Reds vs Rebels Controversial Red Card

[Guyseep]

If anyone caught the Reds v Rebels game this weekend you would have seen a controversial red card.

At approximately 78 minutes with the game tied at 27 all, a ruck forms deep in the Reds half. The ball is recycled by the Rebels and a few phases ensue. In the background there is a scuffle between Ed O'Donaghue(Reds) and Scott Higginbotham(Rebels). Referee Steve Walsh penalizes another Rebels player for joining in and escalating the scuffle.
The Reds kick deep into the Rebels half and have the throw in at the lineout. Just as the ball is about to be thrown in, a replay of the scuffle is shown on the big screen, and the TMO contacts ref Steve Walsh to report foul play.
After a couple minutes of confusion the TMO states that the Reds player eye gouged the Rebels player. It is clear that Steve Walsh doesn't want anything to do with making this call but he has now been put in an odd spot because the TMO spoke up. Walsh then red cards the Red's player for eye gouging and reverses his penalty from two phases back. The Rebels have a penalty right in front of the posts and opt to go for a penalty goal which wins them the game.

To complicate things further, the replay shows what could be what initially looks like a headbutt from the Rebels player before the eye gouging. In a post match judiciary meeting the Reds player was absolved of any eye gouging.

Reds Captain James Horwill was fuming and didn't hold back in his post match comments calling the situation a "stupid refereeing call".
For me, the hands in the eyes do look dangerous, as does the headbutt. The controversial part is the TMO speaking up and having to go back several phases.

This video shows the incident but not the referee confusion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A7zWbkxas

 

[Dickie E]

If anyone caught the Reds v Rebels game this weekend you would have seen a controversial red card.

At approximately 78 minutes with the game tied at 27 all, a ruck forms deep in the Reds half. The ball is recycled by the Rebels and a few phases ensue. In the background there is a scuffle between Ed O'Donaghue(Reds) and Scott Higginbotham(Rebels). Referee Steve Walsh penalizes another Rebels player for joining in and escalating the scuffle.
The Reds kick deep into the Rebels half and have the throw in at the lineout. Just as the ball is about to be thrown in, a replay of the scuffle is shown on the big screen, and the TMO contacts ref Steve Walsh to report foul play.
After a couple minutes of confusion the TMO states that the Reds player eye gouged the Rebels player. It is clear that Steve Walsh doesn't want anything to do with making this call but he has now been put in an odd spot because the TMO spoke up. Walsh then red cards the Red's player for eye gouging and reverses his penalty from two phases back. The Rebels have a penalty right in front of the posts and opt to go for a penalty goal which wins them the game.

To complicate things further, the replay shows what could be what initially looks like a headbutt from the Rebels player before the eye gouging. In a post match judiciary meeting the Reds player was absolved of any eye gouging.

Reds Captain James Horwill was fuming and didn't hold back in his post match comments calling the situation a "stupid refereeing call".
For me, the hands in the eyes do look dangerous, as does the headbutt. The controversial part is the TMO speaking up and having to go back several phases.

This video shows the incident but not the referee confusion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A7zWbkxas

The TMO got the call right

 

[Guyseep]

The TMO got the call right

I agree on the call. The hands in the face was definitely dangerous/foul play. However what are your thoughts on the TMO speaking up a few phases past the incident and as in this situation painting the ref into an awkward corner.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Dumb play is what it was.

O'Donoghue was his own worst enemy. What purpose did he think he was serving by giving his opponent a facial. Was he trying to intimidate, injure, get a reaction, show what a hard man (belay that, boofhead) he was?

Officials are very wary about hands and fingers getting close to eyes. If you do what this idiot did, you are leaving yourself at the mercy of a referee/TMO/AR who might see something dangerous in it.

As for players, such as Horwill, who are annoyed at the TMO protocols, they might be complaining that they "slow the game down", but I don't think its really that which is bothering them. More likely, they are annoyed that players can't get away with the dirty, underhand and off the ball tactics as easily as they could in the past. The Deysel stomp on Jordan Taufua in the Crusaders v Sharks game would not have been punished until after the game had it not been for the new TMO protocols.

