Referees in England
- May 2, 2007
- Post Likes
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
Nothing in the report to allow a resoned opinion.
the actual report hasn't been published yet.
However from the news item on the RWC website
you can see that this is another case of being found guilty under 10.4(e) not 10.4(j). So he wasn't punished for a tip tackle, but for a dangerous one.
It will be interesting to the read the report, and see what they thought was dangerous.
As noted, it will be interesting to read the full report and similarly that surrounding Ford and Gray. I see both have been given 5 week bans reduced to 3. Ford was cited for dangerous play and Gray for a tip tackle. I'm not too sure about the JO taking their own decision on punitive action in the Gray case as reported on the BBC; World Rugby said the English QC had "deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point, namely four weeks" but had added one week in an attempt to deter this type of dangerous foul play..
I await the report with interest, but at face value there does seem to be a level of inconsistency in citing and judgements (Hooper, Tuilangi spring to mind) Certainly, Kenny Logan has made his views very clear; http://www.eurosport.co.uk/rugby/sc...ck-joke-ford-gray-bans_sto4949264/story.shtml
I think - and perhaps the full judicial ruling will make the situation clearer - that the citing officer has seen the initial evidence and had Tip-Tackle in his mind. But then on studying how the tackle is finished, downgrades it to a "standard" dangerous tackle.
but in order to give a punishment, the JO must agree with the CO's opinion that a RC offence took place. It's not enough to say that a dangerous tackle took place - to give a suspension it must be a RC-worthy dangerous tackle.
Of course people may very well agree that it was a RC event.