Nemani Nadolo suspended

[crossref]

There you go. The sub clauses after are not relevant to whether or not the tackle in question was dangerous - in fact point 4 (underlined) is not even tackle according to the law book.. They are examples, the list is not exhaustive.

OK agreed.

So now read the report on DW and tell me

- which part of 10.4(e) was DW determined to have broken ?
- what was the panel's reasoning that led them to determine that DW should have had a RC, under 10.4(e) ?

You see the problem for DW is that it WAS a tip-tackle, but the panel found that following the 2009 memo, it was a tip tackle for which only a PK or YC was sufficient.

I struggle to see any 10.4(e) offence at all.

 

[crossref]

Here is the written decision on Nemani Nadalo

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...Judicial_Officer's_decision_Nemani_Nadolo.pdf

the first thing to note is that the video I posted above is the WRONG INCIDENT !!

(Mods - perhaps you might consider editing some of the posts above, to avoid misleading any new readers)

The actual incident occurred in the 31st minute of the second half of the match. I'll try and track down a video.



The the second thing is that this report is MUCH better written, taking the reader all through the steps by which he establishes that he can consider a 10.4e offence, what the offence was, and that the player was able to offered a defence to 10.4e

this is a much better report than the one on DW.

 

[Pegleg]

OK agreed.

So now read the report on DW and tell me

- which part of 10.4(e) was DW determined to have broken ?
- what was the panel's reasoning that led them to determine that DW should have had a RC, under 10.4(e) ?

You see the problem for DW is that it WAS a tip-tackle, but the panel found that following the 2009 memo, it was a tip tackle for which only a PK or YC was sufficient.

I struggle to see any 10.4(e) offence at all.

I've already posted it in my last reply but I'll do so again if it helps:


10.4(e) is - Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

That's the part he broke.

 

[crossref]

I've already posted it in my last reply but I'll do so again if it helps:


10.4(e) is - Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

That's the part he broke.

but the only thing dangerous about it was that it was a tip tackle. So the 2009 memo applies, and the panel themselves say that following the memo it only rated a YC/PK

or was there something else dangerous about it? I don't see anything.

 

[crossref]

here's the video of the Nemani Nadolo incident - - but no replay, blink and you miss it (it's the second tackle/ruck you see)

it doesn't look good on the face of it, bu this angle and this speed aren't really enough on their own.,

 

[Pegleg]

but the only thing dangerous about it was that it was a tip tackle. So the 2009 memo applies, and the panel themselves say that following the memo it only rated a YC/PK

or was there something else dangerous about it? I don't see anything.

Not at all. THe video you showed displayed a dangerous tackle for me. Nothing to do with tip.

However the correct video also shows clearly damerous play. The ban is fair.

 

[crossref]

Not at all. THe video you showed displayed a dangerous tackle for me. Nothing to do with tip.

However the correct video also shows clearly damerous play. The ban is fair.

sorry that this has become a really confusing thread - - we are also talking about two different PLAYERS!

Dominiko Waqaniburotu
- England v Fiji
- he did commit a tip tackle, but the panel agreed it was not a dangerous one
- the video of that is here https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/spor...-tackle-q11790
- IMO the panel's written judgment was sloppy
- http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon..._JO_Decision_Dominiko_Waqaniburotu_(Fiji).pdf
- The used 10.4e but offered no explanation of how the tackle was dangerous, other than being a tip tackle (and as a tip tackle they said it wasn't dangerous)
- IMO DW was unfairly treated becasue of confused process

Nemani Nadolo
- Australia v Fiji
- he does NOT commit a tip tackle, or indeed a tackle at all. He clears Pocock out of a ruck
- the video is here https://youtu.be/SRYeOhYdoWo?t=5707
- IMO the panel's judgement is excellent and clear
- http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...Judicial_Officer's_decision_Nemani_Nadolo.pdf
- they provide all the reasoning every step of the way about how 10.4e applies (even though it isn't a tackle) and how the judgement was reached
- IMO NN was fairly and corectly treated.

 

[OB..]

sorry that this has become a really confusing thread - - we are also talking about two different PLAYERS!