IMO so-called enforcers like Bakkies Botha, Danny Grewcock & Troy Flavell would have been RC a lot more than they were (or would have greatly modified their behaviour) had they played under these protocols.

 

[Guyseep]

Again, I'm not arguing with the validity of the call. I too believe it was red card worthy, despite O'Donoghue being cleared by Sanzar after the game.

My question has more to do with the TMO involvement and how in this case it seems it painted Steve Walsh into a corner and how they had to go back several phases to reverse the penalty. If you saw the incident and the initial penalty you can hear Steve Walsh telling the TMO, "I got it", as in he doesn't need any input from the TMO. Then after the penalty and kick for touch the TMO comes back and speaks up. This visibly annoyed Walsh. How far back can/should the TMO go, especially if the Ref didn't ask for his involvement?

 

[Chogan]

Can't understand how there is so much controversy over the RC.

I can understand there being controversy over this

No further sanction has been imposed on the player and the red card has been removed from his record.

http://www.superxv.com/42585/1/sanzar-find-odonoghue-not-guilty-of-eye-gouging#.U3qnXPldVRA

Having seen players receive 12 weeks for "hand in the eye area" I'm flabbergasted.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Again, I'm not arguing with the validity of the call. I too believe it was red card worthy, despite O'Donoghue being cleared by Sanzar after the game.

My question has more to do with the TMO involvement and how in this case it seems it painted Steve Walsh into a corner and how they had to go back several phases to reverse the penalty. If you saw the incident and the initial penalty you can hear Steve Walsh telling the TMO, "I got it", as in he doesn't need any input from the TMO. Then after the penalty and kick for touch the TMO comes back and speaks up. This visibly annoyed Walsh. How far back can/should the TMO go, especially if the Ref didn't ask for his involvement?

The TMO protocols allow the T03 to go as far back as they need to identify foul play. Its only try scoring that can go back no further than two tackles/phases.

In the case of serious foul play (i.e. immediate RC stuff such as eye-gouging, bag-snatching, stomping on the head etc) I expect the referee to listen-up when the TMO calls. When SW said "got it" I thought he was referring to the potential head-butt by Scott Higginbotham, so I think the TMO was right to think "no you haven't got it Steve, you're looking in the wrong place".

NOTE: SW has a bit of a reputation for doing things his own way, and has ticked off a TMO before for giving too much information, but its a different situation now with the new protocols. If, as a TMO, I saw what I considered was eye-gouging, and the match referee was not taking any notice of what I was saying, I would be a bit pissed off about that.

So, FWIW

1. I think there was nothing wrong with what went down, or the way it happened, except that SW should have listened more closely to what he was being told,

2. I think the RC was the correct call,

3. I am aghast that O'Donoghue has been let off. He had no business grinding his hand into his opponent's face on the ground,

10.4(m) Any other acts (not previously referred to) which are contrary to good sportsmanship
LE – 4 weeks
MR – 7 weeks
TE – 11+ weeks
52 weeks

IMO he deserved a four week stint on the sideline.

 

[Guyseep]

Playing devil's advocate here - So if at the 35th minute of play a replay is shown on the big screen of the 5th minute of play where an act of foul play is commited could/should the TMO mention it to the Ref?

How does the Ref handle this? do they replay the last 30 mins of play? do they erase any scoring that happened during that 30 mins?

 

[Dickie E]

Playing devil's advocate here - So if at the 35th minute of play a replay is shown on the big screen of the 5th minute of play where an act of foul play is commited could/should the TMO mention it to the Ref?

How does the Ref handle this? do they replay the last 30 mins of play? do they erase any scoring that happened during that 30 mins?

I guess so. If the ref awards a try then sees an AR flag out, the try will be likely overturned.

 

[Jacko]

That's not my understanding. I believed that the TMO could only alert the ref to foul play which had occurred since the last stoppage (no limit on number of phases) so I think this incident was outside the protocol. Not 100% though - maybe Keith can advise.

