Hooper Cited Aus vs Arg

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Skelton should have been cited too for his attempt to throttle an opponent on the ground.

I thought WR/SANZAR was going to get tough on this particular brand of thuggery. Looks like they have wimped out already!
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,120
Post Likes
2,137
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Looks like a push to the back of the head after dirty Sanchez had hold of his jumper
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
Was it the one in Argentina's in goal where the blue player put on a soccer dive?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,120
Post Likes
2,137
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Was it the one in Argentina's in goal where the blue player put on a soccer dive?

No, its the one in the link provided by Jarrod.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Was it the one in Argentina's in goal where the blue player put on a soccer dive?

I immediately thought of this...

11755923_10154185225204298_6362757634190828617_n-498x489.jpg
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,120
Post Likes
2,137
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I would expect that the judiciary would take into account degree of injury. Given that Argentina are serial divers I wonder if that is factored in?
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Not interested in the dive - not relevant to the offence. That's a ban for me.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,120
Post Likes
2,137
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Not interested in the dive - not relevant to the offence.

Why not? If DS had stayed upright (instead of diving, again) it would never have been cited.
 

leaguerefaus


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,009
Post Likes
248
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Of course diving is relevant to offenses. If a player takes a dive, it can make the act of foul play look more forceful which is extremely relevant to whether a ban is issued or the length of ban issued.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Why not? If DS had stayed upright (instead of diving, again) it would never have been cited.

The punch should be judged on the punch what happens after - injury or what ever is not relevant. The DC can look at the incident and not any theatricals.

The player threw a punch - FACT that is the offence. That is what should be judged. If you thing the Argentine's actions warrant a Red card cite him for that.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.


Of course diving is relevant to offenses. If a player takes a dive, it can make the act of foul play look more forceful which is extremely relevant to whether a ban is issued or the length of ban issued.

Not if the judiciary is competent enough to judge the facts.
 
Last edited:

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
The punch should be judged on the punch what happens after - injury or what ever is not relevant. The DC can look at the incident and not any theatricals.

The player threw a punch - FACT that is the offence. That is what should be judged. If you thing the Argentine's actions warrant a Red card cite him for that.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.




Not if the judiciary is competent enough to judge the facts.

The process takes into consideration many factors and not just the fact an alleged punch has been delivered.
I fully expect others to call bias, but the video link supplied is not conclusive whether it was a strike with a closed fist, open hand or even a push. I expect the JO will have better and more video angles to look at.

Assessment of seriousness of the Foul Play
17.19.2 Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an
assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct that constitutes the
offending and categorise that conduct as being at the lower end, mid
range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the
appropriate entry point for consideration of a particular incident(s) of Foul
Play where such incident(s) is expressly covered in Appendix 1. The
assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct shall be
determined by reference to the following features:
(a) whether the offending was intentional or deliberate;
(b) whether the offending was reckless, that is the Player knew
(or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act of
Foul Play;
(c) the gravity of the Player’s actions in relation to the offending;
(d) the nature of the actions, the manner in which the offence was
committed including part of body used (for example, fist, elbow, knee
or boot);
(e) the existence of provocation;
(f) whether the Player acted in retaliation and the timing of such;
(g) whether the Player acted in self-defence (that is whether he used a
reasonable degree of force in defending himself);
(h) the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of
injury, removal of victim Player from the game);
(i) the effect of the Player’s actions on the Match;
(j) the vulnerability of the victim Player including part of victim’s body
involved/affected, position of the victim Player, ability to defend
himself;
(k) the level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;
(l) whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or
amounted to an attempt; and
(m) any other feature of the Player’s conduct in relation to or connected
with the offending.
Based on the assessment of the offence(s) under consideration against
the above features of offending, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial
Officer shall categorise the act of Foul Play as being at the lower end, mid
range or top end of the scale of seriousness of offending and identify the
applicable entry point as set out in Appendix 1.
17.19.3 For offences categorised at the top end of the scale of seriousness of
offending, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify an
entry point between the period shown as the top end for the particular
office and the maximum sanction in Appendix 1.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
He should definitely be banned, and the ban should expire at 16:44 on 10/10/15

:eng:
 

winchesterref


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,014
Post Likes
197
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
The player threw a punch - FACT

It LOOKS that way but the TV picture that I have seen is of insufficient quality to determine closed fist or not, it could be an open hand. Not quite as straightforward as it might be with other footage.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
He contravened 10.4.(a). If you want to play with words be my guest. I'm sure the Citing officer will deal with the "legalities" of the wording.

