England vs Ireland Stamp

D

duncanb


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
78
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Reported on sky Healy cited ' more details to follow'
 
Phil E

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,105
Post Likes
2,367
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Ireland prop Cian Healy has been cited for allegedly stamping on England's Dan Cole during Sunday's Six Nations clash.

The Leinster loosehead has been cited by the independent Citing Commissioner, Italy's Alberto Recaldini, following the incident at the Aviva Stadium.

The alleged act of foul play is contrary to Law 10.4 (b) and the player's hearing, before an independent Six Nations Disciplinary Committee, will be held in London on Wednesday this week.

Also appearing before a Six Nations Disciplinary Committee on Wednesday will be Ross Moriarty, the England U20 back-row, who was sent off for a dangerous tackle in the match with Ireland U20 in Athlone on Friday.
 
Chogan

Chogan


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
412
Post Likes
8
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
Moriarty's tackle was horrible. Thankfully no damage was done.
 
Phil E

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,105
Post Likes
2,367
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I think that was a perfect example of a tip tackle.
I hope none of us would have any hesitation in producing a :norc: for that?
 
Dixie

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
Phil E said:
I think that was a perfect example of a tip tackle.
I hope none of us would have any hesitation in producing a :norc: for that?
Click to expand...
Obviously not. But the extraordinary thing here is that someone reffing at this level felt able to do what the Laws and the stated interpretations require, and what every right thinking ref would do.

I hope he doesn't lose his job over this!
 
C

Casey Bee


Referees in England
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
767
Post Likes
0
Absolutely massively disagree with this Robbie. A player on his feet specifically choosing to put a foot in touch c/w a player on the deck who has the ball. Player on deck is effectively 'out of the the game' and has 3 options. How is reaching out to touch (like a 1970's wrestler reaching for a tag) in any way allowed within the laws?
Robert Burns said:
Why is the hand in touch any different from a foot in touch?

Clever play, well done.[/QUOTE


PS Sorry, I think I got late to the discussion and haven't looked at other comments on same issue... my thought remains that man on deck has limited options, one of which is not to dive for touch.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SimonSmith

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,374
Post Likes
1,472
Back that up in law.

On the assumption that he is complying with the requirement to act "immediately", where he places his limbs is entirely up to him.

If you made that call in a match in which I was assessing you, that would be significant point of discussion (that's Assessor code, that. And it's not code for anything good)
 
Simon Thomas

Simon Thomas


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
12,848
Post Likes
189
I am totally in agreement with Simon S (and Robbie). Nothing in law to prevent Kearney's reach to touch. It was immediate and it was a legal option.
 
D

Davet

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,731
Post Likes
4
Casey Bee

as Simin says - please quote law.

The player can act immediately - you may not like it - I may not like it; but we like or don't like is not relevant.

If we discussed the incident post match and you asserted that the action whilst done immediately was illegal then I would suggest that you had made a Law error.

If you did him for preventing an opponent playing the ball by simply lying all over it for a long time before he made touch then that's another matter entirely.
 
Simon Thomas

Simon Thomas


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
12,848
Post Likes
189
and at the time I thought kearney might have been penalised for not releasing to an England player on his feet (Brown ?) as he was isolated. However at International level the players are given longer to place/release the ball than I usually see at Levels 5 & 6.

And then he did not release to England for a potential QT (within 5m of goal line, which according to Law is legal for attacking team for a QT - law ommission ?) but I suspect England did not want a QT anyway - as a highly disciplined coached team, setting patterns etc England I assume they wanted the full line-out with a catch & maul option so close to the line.
 
T

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Back to OP, sometimes, you just miss things right under your nose, FACT!
 
Dave Sherwin

Dave Sherwin


Referees in the Cayman Islands
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
283
Post Likes
52
Simon Thomas said:
potential QT (within 5m of goal line, which according to Law is legal for attacking team for a QT - law ommission ?)
Click to expand...


Simon, we were having discussion about this on the "Rob Kearney hand in touch" thread. I think that with the way 19.2(b) has been reworded probably does preclude a quick throw within 5m of the goal line as it now requires that the throw be taken between the "line of touch" and the player's goal-line. 19.8(o) (which admittedly fally within the lineout section, but is not explicitly qualified by reference to lineouts only) states that the line of touch must not be within 5 metres of the goal line.

To be honest, on the basis that the law always defined the "line of touch" as "an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in", I had laways interpreted 19.8(o) as precluding the ball being thrown in less than five metres from the goal line on the basis that: line of touch = place where ball is thrown in; line of touch cannot be within 5 metres of goal line; therefore place where ball is thrown in cannot be within 5 metres of goal line, but I realise this was always open to challenge under the old wording of 19.2(b). I suspect it is rather less open to challenge under the new wording, but I sure there are other views!
 
L

Loïc


Referees in Finland
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
78
Post Likes
10
I think Jérôme Garcès was limited by his English skills more than his character or his management of this game.
He was repeating "Discipline now" again and again, we saw that he was looking for saying something else but...

By the way, he is from a French Region which is not really famous for its language skills ^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top