Dominiko Waqaniburotu
- England v Fiji
- he did commit a tip tackle, but the panel agreed it was not a dangerous one
- the video of that is here https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/spor...-tackle-q11790
- IMO the panel's written judgment was sloppy
- http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon..._JO_Decision_Dominiko_Waqaniburotu_(Fiji).pdf
- The used 10.4e but offered no explanation of how the tackle was dangerous, other than being a tip tackle (and as a tip tackle they said it wasn't dangerous)
- IMO DW was unfairly treated becasue of confused process

Nemani Nadolo
- Australia v Fiji
- he does NOT commit a tip tackle, or indeed a tackle at all. He clears Pocock out of a ruck
- the video is here https://youtu.be/SRYeOhYdoWo?t=5707
- IMO the panel's judgement is excellent and clear
- http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...Judicial_Officer's_decision_Nemani_Nadolo.pdf
- they provide all the reasoning every step of the way about how 10.4e applies (even though it isn't a tackle) and how the judgement was reached
- IMO NN was fairly and correctly treated.

It sounds as if you are saying that DW was unfarly treated because the panel report was not as good as that on NN. Surely the important question is whether or not the incident itself was worthy of a red card. We are not dealing with standard legal procedures since that is inappropriate to the Laws of Rugby. I see no reason to assume the offences in 10.4 are necessarily mutually exclusive. If that were the expectation, I would expect all cases to be presented with a full list of alternative counts.

 

[Pegleg]

Well put OB. Both offences need to be judged on whether or not the offences were worthy of: Warning / YC or RC. Forget the semantics that belong in the high court.

 

[RobLev]

admitting an act of foul play doesn't mean admitting a RC-worthy offence.

I agree that the JO was working along those lines, but he is mistaken -- In English Law the definitions of GBH and ABH overlap, ABH is a subset of GBH. GBH is ABH + extra criteria. They were designed like that.

But 10.4e and 10.4j aren't like that, in fact they are pretty much exclusive : either you have (j) OR you have (e). A low grade tip-tackle does NOT become a RC-worthy dangerous tackle. They are alternatives, not gradations.

And I disagree. !0.4(e) says that:

[LAWS]A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.[/LAWS]

[QUOTEI don't see that DW did any of those. If the JO thought he did then he needs to sepcify which, and allow DW to contest the facts and/or argue the severity.

DW did tackle dangerously. The JO did specify the offence - he said that the tackle was dangerous. DW admitted the facts. He had the opportunity to argue the severity.

 

[RobLev]

sorry that this has become a really confusing thread - - we are also talking about two different PLAYERS!

Dominiko Waqaniburotu
- England v Fiji
- he did commit a tip tackle, but the panel agreed it was not a dangerous one

No, the JO didn't. He was quite clear that the tackle was a dangerous one that had left May vulnerable. He simply didn't feel that that dangerous tackle met all of the criteria for 10.4(j).

 

[crossref]

Oh well, I guess I have said all I have to say

I would still ask.. What was dangerous about DW tackle, other than it being a tip tackle.?

We have the assertion that it was dangerous

It does fit the definition of a tip tackle

But we have the analysis that shows that, viewed as a tip tackle it doesn't fit the criteria for a RC, it's a PK /YC tip tackle offence only

So in what other way was it dangerous, to justify a RC that the JO ruled should have been given

Anyone got any suggestion or idea?

 

[Pegleg]

Oh well, I guess I have said all I have to say

I would still ask.. What was dangerous about DW tackle, other than it being a tip tackle.?

We have the assertion that it was dangerous

It does fit the definition of a tip tackle

But we have the analysis that shows that, viewed as a tip tackle it doesn't fit the criteria for a RC, it's a PK /YC tip tackle offence only

So in what other way was it dangerous, to justify a RC that the JO ruled should have been given

Anyone got any suggestion or idea?

1; WE as refs / COs decide some thing is dangerous if WE percieve it to be so. we are the "sole Judge" and all that.

2; WE as refs / COs decide some thing is Warning / YC /RC if WE percieve it to be so (subject to any mandatory specific instructions). we are the "sole Judge" and all that.

