RC issued in the bunker

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,122
Post Likes
2,142
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
A colleague mentioned something interesting regarding the original DC's decision.

His interpretation wasn't that the DC ignored the critical "always illegal" aspect, it was that the DC decided the change of height by the ball carrier caused/led to the "no wrap", so OF's action wasn't, in fact, always illegal.

Interesting.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Qu about the bunker protocol: is the FPRO all alone in the bunker or does he/she have Assistant FPROs with whom to talk through the decision ?
Anyone know?

I have not seen assistance mentioned, but it would be a tough gig on your own, I reckon
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,122
Post Likes
2,142
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
For our Bled Cup game in Melbourne there was an assistant. Apart from putting the kettle on, I'm not sure what his responsibilities were
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
For our Bled Cup game in Melbourne there was an assistant. Apart from putting the kettle on, I'm not sure what his responsibilities were
I feel that there is a lot of benefit from having more than one person in the room, so that you can talk through what you are seeing, and the prrocess. Similar to how we see the refs + Ars + TMO on pitch.

Watching a video on your owmn, with no one to confer with -- it would be very easy to miss something or lead yourself astray.

If I was doing it, I'd want two official assistants with whom I could confer and whose views I could seek .
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
555
Post Likes
305
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I would hope/expect there are 2 or 3 assistants or more checking *all* the feeds to triage both on- and off-ball shenanigans and then rapidly pass the key frames for context and action to the FPRO who, as the single wringable neck, makes the final call.

Not only would more eyes speed things up, but also helps give experience to future TMO and FPRO.

Related question - if the bunker see something unpleasant that the ref misses, will they call it out at the next stoppage? Will they also document for the Citing Commissioner (I’m assuming the matches will have a Commissioner)?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Related question - if the bunker see something unpleasant that the ref misses, will they call it out at the next stoppage? Will they also document for the Citing Commissioner (I’m assuming the matches will have a Commissioner)?
no- that's the TMO (a separate person)

The TMO is watching the game, and doing what you say.

The FPRO sits quietly in the bunker and waits to be called upon for these YC/RC decisions, that's their only role.

I am certain that the FPRO has video-technicians that help them to find the best views. What I am not sure about is whether they have appointed ARs or AFPROs who help make the decision.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Possibly all you need to know:


 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
No mention of assistants for the FPRO
Not sure what to make of that . Perhaps there are no assistants. Or perhaps they just aren't mentioned
I would previously have said it was the process, not the number of people, that was important .

But given the activities over the last 10 days or so, I would now say the process is the least important aspect and the Bunker should also include counsel for both teams to ensure the FPRO doesn't make a decision that becomes public that threatens the product, in any way shape or form 🤬
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
555
Post Likes
305
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Also:

I like that “All decisions will be communicated via the big screen in stadia and via broadcast graphics” - I’d be happier if that included video clip(s) if they have one since regardless of how pretty/cute the graphics, seeing is believing (especially if it’s your team that are now permanently down a player.)

Not happy that it implies just the FPRO on the job.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Another question that occurs to me after watching the NZ SA game, and thinking back to the first Eng game :

If there is only one FPRO what happens if there are two incidents in close succession. How will he/she manage to conduct two reviews at the same time ?

Presumably they would have to reduce the time spent on each one

And with Barrat yesterday : two YC make a RC and Barrat is off to a tribunal anyway. So why did the FPRO need to review it at all? The panel will make up their own mind anyway

(Wonder if the protocols are completely thought through yet)
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
How long do you feel it needs to make the review?

On the basis that the on field review should generate all camera angles but doesn't allow the time to fully analyse as the game must go on.

And with the synchronised cameras and split screens the Bunker review should scan through all of those and decide.

If the clock starts when the player is actually carded and the Bunker signal indicated they FPRO is already ahead of the game. They are not starting from cold trying to find an incident and then calling up the relevant cameras.

If they are spending more than a couple of reviews of super slo mo trying to find mitigation it likely doesn't exist and on the flip side if you are taking more than a couple of mins to find foul play that also probably doesn't exist

To my mind clearly allowing 8 mins is more than adequate, if not C+O within that time move on.

But as before I am more concerned about the influence that is now focussed on the Bunker, for both of yesterday's incidents to be considered Yellow only was somewhat surprising, both high impact to head and yet not considered high degree of danger, I do not know what mitigation you can apply for recklessly hitting someone on the ground :cautious: and whilst PSDT was the second tackler the dynamics and position did not change rapidly or significantly.

In summary not the fact that numerous events could stack up but the apparent intent to ensure players stay on the field irrespective of the evidence.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
I think he's lucky. I the second YC looked straight RC to me.
I thought so too. Perhaps having 2 YC so a RC anyway clouded the thinking in the bunker.

Then it was up to the citing officer, who didn't cite.

After that it would be closed - I don't think the tribunal has the power to impose a RC, or RC sanction, from a player who actually didn't get one.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Again a very confused message but again perhaps I'm missing something:

My emphasis but what was the event?
The second yellow was described as “a tackle was made on the ball carrier. NZ4 went to clear the tackler. NZ5 entered the breakdown late and at high speed. He made contact with SA2 who was lying on the floor to the side of the tackle. The TMO decided that the incident met the YC threshold and referred the incident to the referee.”
So the tackle area was already clear?
So far as the second yellow card was concerned, it did show that the ball had not left the ruck before the player joined the ruck. The player joined the ruck at a reasonable speed.

If it was a ruck then it might be legitimate to join, through the gate with head above hips and compete for the ball.

But if they deemed the SA2 was at the side of the tackle and on the floor is it ever acceptable to take him out?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I thought so too. Perhaps having 2 YC so a RC anyway clouded the thinking in the bunker.

Then it was up to the citing officer, who didn't cite.

After that it would be closed - I don't think the tribunal has the power to impose a RC, or RC sanction, from a player who actually didn't get one.
Well, AFAIK, there is no requirement for a CO to cite a player who has received a RC as its always an automatic citing and trip to the judiciary anyway. For some reason in the regs, an RC from a second YC is not distinguished from a straight RC. Perhaps it should be.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Well, AFAIK, there is no requirement for a CO to cite a player who has received a RC as its always an automatic citing and trip to the judiciary anyway. For some reason in the regs, an RC from a second YC is not distinguished from a straight RC. Perhaps it should be.
Yes, but AIUI once the bunker had decided it was 2xYC , the citing officer could have put the case that the second YC should have been a straight RC. (But didn't obv)

But it's not possible for the panel to upgrade. They have to judge it as 2xYC
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Another question that occurs to me after watching the NZ SA game, and thinking back to the first Eng game :

If there is only one FPRO what happens if there are two incidents in close succession. How will he/she manage to conduct two reviews at the same time ?

Presumably they would have to reduce the time spent on each one


(Wonder if the protocols are completely thought through yet)
And here we are Eng ARG , two at once
 
Top