If the fact that he struck / punched him is not clear on your TV I suggest a new TV should be on your shoping list.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
The process takes into consideration many factors and not just the fact an alleged punch has been delivered.
I fully expect others to call bias, but the video link supplied is not conclusive whether it was a strike with a closed fist, open hand or even a push. I expect the JO will have better and more video angles to look at.


10.4(a) Those points are not relevent to whether on not the law has been contravened. He WAS struck whether a punch or whatever is not important. I would hope the CO looked at the evidence and not the Argentine's actions in any "alleged" dive. (see it works both ways!)

Assessment of seriousness of the Foul Play
17.19.2 Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an
assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct that constitutes the
offending and categorise that conduct as being at the lower end, mid
range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the
appropriate entry point for consideration of a particular incident(s) of Foul
Play where such incident(s) is expressly covered in Appendix 1. The
assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct shall be
determined by reference to the following features:
(a) whether the offending was intentional or deliberate;
(b) whether the offending was reckless, that is the Player knew
(or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act of
Foul Play;
(c) the gravity of the Player’s actions in relation to the offending;
(d) the nature of the actions, the manner in which the offence was
committed including part of body used (for example, fist, elbow, knee
or boot);
(e) the existence of provocation;
(f) whether the Player acted in retaliation and the timing of such;
(g) whether the Player acted in self-defence (that is whether he used a
reasonable degree of force in defending himself);
(h) the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of
injury, removal of victim Player from the game);
(i) the effect of the Player’s actions on the Match;
(j) the vulnerability of the victim Player including part of victim’s body
involved/affected, position of the victim Player, ability to defend
himself;
(k) the level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;
(l) whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or
amounted to an attempt; and
(m) any other feature of the Player’s conduct in relation to or connected
with the offending.
Based on the assessment of the offence(s) under consideration against
the above features of offending, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial
Officer shall categorise the act of Foul Play as being at the lower end, mid
range or top end of the scale of seriousness of offending and identify the
applicable entry point as set out in Appendix 1.
17.19.3 For offences categorised at the top end of the scale of seriousness of
offending, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify an
entry point between the period shown as the top end for the particular
office and the maximum sanction in Appendix 1.

Your emboldened sections will no doubt help assess how serious the incident was. We all understand that there are degrees of RED. For you to suggest the striking contrary to 10.4(a) is "alleged" is nonsense. The detail may be open to investigation. However, the fact is that he was struck. As in the reply to the previouse poster playing with word does not change that.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,352
Post Likes
1,455
The CO will look at whether or not it was RC worthy in his opinion.

The DC WILL have to go through all the criteria laid out above in order to assess what, if any, punishment is appropriate. The dive, if it was a dive, will become a factor then.
 

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
I thought it looked pretty bad. I accept that the footage is a bit grainy, but it looks to me like he struck him right on the back of the head with quite a bit of force. Don't really think he took much of a dive, he did an extra roll, but that is about it. Hooper seems to lose his balance after throwing the punch/strike as well which points to quite a significant impact.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
the co will look at whether or not it was rc worthy in his opinion.

The dc will have to go through all the criteria laid out above in order to assess what, if any, punishment is appropriate. The dive, if it was a dive, will become a factor then.

Spot on!
 

winchesterref


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,014
Post Likes
197
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
He contravened 10.4.(a). If you want to play with words be my guest. I'm sure the Citing officer will deal with the "legalities" of the wording.

If the fact that he struck / punched him is not clear on your TV I suggest a new TV should be on your shoping list.

Don't you worry about my TV. You're usually so keen that things are worded accurately that I was merely suggesting it is not actually fact, never mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top