NZ v South Africa

[Daftmedic]

Too true. A player has a. Bad day. They get extra work on the training pitch. Ref has a bad day, and we all do, there is a chance it's a career stopper. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Account Deleted]

Ref always has the option for team repeat of yellow for the captain in this instance surely?

On what basis?

 

[Dixie]

Too true. A player has a. Bad day. They get extra work on the training pitch. Ref has a bad day, and we all do, there is a chance it's a career stopper. Hmmmmmm.

It's rarely a career stopper (can anyone think of an example?). You only have to look at Steve Walsh to see how a ref may get too big for his boots, brought down to Earth with a bang, and then by disciplined application manages to reassert himself at the top level. More likely is that the failing ref will be dropped for a spell following a poor game. In this regard, he's no different to a player whose form drops off.

 

[Jacko]

It's rarely a career stopper (can anyone think of an example?).

Paul Marks?

 

[Dixie]

Paul Marks?

Good call! Stood down from the S.14 reserve list in Week 4 of the 2010 season following consecutive sub-par games; reincluded in the reserve list in Week 14. As a reserve list official, he was never eligible for more than 20% of the available games. There was talk that year that the iRB rather than SANZAR might take responsibility for the provision of officials; I don't think that ever happened, but the fact that Marks failed to kick on from the reserve list could be down to factors otehr than his demotion.

 

[Browner]

Why should a dangerous tackle carry the same in-match punishment as a a deliberate knock-on? .

The guy that one handedly flaps the ball away to prevent an almost certain try [we'll call him Campo 1991-merely for the purpose of humour ] , when he then doesn't get his yellow which may be his 2nd , sell that to the viewer !

 

[Chogan]

So if I sum up :

- According to Wales, Alain Rolland should stop
- According to NZ, Wayne Barnes should stop
- According to Frenchies, Craig Joubert should stop
- According to SA, Romain Poite should stop

Damn, being a top ref is hard :knuppel2:

Especially hard on the one who was correct.

 

[Account Deleted]

Why should a dangerous tackle carry the same in-match punishment as a a deliberate knock-on?

It doesn't!

The Deliberate knock-on suffered a yellow card. That it was combined with another yellow offence caused the red, not the knock on.

 

[iansimcox]

I've seen it mentioned a few times that Du Plessis 'might' have come from an offside position on his Carter tackle.

As far as I know there is no offside line for him to be behind. No South African touched the ball from the restart and there was no tackle ever made, so he's free to roam where he likes. I don't believe you have to get on the right side of the ball if you're defending, as you see many times an attacker make a break only to offload it to a defender trying to get back. That is correct isn't it?

 

[irishref]

I've seen it mentioned a few times that Du Plessis 'might' have come from an offside position on his Carter tackle.

As far as I know there is no offside line for him to be behind. No South African touched the ball from the restart and there was no tackle ever made, so he's free to roam where he likes. I don't believe you have to get on the right side of the ball if you're defending, as you see many times an attacker make a break only to offload it to a defender trying to get back. That is correct isn't it?

Indeed check law 11.3

An offside player can be put onside by the actions of an opponent and one of the actions is the opponent passing the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The guy that one handedly flaps the ball away to prevent an almost certain try [we'll call him Campo 1991-merely for the purpose of humour ] , when he then doesn't get his yellow which may be his 2nd , sell that to the viewer !

He does get his yellow, but it doesn't earn him a red. My point is that a cynical professional foul, does not in any way endanger the health and well being of the opponent? No physical harm can come to a player because his pass is illegally knocked down.

Red cards should be reserved for acts of Dangerous Play or gross Misconduct, not for intentional infringements of technical Laws.

Perhaps one remedy might be a second yellow (for an intentional technical infringement) getting you 15 or 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes, and/or perhaps it could be a forced substitution.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's rarely a career stopper (can anyone think of an example?)

Stuart Dickinson.

His train wreck at San Siro in 2009 was his last international. He never officiated another Six Nations or Tri-Nations match after that, only refereeing two tests in the next three years; Argentina v France in 2010, and New Zealand v Fiji in 2011, a fixture that was arranged at the last minute and there were no other referees available. He missed the cut for 2011 RWC, and retired shortly afterwards.

Not a career stopper outright, but certainly a career curtailer.

 

[The Fat]

Stuart Dickinson.

His train wreck at San Siro in 2009 was his last international. He never officiated another Six Nations or Tri-Nations match after that, only refereeing two tests in the next three years; Argentina v France in 2010, and New Zealand v Fiji in 2011, a fixture that was arranged at the last minute and there were no other referees available. He missed the cut for 2011 RWC, and retired shortly afterwards.

Not a career stopper outright, but certainly a career curtailer.

Sadly.

 

[Rushforth]

Red cards should be reserved for acts of Dangerous Play or gross Misconduct, not for intentional infringements of technical Laws.

I believe you are making an appeal to some moral authority, rather than the laws of the game.

I won't say I agree, but I was abused over at planet rugby ages ago for holding a somewhat similar opinion.

