RC issued in the bunker

[BikingBud]

He wasn't there and would have no evidence to offer, only an opinion about the evidence .

You're being obtuse again!

The FPRO was not employed to give an opinion, they were required to consider the evidence enabled make a judgment.

The evidence is that the player was red carded, fact.

Based upon the review undertaken by the FPRO in the bunker, the new and much vaunted foul play review process, fact.

If there is any discussion about balance of probabilities, the decision of the FPRO and why they discerned that there was no mitigation is critical in understanding why the Red card was deemed to be appropriate.

Or we just all go home accept the whitewash, mutter under our breath about complete lack of regard for player safety and the fact that the FPRO on first use has been undermined, by the commercial considerations of the RWC, and turned into such a significant controversy.

 

[crossref]

they were required to consider the evidence enabled make a judgment.

Exactly so.

You are thinking of this like an on field decision and a TMO needing a reason to overrule

But it's not like that , the panel simply considers the evidence and forms a judgement

Other people's judgements are not evidence, they are just other people's judgments

 

[BikingBud]

Exactly so.

You are thinking of this like an on field decision and a TMO needing a reason to overrule

But it's not like that , the panel simply considers the evidence and forms a judgement

Other people's judgements are not evidence, they are just other people's judgments

You're talking guff again, on what basis are you making the above assertion?

But it's only Wales v SA to watch so I'll keep playing:

Governance Regulations Reg-17 Discipline and Foul Play

17.8.2 The referee of the Match in which the Player is Ordered Off (and, if a Player is Ordered Off as a result of an assistant referee's intervention, the assistant referee) shall not ordinarily attend the hearing. If requested to do so however by any party and such request is permitted by the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer, or if so required by the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer, they may attend (whether in person or via audio and/or audio-visual means) for the purposes of providing evidence and/or a further explanation of the factual material relied upon in the making the Ordering Off decision. Nothing in this Regulation shall prevent the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer hearing and determining disciplinary proceedings in the absence of the referee and/or assistant referee.

So yes they have a get out clause but without the key decision maker they are surmising and the balance of probabilities remains a woeful argument. It absolutely undermines any pretence of claim for player safety.


Interestingly, SA 23 just yellow carded and referred to FPRO for head contact but as Wales 11 was being tackled by another SA player then it's all ok isn't it?

Yep sustained as yellow

Here come the ducks again

 

[belladonna]

I can't find a replay of the Willemse tackle on Dyer, but some discussions are defending the YC decision...

 

[belladonna]

Still not able to review, behind paywall

World Rugby fears uphill battle in appeal over Owen Farrell red card

Governing body concerned they do not have enough evidence to overturn decision to rescind punishment for dangerous tackle against Wales

web.archive.org

 

[BikingBud]

World Rugby fears uphill battle in appeal over Owen Farrell red card

Governing body concerned they do not have enough evidence to overturn decision to rescind punishment for dangerous tackle against Wales

web.archive.org

Cheers @belladonna , but there is nothing in there to say World Rugby have stated they are concerned.

C+P from WOL and some speculation, as well as recycled player opinion from other world resources, typical crap journalism.

 

[belladonna]

Cheers @belladonna , but there is nothing in there to say World Rugby have stated they are concerned.

C+P from WOL and some speculation, as well as recycled player opinion from other world resources, typical crap journalism.

Yes I agree, totally misleading headline

The things of interest for me were the date of the WR appeal, and the (continued) perception of the difference between T1 and T2 nations when it comes to disciplinary.

 

[belladonna]

Finally, a clip of the Willemse YC tackle on Dyer yesterday.

To be honest I can't see a lot of movement caused to Dyer by the first tackler prior to contact by Willemse, so not sure why mitigation would be applied

(Apologies for the otherwise crappiness of the video!)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The RSA player is looking to bind. So not "always illegal" where as Farrell did not, his was only going to be a no arms shoulder charge. Therefore, Farrell was "always Illegal".


There is the difference.

 

[belladonna]

The RSA player is looking to bind. So not "always illegal" where as Farrell did not, his was only going to be a no arms shoulder charge. Therefore, Farrell was "always Illegal".


There is the difference.

Sounds like a good shout to me

 

[Camquin]

To me, this is the critical bit. If your arm is tucked, you are always illegal and subject to penalty.
Whereas if your arm is up, you are making a tackle and there might be accidental contact.

It is like the difference between fending off with a palm and with a fist or elbow. The former is legal, the latter is illegal and subject to sanction, even if the other player is not injured.

 

[shep]

Question for those more knowledgeable than me.
Is there any mitigation available if OF (or any player) attempted to wrap/grasp the ball career simultaneously with his other arm?

 

[Dickie E]

Question for those more knowledgeable than me.
Is there any mitigation available if OF (or any player) attempted to wrap/grasp the ball career simultaneously with his other arm?

Shep, hopefully this document helps answer your question. I personally find the document somewhat confusing, but that's me

 

[shep]

Shep, hopefully this document helps answer your question. I personally find the document somewhat confusing, but that's me

Thanks Dickie E.



I understand the argument that OF was "always illegal" because of the shoulder charge even though he was cited for a "dangerous tackle" under 9.13

My understanding is that a shoulder charge falls under 9.16.

My question is how 9.16 is assessed when the player's other arm/hand, not the tucked one, is attempting to grasp the ball carrier?

I would have thought it wouldn't matter, but does it?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

S

Thanks Dickie E.



I understand the argument that OF was "always illegal" because of the shoulder charge even though he was cited for a "dangerous tackle" under 9.13

My understanding is that a shoulder charge falls under 9.16.

My question is how 9.16 is assessed when the player's other arm/hand, not the tucked one, is attempting to grasp the ball carrier?

I would have thought it wouldn't matter, but does it?

If I saw it as:

Player intentionally driving a shoulder into the head of an opponent. We are in Dangerous and Illegal whatever happens with his other arm. During the game I'd not be applying "mitigation". I'd leave that the the DC.
It is never right to shoulder charge in that way.

 

[belladonna]

In theory I'd agree with Marc and Camquin but in practice we've seen some given, and others not.

A prime example being Owen Farrell's hit on Andre Esterhuizen back in 2018 which was declared a non-penalty by the on-field officials.

 

[belladonna]

OF banned for four matches.

Owen Farrell ban hearing live updates as England captain hit with ban

The England skipper will miss the first two games of his side's Rugby World Cup campaign

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[didds]

In theory I'd agree with Marc and Camquin but in practice we've seen some given, and others not.

a.k.a. they make it up as they go along.
All this situation and process and thread has shown is that the entire set of tackle laws and the processes and decisions surrounding them are demonstrably not fit for purpose.

 

[BikingBud]

So the fudge has been done.

Farrell has been banned for four matches, but the suspension has been backdated to include the Ireland game on August 19.

This means he will miss England’s final warm up game against Fiji, and their first two Rugby World Cup pool games against Argentina and Japan.

However, he will be free to face Chile and Samoa in France.

Mrs BB has been making plum jam but I think this fudge really takes the prize for best concoction of the day.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Backdated to include the Ireland game he was not selected for. Crazy!