3; For me it was dangerous.

 

[crossref]

I am genuinely interested : in your opinion what was RC-dangerous about it?

 

[Pegleg]

Can you re read my posts and reconsider your question.

 

[crossref]

Can you re read my posts and reconsider your question.

I have. You just keep saying it was dangerous.

But anyway - I suspect we are still talking about different incidents, in fact different players.

This is the one I am talking about Dominiko Waqaniburotu Fiji v England

The ref and TMO on the day watched the video and gave a PK only.

 

[Pegleg]

Saying it is dangerous and I've looked at both is not the same as saying it is a red card. Please read properly!##
This bit might help you to understand my point:

"2; WE as refs / COs decide some thing is Warning / YC /RC if WE percieve it to be so (subject to any mandatory specific instructions). we are the "sole Judge" and all that".

So WE can decide that dangerous play is

1: worth a warning
2: worth a YC
3: worth a RC

YOU SEE IT CAN BE ANY ONE OF THE THREE! SO I have ,at no point said it WAS RC dangerous! PLEASE don't missrepresent me.

I know what the referee gave. Had he given a RC there would not have been a citing.

I also saw both clips the one posted in error and the corrected one. Both were dangerous. The card call is up to the Ref the citing call up to the CO.

I said the ban was fair. I made that comment in the light of the guilty verdict and the comments that followed in terms of the severity of the offence. I may or may not have citied it, it it was my call to do so. But can see that is was fairly low end at worse. So the short ban is not unreasonable in the circumtances.

 

[crossref]

Saying it is dangerous and I've looked at both is not the same as saying it is a red card. Please read properly!##

[...]

I have ,at no point said it WAS RC dangerous! PLEASE don't missrepresent me.

[..]
I said the ban was fair. I made that comment in the light of the guilty verdict and the comments that followed in terms of the severity of the offence. I may or may not have citied it, it it was my call to do so. But can see that is was fairly low end at worse. So the short ban is not unreasonable in the circumtances.

OK. NOW, I can see why we are arguing.

You believe it was dangerous -- but not RC dangerous. I actually agree with that! So did Jaco Peyper and the TMO.

But here's the point :
- the JO can only ban a player for a RC offence.
- If the JO thinks it was a YC offence he can give a Citing Commissioner Warning (as Tom Wood got) which is counted as a YC

So by banning DW, the JO has said it WAS a RC offence.
While at the same time analysing the tackle using the 2009 memo and finding that it wasn't a RC offence.

That's my beef.
Having used the 2009 memo to show that it was not a RC tip-tackle, if she wanted to ban him the JO needed to show that it was a RC offence for some other reason.

 

[OB..]

So by banning DW, the JO has said it WAS a RC offence.
While at the same time analysing the tackle using the 2009 memo and finding that it wasn't a RC offence.

It was not a decision on RC in general, just that it did not fit the tip tackle RC criteria.

Having used the 2009 memo to show that it was not a RC tip-tackle, if she wanted to ban him the JO needed to show that it was a RC offence for some other reason.

That would certainly have been more satisfactory.

 

[Pegleg]

OK. NOW, I can see why we are arguing.

You believe it was dangerous -- but not RC dangerous. I actually agree with that! So did Jaco Peyper and the TMO.

But here's the point :
- the JO can only ban a player for a RC offence.
- If the JO thinks it was a YC offence he can give a Citing Commissioner Warning (as Tom Wood got) which is counted as a YC

So by banning DW, the JO has said it WAS a RC offence.
While at the same time analysing the tackle using the 2009 memo and finding that it wasn't a RC offence.

That's my beef.
Having used the 2009 memo to show that it was not a RC tip-tackle, if she wanted to ban him the JO needed to show that it was a RC offence for some other reason.

I'd like the tip tackle memo ignored here it does not help. Was it a mandatory TT RED ? NO that does not stop it bein a red for any other reason. That is a separate call. You're fixating on the TT mandatory bit needlesly. As OB pointed out this is not a court of law where we have verytight legalized phrases and loopholes.