rc:

Just because some "experts" argue that it was a semi-automatic response to toppling does not make it a fact! It is still their own opinion but they have extra credit. Other "expert witnesses" could counter the presented arguments and often do in the courtroom where highly paid lawyers, with vested interests, grandstand to ensure their clients are not found culpable. The panel or jury or committee should judge and make their own decision about what they see.

But was their mitigation for reckless intent?

It appears in this case the "experts" pulled the wool.

I know most of us on here think it looks and smells like a kipper!

 

[crossref]

I think it's pretty simple, kick someone in the face and you get a RC. Any other outcome is the road to chaos

 

[Jz558]

I think it's pretty simple, kick someone in the face and you get a RC. Any other outcome is the road to chaos

I just dont think that's credible. There are many occasions on which that is just accidental. Ive kicked players in the face who have been attempting to charge down a kick Ive just made. Should that be a RC?

We have always had an on-field mitigaton of accidental collision which is well understood. Intent has always been part of a referee's remit, it is only relatively recently that the significance has increased as more players are mandated to be given yellow or red cards. For the majority of rugby's existence intent was only a minor consideration as players were rarely sent from the field for anything short of murder (or tripping which seemed to rate somewhere above gouging and indecent assault in rugby law).

What world rugby need to do is urgently look again at the rights and responsibilities of players who get airborne in this situation (or ban it) and the same for those who are attempting to deny them possession because they have made a balls of it so far and dont have the balance right.

 

[Flish]

I just dont think that's credible. There are many occasions on which that is just accidental. Ive kicked players in the face who have been attempting to charge down a kick Ive just made. Should that be a RC?

The answer is, as always, it depends, in the old high tackle framework and the new head contact framework we have the concept of mitigation, for where the 'offender' couldn't adjust his actions in time (eg change in direction, drop in height) *but* it's not often a get out of jail free, it's still an act of foul play, just not defined as being as reckless because of 'x' and the sanction is reduced.

So in kicking, if you go for a clearance kick, and someone dives in on the deck to charge it down and puts their head in front of your boot, almost certainly a rugby incident, if however you have bouncing ball, bodies on the floor and you swing your leg in what's reasonable to assume is a reckless act then off you go.

This one for me is simple, he made the decision to jump, for whatever reason he then to chose to raise his leg, studs up, towards an advancing player who had every right to be there. That becomes an avoidable incident, caused by the players decision making, take responsibility for that, apologise to the player who's eye you could have taken out, and do your time.

 

[Jz558]

This one for me is simple, he made the decision to jump, for whatever reason he then to chose to raise his leg, studs up, towards an advancing player who had every right to be there. That becomes an avoidable incident, caused by the players decision making, take responsibility for that, apologise to the player who's eye you could have taken out, and do your time.

You are absolutely correct in your logic. The problem is, of course, so were the disciplinary committee who ruled it accidental and therefore not foul play. That's the reason World Rugby need to urgently look at the scenario. If not we'll get into a scenario where grass roots players are sent off with the decisions upheld by disciplinary committees whilst professional players, with access to expensive advice, will have on-field decisions rescinded

 

[Flish]

You are absolutely correct in your logic. The problem is, of course, so were the disciplinary committee who ruled it accidental and therefore not foul play. That's the reason World Rugby need to urgently look at the scenario. If not we'll get into a scenario where grass roots players are sent off with the decisions upheld by disciplinary committees whilst professional players, with access to expensive advice, will have on-field decisions rescinded

I agree, I don 't want to see anyone thrown under a bus, but there is a huge mis-alignment in expectation somewhere, and WR need to clarify it

 

[OB..]

He legitimately went up inthe air to collect a high ball, when in trying to regain his balance on thedownward trajectory, his boot inadvertently made contact with his opponent’s head.

Thinking further about this comment from the judicial review, it says that he is entitled to act dangerously/riskily in order to help himself.

Surely he should be trying to avoid hurting others? Sticking his leg out was a voluntary act, not an involuntary one.