 

[leaguerefaus]

That's not my understanding. I believed that the TMO could only alert the ref to foul play which had occurred since the last stoppage (no limit on number of phases) so I think this incident was outside the protocol. Not 100% though - maybe Keith can advise.

That seems very sensible!

 

[The Fat]

Playing devil's advocate here - So if at the 35th minute of play a replay is shown on the big screen of the 5th minute of play where an act of foul play is commited could/should the TMO mention it to the Ref?

How does the Ref handle this? do they replay the last 30 mins of play? do they erase any scoring that happened during that 30 mins?

If it is a RC offence, isn't that what a citing officer is for? Player is cited post match. Regarding the OP, I think this could have been dealt with by post match reviews and possible citings. IMO, there was a possible headbutt by Higgers and then definite fingers in eye area by Reds player for which I thought he would have received between 2 & 6 weeks.
I bet the TMO feels let down and SW would have been happy to have it dealt with post match.

 

[FlipFlop]

This is where I liked JP Doyles TMO interactions.

JP always said - "let me tell you what I'm seeing" and then asks if the TMO is seeing something different. Means the TMO can feed in if something has been missed, and neither looks stupid, or are forced to argue. Even when JP disagreed with the TMO, he found an opt out - the "unless you are telling me it is a Yellow Card...." comment. Meant the TMO could say - no it really is serious, and so a card, or he can back down and not look stupid/lose credibility (can say it was foul play, but only a PK)

Think SWs TMO management has let both down. By not giving the TMO the info on what he has seen, or giving the TMO the option to point out something else, SW has backed them both into a corner. TMO has no option but to try and get the message across.

 

[crossref]

This is where I liked JP Doyles TMO interactions.

JP always said - "let me tell you what I'm seeing" and then asks if the TMO is seeing something different. Means the TMO can feed in if something has been missed, and neither looks stupid, or are forced to argue. Even when JP disagreed with the TMO, he found an opt out - the "unless you are telling me it is a Yellow Card...." comment. Meant the TMO could say - no it really is serious, and so a card, or he can back down and not look stupid/lose credibility (can say it was foul play, but only a PK)

Think SWs TMO management has let both down. By not giving the TMO the info on what he has seen, or giving the TMO the option to point out something else, SW has backed them both into a corner. TMO has no option but to try and get the message across.

they should let the ref and the TMO speak to each other in private, using natural language.

 

[Browner]

" I got it" gave the TMO no option other than to wait to see whether SW had in fact 'got it'

Well done TMO. Irrespective of whether the player was cleared post match, it looked like fingers in the eye area to me, and TMO was correct in drawing it to the attention of the referee.

Horwill needs charging for his post match comments.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Playing devil's advocate here - So if at the 35th minute of play a replay is shown on the big screen of the 5th minute of play where an act of foul play is commited could/should the TMO mention it to the Ref?

How does the Ref handle this? do they replay the last 30 mins of play? do they erase any scoring that happened during that 30 mins?

Well, its back to the last stoppage really.

What I was trying to point out is that for foul play, the TO3 can go back before the two tackle/phase limit impose on the "look-back" for infringements prior to tries.

 

[OB..]

If it is a RC offence, isn't that what a citing officer is for? Player is cited post match.

If the foul play is spotted during the match, it should be dealt with during the match. Post match does not help the non-offending team, though it is better than nothing if the offence was missed at the time.

At the next stoppage, the TMO should be able to say to the referee, "I believe that after the previous stoppage there was some foul play that we should review."

 

[Guyseep]

Here's the full incident:

 

[RobLev]

Here's the full incident:

Having seen that; we're not talking about going back two/three phases of play. The penalty was awarded and taken; and while the line out formed, play was whistled dead before it was taken. The penalty was then reversed (and RC administered). So it's one phase of play, that being the penalty that was subsequently reversed

 

[Mat 04]

I think the end result and the means it was reached are spot on, except that SW was particularly unhelpful. Spot on TMO.