Reds vs Rebels Controversial Red Card

[crossref]

And they did talk in natural language , so good marks for that.

 

[Jacko]

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

The part which I believe is out of protocol is that the penalty was taken.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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

I see nothing wrong with that, and I cannot see why it is controversial.

Why can you not go back beyond the taking of the PK? Its not the previous stoppage (the previous stoppage was the one before all this took place); its the exact same stoppage at which the facial was given, and what the TMO is saying is that the PK was given the wrong way because the referee missed the worst act of foul play.

Why should a team have the ability to take the PK quickly thereby preventing any chance of of the PK being overturned?

IMO. this TMO was 100% right, SW was very unhelpful, and the judiciary got this very wrong. The Law doesn't say you have to actually stick your finger(s) into the eye(s) of an opponent to be committing foul play....

[LAWS]Regulation 17 Appendix 1
10.4(m) Contact with the Eye(s) or the Eye Area
LE – 12 weeks
MR – 18 weeks
TE – 24+ weeks
208 weeks[/LAWS]

There is no doubt that O'Donoghue had his fingers around and over the eye area of the player on the ground

 

[RobLev]

I see nothing wrong with that, and I cannot see why it is controversial.

Why can you not go back beyond the taking of the PK? Its not the previous stoppage (the previous stoppage was the one before all this took place); its the exact same stoppage at which the facial was given, and what the TMO is saying is that the PK was given the wrong way because the referee missed the worst act of foul play.

Why should a team have the ability to take the PK quickly thereby preventing any chance of of the PK being overturned?

...

I agree; I was addressing Guyseep's reference in the OP to "the TMO speaking up and having to go back several phases", in post #3 to "the TMO speaking up a few phases past the incident" and in post #5 to "several phases".

 

[Guyseep]

I agree; I was addressing Guyseep's reference in the OP to "the TMO speaking up and having to go back several phases", in post #3 to "the TMO speaking up a few phases past the incident" and in post #5 to "several phases".

When I mentioned phases I was referring to phases in play. I.e. several rucks had formed while the scuffle was going on in the background, a penalty kick for touch then a lineout.

 

[RobLev]

When I mentioned phases I was referring to phases in play. I.e. several rucks had formed while the scuffle was going on in the background, a penalty kick for touch then a lineout.

But SW blew immediately he saw Blue 20 drag Red 19 off Blue 8 (which was why he gave the original PK), which was maybe 2 seconds after the gouge. The gouge took place during the second (and last) ruck after the scuffle started.

 

[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.

We don't know what the TMO said immediately after SW whistled for time off,
SW replies " No mate, I got it .... Completely happy"

So its assumed the TMO was offering to/asking whether SW wanted/needed a review

Once the TMO did review ( which we assume took a little while) then I'd expect 'the process' to allow him to draw the foul play to the attention of even a confident referee !

TBH iI'm amazed SW didn't ask for review, its fairly obvious he didn't see much/any of the catalyst actions.

very well done TMO.

Shocking disciplinary outcome - maybe he was using Horwills lawyer !!!!!

 

[OB..]

We don't know what the TMO said immediately after SW whistled for time off,
SW replies " No mate, I got it .... Completely happy"

So its assumed the TMO was offering to/asking whether SW wanted/needed a review

Perhaps they were unwittingly talking about different incidents?

 

[Camquin]

When a AR calls in over comms they usually identify which side has transgressed by calling "Red, Red, Red" or whatever.
Why can't the TMO do something similar?

 

[Browner]

Perhaps they were unwittingly talking about different incidents?

Very possibly,

It appeared to me that SW was stood still predominantly keeping the two wrestling players in his vision ( six times he looks back towards them) rather than watching or moving towards the ball. The fact that he only whistled when blue 20 intervened suggests that he was hoping to let the two wrestlers disperse/end their altercation through their own volition.

SW clearly did not welcome the TMO intervention at 1.30 on this vid if you watch his Body Language AND specifically the raised eyebrows at 1.39 as he approaches the two captains it definitely indicates him being irked.(Horwill suggests a Head butt by blue & suggests RC)

SW says "if ive already Re..'audible sigh'.... .... ( likely he was going to say -.i've already restarted play?!)

Personally, I'd rather get the whole process wrong, yet rid the game of 'eye area' aimers, OD's right hand fingers moved/clentched into a claw shape, and his Ring finger ( Digitus Annula'ris) was definitely heading towards the eye socket/ball area. The post match disciplinary panel have abdicated their responsibilities to the game.

Oh, & OD's left arm pulling up the neck whilst his right forearm is forced down on the windpipe is another premedited 'thuggary' action, better left in the cage fighting ring !

Louder applause for the TMO from me.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't think they got it wrong anyway

1. The TMO could not have made his call any earlier because he didn't have the replay footage.

2. Horwill's comments about not being allowed to go back are incorrect. It is the same piece of play at which a PK was incorrectly given to the Reds.

Bouquet to the TMO
Brickbat to Steve Walsh for not supporting his TMO better

and fire the Judiciary altogether, en masse

 

[Guyseep]

Just a little info on how the TMO / replay works. The TMO doesn't have control over what is shown in replay. In-game replays are controlled by the broadcast truck and crew. When the TMO is called in to make a call he speaks to the operator of the instant replay system (EVS) and they queue up all the angles and so on.

In some sports such as baseball or ice hockey these functions are controlled centrally by the league, but I suspect for Super Rugby they rely on the broadcaster.

So in this case, the broadcaster deciding to replay the incident is what triggered the TMO to speak up and alter the path of the game.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just a little info on how the TMO / replay works. The TMO doesn't have control over what is shown in replay. In-game replays are controlled by the broadcast truck and crew. When the TMO is called in to make a call he speaks to the operator of the instant replay system (EVS) and they queue up all the angles and so on.

Well, unless it has changed recently, that isn't how it works in Super Rugby.

The TMO has a VT operator with him, who looks for the bits the TMO wants to see again, at the TMO's request. That is why you will hear the TMO saying to the referee "looking for footage".

 

[Guyseep]

Well, unless it has changed recently, that isn't how it works in Super Rugby.

The TMO has a VT operator with him, who looks for the bits the TMO wants to see again, at the TMO's request. That is why you will hear the TMO saying to the referee "looking for footage".

They almost certainly have an EVS that has all the incoming camera feeds. My point being, in this case it seems the TMO only spoke up when he saw the broadcast replay, which was likely put up on the big screen in the stadium as well. This is determined by the broadcast truck.

 

[irishref]

I am absolutely flabbergasted at the judicial panel's decision. As has been pointed out a few times on the thread, the offence in question is not "gouging" in the pure sense when a digit is inserted into an eye, but [B}contact with the eye(s) or eye area[/B].

O'Dononhue's actions (the windpipe block and hand to eye area) were potentially dangerous but certainly applied to a totally incapacitated opponent on the ground. Obviously the head-brush to O'Dononhue may have irked him, but there is no excuse for responding in such a cowardly fashion.

He didn't learn that in Ulster, obviously ;-)