court case

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
You are saying the tackle was legitimate?
Despite EM and (eventually) TS and most importantly the court all finding that it was reckless?

But now you mention them again, those two unnamed RFU officials who reviewed the tackle video and pronounced it OK can be added to the list of people who have not come out of this well. I bet they are glad they weren't names

(Bur for the referee himself his live reaction on the day is not really important.. he got one look at it,and maybe didn't even see it properly. I don't think his failure to instantly sanction it has any real significance. We don't know what his retrospective view of it was, having seen the video)
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,314
Post Likes
1,419
Ed Morrison .. and to a lesser extent TS .. evidently testified that he would have refereed the game differently .
The judge evidently reminded them that the referee wasn't on trial here .

All that was mentioned in the judgement
Do you think the ref read that and thought " I came out of that well"
I suspect I'd be thinking "I wasn't a factor under consideration at all" - but then I can read judgments and interpret them accurately and at face value rather than trying to insert my own subtext.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
You need to read them more carefully then!

In para 20 the judge tells us that EM (principally) and TS (to a lesser extent) were critical of the ref.

But, as you observe, the performance of the referee was not a factor under consideration at all in the case. So why is paragraph 20 even there?
 
Last edited:

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
You are saying the tackle was legitimate?
Despite EM and (eventually) TS and most importantly the court all finding that it was reckless?

But now you mention them again, those two unnamed RFU officials who reviewed the tackle video and pronounced it OK can be added to the list of people who have not come out of this well. I bet they are glad they weren't names

(Bur for the referee himself his live reaction on the day is not really important.. he got one look at it,and maybe didn't even see it properly. I don't think his failure to instantly sanction it has any real significance. We don't know what his retrospective view of it was, having seen the video)

I have no idea as to the legal state of the taackle. I have not seen it. Pleae try to understand! You really have aa problem understanding things or are you just need interpret people coments to suit your stance.

Frpom the Referee's angle that tackle may have appeared fair. That is did not look fair from a (possibly) better angle is a separate point. We can't see everything. As a referee, you SHOULD understand that. The ref reacted to what he saw. WIthout knowing what that was it is best that people do not take the view that you are promulgating.

I'm referencing the quote that YOU chose to introduce. Are you saying the quote is not real or that the Lawyer lied?

Atlas the your final paragraph adds something. The referee 's live reaction is just that EM should know that a fellow referee does not see everything and does not always have ARs and TMOs to "help". He should have chosen his words more carefully. Sadly TS , well what can I say. His contribution to the whole process is best consigned to the bin.


Ahwell I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But is it back on ignore for you. Bye!
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
You are focused on the tackle itself. I have not seen anywhere , or made any criticism of the referees handling of the tackle. (From the judgement it seems he blew for no side)

Your quote (which is from the Daily Mail not from the judgement) is

The tackle was a legitimate one in the eyes of the match official and both RFU officials charged with reviewing such matters

Now, the match official saw it once in real time so his opinion on the day is not really important, maybe he didn't see it.
But the RFU officials who reviewed the video and said it was ok ? They have not come out of this well

(If indeed they exist .. this is the daily mail)
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,050
Post Likes
2,327
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
In para 20 the judge tells us that EM (principally) and TS (to a lesser extent) were critical of the ref.

Paragraph 20 says nothing of the kind.

20. A further aspect of the expert evidence, again principally arising from Mr Morrison’s evidence, was that it was necessary always to bear in mind that the referee was not a Defendant and the court was not concerned with whether the game was refereed well or not. It was therefore not pertinent to know whether either of the experts would have refereed the match differently.
 

Harry

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
70
Post Likes
50
IMHO paragraph 20 is Judge code for "I'm ignoring the comments on the match referee."
Probably he is keeping clear of it in case of further legal action.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
535
Post Likes
289
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Now, the match official saw it once in real time so his opinion on the day is not really important, maybe he didn't see it.
But the RFU officials who reviewed the video and said it was ok ? They have not come out of this well
Did the ref even see the tackle in its entirety? Did he glance away to check an offside just as the hit landed? The video is continuous so the trial can see exactly what happened from that viewpoint, but what the ref saw on the day, who knows for certain. Consider how many times a TMO, or even an AR, has seen something missed by the ref.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Did the ref even see the tackle in its entirety? Did he glance away to check an offside just as the hit landed? The video is continuous so the trial can see exactly what happened from that viewpoint, but what the ref saw on the day, who knows for certain. Consider how many times a TMO, or even an AR, has seen something missed by the ref.
Spot on!
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,314
Post Likes
1,419
IMHO paragraph 20 is Judge code for "I'm ignoring the comments on the match referee."
Probably he is keeping clear of it in case of further legal action.
Referencing that way means it will be difficult for any appeal to be grounded in the actions of the referee, unless Appellant wants to make the case that the Judge SHOULD have included the referee in his decision making.
 
Top