Rugby should be played 15 aside. My argument back then was that the individual who regularly infringes should be the one genuinely penalised, rather than the team/supporters. A forced substitution would maintain parity, was my thinking.

It was quickly pointed out that replaceable thugs would be launched at key playmakers, which I did/do not believe to be realistic given the nature of the professional game. But that was the argument about five years ago.

 

[Browner]

He does get his yellow, but it doesn't earn him a red. My point is that a cynical professional foul, does not in any way endanger the health and well being of the opponent? No physical harm can come to a player because his pass is illegally knocked down.

Red cards should be reserved for acts of Dangerous Play or gross Misconduct, not for intentional infringements of technical Laws.

Perhaps one remedy might be a second yellow (for an intentional technical infringement) getting you 15 or 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes, and/or perhaps it could be a forced substitution.

I get the gist, it's a bit left field but not wholly dismissed as a concept, there would have to be some consequence because expecting Law compliance without 'discouragements for non compliance is futile

 

[Browner]

I won't say I agree, but I was abused over at planet rugby ages ago for holding a somewhat similar opinion.

.

that's your own fault ...... Akin to debating social etiquette with Millwall FC fans !

 

[Rassie]

Well this is an action packed game alright!

You have to admire the NZ intensity in contact, they simply never give up going in hard do they!

A few impressions, with 3 mins left on the clock and I have to get to the station!

Game was over with the 2nd Yellow for Bismarck. I thought the first was harsh, he had arms in the tackle. Second, a textbook stiff arm tackle.

I thought Romaine Poite had a bad day at the office, scrumtime a mess and the breakdown. It seems if you wear black you are allowed to live off your feet to protect or even win possession. Lots of sly lazy running and pulling back SA pillers at rucktime too.

NZ can get as cynical as the best of them, even when well ahead. Note the last 10 minutes, 2 yellows.

Ma'a Nonu - I hope he gets a citing and a long, long ban. He has so much previous for such dangerous shoulder charging. A shocking assault on De Villiers.

Of course, NZ very good for the win - no bones to pick there. Even taking out Dan Carter cannot stop the black machine ;-)

Right, off to a free festival in the rain today: Therapy? and Madness for free!

Its because they are clever. Doing it from opposite side of referee and they have a criteria for a Kiwi 9. Have to be chirpy and constantly showing the referee they are doing their best to stay within the laws. So they create a better image to the referee than other sides. Dunno you decide

Even taking out Dan Carter cannot stop the black machine ;-)

cant judge the performance because SA were down a man for 50 minutes of the game.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I believe you are making an appeal to some moral authority, rather than the laws of the game.

Yep, that's exactly it. I'm saying that is what the Law should be

I won't say I agree, but I was abused over at planet rugby ages ago for holding a somewhat similar opinion.

Rugby should be played 15 aside. My argument back then was that the individual who regularly infringes should be the one genuinely penalised, rather than the team/supporters. A forced substitution would maintain parity, was my thinking.

It was quickly pointed out that replaceable thugs would be launched at key playmakers, which I did/do not believe to be realistic given the nature of the professional game. But that was the argument about five years ago.

Wait up. This doesn't hold with what I am suggesting

:noycdangerous play) + :noyc: (dangerous play) = :norc: always!


:noycdangerous play) + :noyc: ( misconduct) = :norc: always!


:noycintent. infringement) + :noyc: (intent. infringement) = :noyc: longer time (15/20 min)

 

[Rassie]

It's rarely a career stopper (can anyone think of an example?). You only have to look at Steve Walsh to see how a ref may get too big for his boots, brought down to Earth with a bang, and then by disciplined application manages to reassert himself at the top level. More likely is that the failing ref will be dropped for a spell following a poor game. In this regard, he's no different to a player whose form drops off.

Cobus Wessels, Bryce Lawrence, Dickinson.........

 

[Rassie]

Well I think the whole idea of issuing a RC for a second YC is flawed anyway. Players can an do end up being YC for pretty lame reasons. See Drew Mitchell's RC for throwing the ball away v Australia a couple of years back. Both YC he got were probably deserved, but together, did they really warrant a team playing a man down?


I'd like to see the Foul Play laws separated into three distinct categories.

1. Dangerous Play: Acts of foul play that are likely to cause injury to other players, e.g. punching, striking, kicking. Late, early, high and no-arms tackles etc.

2. Misconduct: Acts of foul play that bring the game into disrepute, e.g. referee abuse verbal and physical, player abuse, hair pulling etc

3. Unfair Play: Acts of foul play in which the player intentionally infringes of the Laws (other than Dangerous Play Laws) to gain an unfair advantage, such as throwing the ball away in touch, intentional knock on or knock into touch etc.

Why should a dangerous tackle carry the same in-match punishment as a a deliberate knock-on? IMO, a player should only get a RC for a second YC if both are in either 1 or 2 above.

the video ref was asked to review the handbags being thrown or did they mix it up