Making the press for all the wrong reasons!

[menace]

I was a witness to this.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...eferee-and-kinghit-player-20140525-zrnku.html

I won't say anymore on here until after the judiciary hearing, but the article is pretty accurate. The only thing to add, is that the referee was not hurt in anyway.

And then there was this one reported on Sunday.....
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...consistency-from-referees-20140524-zrn2s.html

Unfair attack on volunteer referees IMO from an ex-wallaby player now coach of a club side who should know better. This didn't need to be in the press.

 

[Dickie E]

It was his understanding that the Wests player was dazed and fell forward into the referee, rather than headbutt him as alleged by others.

The same guy who accidentally sat on the vacuum cleaner nozzle

 

[Dixie]

And then there was this one reported on Sunday.....
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...consistency-from-referees-20140524-zrn2s.html

Unfair attack on volunteer referees IMO from an ex-wallaby player now coach of a club side who should know better. This didn't need to be in the press.

I am in two minds on this. The offending statement was:

"The 30 players on the field were competitive and the refereeing was inconsistent for both teams,'' Finegan said. "When you see your players come off with concussion from lifting tackles and nothing is done, it's disappointing. ''I wouldn't say the refereeing caused us to lose it, [but] when you come out to play you want it to be a fair and decent game.''

The bit in green is, in isolation, a mild criticism of the officating, alleging inconsistency but no bias. I'd rather a coach didn't articulate such subjective opinions, but don't have a real problem with this.

The bit in amber is more objective, and there is an large element of fair comment in there. It is indeed disappointing when no action is taken on lifting tip tackles - though the iRB must bear a large share of responsibility, as no-one now knows what the correct action actually is.

I find myself ambivalent about the bit in red. It's in red because of the implied suggestion that there was no fair and decent game because of the refereeing - which suggests unfair refereeing a.k.a. bias. But an implication often says more about the person making it than the person saying it - perhaps the coach would be horrified at anyone putting such a construction on his words. He did, after all, make clear that nothing the referee did affected the result ...

 

[OB..]

The report suggests that no penalty was awarded when a player got concussed from a tackle. Maybe the description "lifting tackle" is misleading?

 

[Browner]

Oh Dear,

The 'Horwill' defensive strategy now adopted by grass roots ruggar....(shrug)
Wondered how long the trickle down would take!

Wow, lifting tackles, concussion, ref assault ,all in one case, what chance leggings were involved somewhere?

 

[menace]

An update. Hearing conducted. Sanction handed down.
56 weeks.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...-referee-hitting-opponent-20140528-zrr7z.html

Don't go looking for the judgment, as our union doesn't believe in making them available...transparency is too tough!

 

[Ian_Cook]

A Canberra rugby union player accused of wiping blood on a referee and king-hitting an opponent has been banned from playing the sport for 56 weeks.

The decision was passed down by the ACT rugby judiciary on Wednesday night, banning the player for eight weeks for the punch and 48 weeks for the blood incident.

''So, all up it would take four years for him to come back, if he wanted to play after that,'' Wests coach Craig Robberds said.

Something doesn't add up. Four years would be 48 months not 48 weeks

 

[Taff]

.... Don't go looking for the judgment, as our union doesn't believe in making them available... transparency is too tough!

...Unfair attack on volunteer referees IMO from an ex-wallaby player now coach of a club side who should know better. This didn't need to be in the press.

Why didn't it need to be in the press?

 

[menace]

Mate they are 2 different stories....

A coach publicly criticising referees didn't need to be in the press was my point. That's not transparency.

Holding back written judgments so no one can access them is not transparent approach to conducting a union.

 

[menace]

A Canberra rugby union player accused of wiping blood on a referee and king-hitting an opponent has been banned from playing the sport for 56 weeks.

The decision was passed down by the ACT rugby judiciary on Wednesday night, banning the player for eight weeks for the punch and 48 weeks for the blood incident.

''So, all up it would take four years for him to come back, if he wanted to play after that,'' Wests coach Craig Robberds said.

Something doesn't add up. Four years would be 48 months not 48 weeks

Our season at this stage is only 14-16 rounds (reduced from 19 due to new NRC), so if they're games then 56/14 is about 4 years.

 

[Browner]

Crikey, you would have thought a time period was easier to enforce ( and keep a track of) than matches he might be available to play in

Its certainly on the high end of discipline sanctions and definately sends a loud ' ref is untouchable' message if its widely publicised within clubs .

Q? How do clubs publicise such matters? ........... Should more be done?

 

[Phil E]

A Canberra rugby union player accused of wiping blood on a referee and king-hitting an opponent has been banned from playing the sport for 56 weeks.

The decision was passed down by the ACT rugby judiciary on Wednesday night, banning the player for eight weeks for the punch and 48 weeks for the blood incident.

''So, all up it would take four years for him to come back, if he wanted to play after that,'' Wests coach Craig Robberds said.

Something doesn't add up. Four years would be 48 months not 48 weeks

Where did you get 56 weeks from?
The link to the newspaper says 50 games?

 

[menace]

The headline says "more than 50 weeks"....and then goes on to write

"banning the player for eight weeks for the punch and 48 weeks for the blood incident." Ie 56.

 

[leaguerefaus]

The headline says "more than 50 weeks"....and then goes on to write

"banning the player for eight weeks for the punch and 48 weeks for the blood incident." Ie 56.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8&feature=kp

 

[menace]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8&feature=kp

Simple maths too hard for you leagie (from all the drugs?). I should expect no less from someone who only needs to count to 6. (And a QLDer no less!)epper:epper:epper:epper:

:biggrin:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7l8dx-h8M&feature=kp

 

[leaguerefaus]

Simple maths too hard for you leagie (from all the drugs?). I should expect no less from someone who only needs to count to 6. (And a QLDer no less!)epper:epper:epper:epper:

:biggrin:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7l8dx-h8M&feature=kp

Was watching a DVD of a carnival game I refereed a couple of weeks ago and I skipped 4th tackle and went straight to 5. So even counting to 6 is a struggle, it seems!