Loads of talking points from this weekend

[winchesterref]

I will spend some time tomorrow pulling a few clips together if I can.

For starters:
http://sport.bt.com/video/did-faosiliva-deserve-to-see-red-91364085275469

Faosiliva red card in the Worcester v Gloucester came. Unusual type of card, as he was in fact the ball carrier. If you can't see it due to restrictions I will see if I can video it or find another copy.

Luamanu also RC'd for Quins (vs Sale).

Late tackle YC in the Wasps game - think it was Guy Thompson.

Gouging incident in the Brive game with a separate mass brawl - both videos available here
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/adrumm/watch-vile-eye-gougeing-incident-game-brive-grenoble-leaves-fans-horrified/

Anything else catch your attention?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Faosiliva Clear red card, deliberate strike to the head. Heard flatman talking bollocks about it in the itv catchup show saying it happens every week. Well it might but it is still a red card.
The French game should be a long ban for the eye gouging and surely more than 3 reds for the brawl if it is reviewed.

 

[Pegleg]

Until WR sorts out contact hand to face with a blanket ban This problem is not going to go away. The brawl? Half a dozen reds at least and CoCs agains a few of the back room staff.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here's another one from the weekend.

It is a near perfect example of why the Law is an Ass when it comes to mandatory YC or RC for tackling a player whose feet are off the ground.

Will someone please explain how the hell White 13 was supposed to predict that Red 11 would jump for a bouncing ball when he didn't need to?

I have noticed a lot more of this happening recently, as coaches cotton on to the fact that a player can get an opponent penalised, or at the very least prevent a tackle by jumping, even for a bouncing ball, and even when they don't need to.

Mr Jutge needs to reconsider his ill advised memo.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

This has been a big discussion point early season for us too. The question I think we need to answer is which player is making the play dangerous? By jumping right at the last minute, it could certainly be argued that the ball catcher is putting himself in a dangerous position. However you could also argue that the chaser should/could time his run better to wait the split second until the catcher lands to pummel him. If the chaser gets in a position where he can challenge for the ball he can also jump and therefore create a fair contest. It's a very tricky one.

For now though I can understand why WR/IRB has gone down this route. It is much easier to judge the outcome than the intention for example. Player in the air gets protection makes it simple. If there is then a landing on back/side/head we can give cards appropriately and clearly sell our decision.

 

[Pegleg]

Sorry but I don't get WR's point at all. The point that is being made on here, is that the person getting "protected" is often the one CREATING" the danger. Why should the "guilty" party be the one who hold all the cards?

If you jump into a challenge when there is no need to: Hard luck! (and even that can't be a "hard and fast" rule!)


We, as referees, are there to make sense of the laws and regs. Use common sense and explain our calls.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If the chaser gets in a position where he can challenge for the ball he can also jump and therefore create a fair contest.

And if he makes a split second decision to jump, and the other guy makes a split second decision not to jump?

Have a look at the OP video in this post.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19891-Rugby-or-110m-hurdles

Tell me what happens if Vaea Fifita doesn't quite clear Piers Francis, who manages to get his arms around Fifita's legs?

Clearly it would be Fifita at fault, but Jutge's memo is clear, the mantra is that the man in the air is ALWAYS protected, and Francis MUST be YC or RC depending on how Fifita lands.

That is what you get when you take the decision making out of the hands of the people you have entrusted to make decisions.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I completely agree with you regarding jumping while holding the ball - the ball carrier in that instance is putting himself (and the tackler) in danger. In my mind that is always a penalty against the ball carrier for dangerous play. It is also a question is about a "fair challenge". So if the player is running with the ball and jumps, he creates an unfair environment because the would be tackler does not have fair opportunity to contest him.

If the ball is in the air and two players are going for the ball, then it is a fair contest if both jump for it.

If one player chooses not to contest the ball and instead play the man, then it can only be a fair (and safe) contest if he makes that challenges when the player lands. The player on the ground - who is clearly not going for the ball but is going to tackle the catcher - knows there is potential for the would be catcher to jump. So he must adjust his play for that, even if the catcher decides not to jump.

Of course there will be grey areas and everything happens extremely fast at the top level, but if everyone knows the rule of thumb is "the player in the air gets protected" then everyone can adjust their game to fit in line with that. A more difficult example is when a would be catcher waits on the ground for the ball and a chaser jumps into him (leading with his knees/legs for example) - I believe that the jumping player has clearly put himself in danger and the guy on the ground couldn't do anything about it. But that said, everyone knows the player in the air is protected, then the first player (the one waiting on the ground) can be expected to jump to protect himself from being at risk of being sent off.

So while I don't necessarily like the idea that the guy in the air is always protected, at least if it is consistent and everyone knows that, then all players can adjust their games to work in that environment. When the guidance is not clear, then it is harder for players to adjust their play consistently as they will be constantly adjusting to different referees etc

 

[Pegleg]

Consistent even if is its blatently wrong? Do you write law for WR?

I can't agree with you sorry.