Dan Cole v Romain Poite

[crossref]

The discipline report will make interesting reading as I could not see the player knock into me, therefore I cannot justify in front of a discipline panel what I saw (as I saw nothing). So, I would get him off with a yellow at least for 10 minutes.......

but did you actually know , on way or another, with pretty much no doubt, that it was him, intentionally ?
If so wouldn't you want him off the pitch permanently, whatever a panel might say?

or if you didn't see it, perhaps you weren't completely sure anyway

 

[Taffy]

"If so wouldn't you want him off the pitch permanently, whatever a panel might say?"

Oooh yes, most definitely yes, but probably not the best decision - yellow makes the point....and you can always extend that 10 minutes if you have a faulty watch.....

:noyc:

:biggrin:

 

[didds]

well, for a minute or two at most I would have thought.

didds

 

[leaguerefaus]

Oooh yes, most definitely yes, but probably not the best decision - yellow makes the point....and you can always extend that 10 minutes if you have a faulty watch.....

:noyc:

:biggrin:

No...

 

[crossref]

For me - I just wouldn't mess about with the timings on a YC, it's a bit too much taking the Law in your own hands.


Going back to taffy's scenario though -- let's discuss the general case, rather than taffy's particular one.

General case is you are knocked down from behind, you didn't see anything, none of the players fess up.

but somehow you know who it was - perhaps someone highly trusted on the touchline tells you.

what can you do ?

It's a tricky one, but a YC doesn't feel right to me. I still keep thinking the answer has to be either a RC or nothing.

 

[SimonSmith]

re Cole: my bet is that nothing will happen.

Taffy: I don't want you to think I'm picking on you after your earlier thread, but...There isn't a different standard of proof required between a YC and an RC. The only difference between the two is the severity of the offence. You can't be concerned about what the DC will/won't do - you deal with the offence as it happens. And please remember that the standard of proof in a DC is that of the balance of probability, and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Your RC could very well stand up.

And I'm a bit worried about your approach to bin timings. If you're being flippant, fair enough. But if that is something that you contemplate, taken together with your view on how you handled the TJ incident, it creates the impression that there are bits of the game with which you play fast and loose to suit your internal moral compass. We'll all have different views of who to penalize at a breakdown, but we arrive at them based on what we see and the application of law; we don't go "oh, 7 has been bugging me all game and this is a 60/40 call in his favor. I'll ping him". That, rightly or wrongly, is how I read some of your posts.

 

[Pegleg]

You don't play fast and loose with YC timings.

If you are not sure it was deliberate WHY a YC?

It's red or nothing!

If the situation is "open" and a player runs into you. Then the evidence is pretty damning anyway. The player needs to avoid YOU to get to the ball / ball carrier!

If the situation is "blocked" then the elemebt of doubt increases.

I had a player run into me on Saturday. I ended up flat on my back and it was just one of those things. MY fault if there was blame anywhere.

However in the situation that RP (without his back up) faced he would be aware of the general positioning. I can't see how the player could not avoid contact. So He's done it deliberately. So he's gone for me.

 

[OB..]

There isn't a different standard of proof required between a YC and an RC. The only difference between the two is the severity of the offence. You can't be concerned about what the DC will/won't do - you deal with the offence as it happens. And please remember that the standard of proof in a DC is that of the balance of probability, and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Your RC could very well stand up.

I don't see how you can send in a RC report in which you say "I did not see who hit me, but I know who it was". Selling that could be hard. The defence is likely to be "totally accidental" and/or "mistaken identity".

With a YC however you only have to sell it to the players, who have just seen for themselves what happened.

And I'm a bit worried about your approach to bin timings.

Me too. I note timings and would ask you about it.

 

[crossref]

in this situation, would anyone expect the captain to offer up the identity of the culprit --- or to instruct the culprit to fess up?

 

[Wedgie]

Having viewed the video a couple of times I can't make my mind up whether it was or was not deliberate - Cole doesn't actually appear to look where he is going, yet the effects are clear. However, on many occasions we have been informed that, at this level, very few things happen accidentally.

Did Cole apologise immediately? Or at all?

 

[FlipFlop]

For me - Cole is going back on his own line. It is clear where Poite will be, his slight backwards motion doesn't change his real location on the field - even without it, cole would have made contact, and appears to have lined him up from a way away. He chooses to make contact, rather than go round.

Rather telling is, he didn't appear to apologise, or help him back up, or look "confused" as you would if you made accidental contact with someone you didn't see.

But he knew where Poite was for a good way out.

For me - Cole should be in serious trouble.

(the second angle on the clip in the OP is the most damning)

 

[Ian_Cook]

"If so wouldn't you want him off the pitch permanently, whatever a panel might say?"

Oooh yes, most definitely yes, but probably not the best decision - yellow makes the point....and you can always extend that 10 minutes if you have a faulty watch.....

:noyc:

:biggrin:

And if the opposition score a try (heaven forbid it be a winning try) while you still have the carded player off the field when he should have been on it, then you are going to have some explaining to do to your assessor.

re Dan Cole
I will almost always give the benefit of the doubt to the player when there is a collision between player and referee and I am usually the last one to blame the player. While the referee does have to be "somewhere" he needs to make sure it is not in the obvious paths where attacking players or retreating defenders are likely to run. However, in this case, I am as sure as I can be that Cole intentionally ran into Poite. He should go for a skate, but he probably wont.

 

[Taff]

... For me - Cole should be in serious trouble. .. the second angle on the clip in the OP is the most damning

Exactly.

Look at Coles right elbow. Nasty cheap shot IMO.

 

[Taffy]

"And if the opposition score a try (heaven forbid it be a winning try) while you still have the carded player off the field when he should have been on it, then you are going to have some explaining to do to your assessor."

This is Devon I am reffing in for Pete's sake...

 

[Taffy]

I was being a bit flippant earlier. I think sometimes the lowly refs like me are afraid of posting in case someone jumps down their throat...which is a shame...

It's a great game and this is a great forum, but occasionally some guys need to lighten up a bit...IMHO!

 

[didds]

well, WADR Taffy this comes very shortly after you admitted that you punished a side that had hacked you off by allowing a try that wasn't, and that everybody in the ground including you knew wasn't a try. You can hardly blame people for starting to spot what they perceive is a pattern emerging.

didds

 

[Taffy]

well, WADR Taffy this comes very shortly after you admitted that you punished a side that had hacked you off by allowing a try that wasn't, and that everybody in the ground including you knew wasn't a try. You can hardly blame people for starting to spot what they perceive is a pattern emerging.

didds

You do make it sound like a very serious consipiracy that I had planned.....

 

[didds]

I'm genuinely trying to keep this light Deliberately ignoring a flag for touch to award a try as punishment does sound like a conspiracy theory frankly Cos I for one am struggling to come up with any other explanation

didds

 

[Paule23]

We're a bit off topic Didds but Taffy is aware what he did was wrong, but can any of us honestly say we haven't made a decision which had an element of emotion (and therefore possibly bias) in it?

In an ideal world we apply the laws fairly at all times to all people, but in reality the 9 that is p!@@ing You off is more likely to get pinged for something.

 

[SimonSmith]

We're a bit off topic Didds but Taffy is aware what he did was wrong, but can any of us honestly say we haven't made a decision which had an element of emotion (and therefore possibly bias) in it?

In an ideal world we apply the laws fairly at all times to all people, but in reality the 9 that is p!@@ing You off is more likely to get pinged for something.

I can say with total honesty that I have never, and have never contemplated, given a decision I knew to be incorrect.