[Tackle] Saracens vs exeter citing outcome

[JohnP]

Thoughts re the outcome of the disciplinary process/outcome and the on field process the ref applied on the day?
http://www.rugbydump.com/2017/01/5524/barrington-cleared-while-barritt-gets-banned-after-no-card

 

[Pinky]

We discussed this at our society meeting tonight and it was suggested that it was correct to RC Barrett and a suggestion that Barrington should have received a YC. I am not convinced by the explanation by the DC for Barrington, as I doubt if Parling was unconscious until he had been hit in the head by Barrington's shoulder, and when you look at the slow mo, altough Parling was being brought down by Barrett's high tackle, Barrington stood up into the contact with his shoulder risking (and achieving) contact with Parling's head.

 

[Rawling]

Some discussion here too mixed in with another thread.

Edit: OK, so here is Barrington's hearing report. Red card dismissed, because Barrington was stationary (and so couldn't have been charging) and wrapped Parling's left arm with his his right arm (and so did attempt to bind).

Here is Barrit's.

 

[Nigib]

Here's a view from Wayne:

http://sport.bt.com/sport-hurts/rugby-tonight-analysis-new-tackle-directives-91364135809017

 

[Dickie E]

Some discussion here too mixed in with another thread.

Edit: OK, so here is Barrington's hearing report. Red card dismissed, because Barrington was stationary (and so couldn't have been charging) and wrapped Parling's left arm with his his right arm (and so did attempt to bind).

Here is Barrit's.

So the takeaway here is that, while foul play may have been committed, 10.4(g) wasn't the right law to reference on the paperwork.

I've seen these reports being filled out. Post-game in the ref's locker room, sweaty, muddy, #4 rummaging through his kit trying to find a law book, ref just wanting to have a shower and get out of there, everyone else on social media to see what the pundits thought of the game. Maybe there's a better way.

 

[menace]

I can understand why S1 was let off. So they more or less blame S12 for knocking out Parling (which I agree) and proceed to do nothing about it. So justice is not served ....again. ( yes i know that it is not their monkey that the wrong person was charged....but surely the l citing officer should have picked this up)

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can understand why S1 was let off. So they more or less blame S12 for knocking out Parling (which I agree) and proceed to do nothing about it. So justice is not served ....again. ( yes i know that it is not their monkey that the wrong person was charged....but surely the l citing officer should have picked this up)

He did. The player he cited was S12 and he was suspended.

The Citing Officer cannot cite Red Carded players

17.9.2 Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act(s) of Foul Play where such act(s) may have been detected by the referee or assistant referee and which may have been the subject of referee action. A Citing Commissioner may not cite a Player for an act(s) of Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off save where the Ordering Off is as a result of two yellow cards. A Player in that situation may also be cited for the act(s) of Foul Play which resulted in either or both yellow card(s).

A Red Carded player is in effect automatically cited, and only the DC or JO can exonerate him.

 

[menace]

He did. The player he cited was S12 and he was suspended.

The Citing Officer cannot cite Red Carded players

17.9.2 Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act(s) of Foul Play where such act(s) may have been detected by the referee or assistant referee and which may have been the subject of referee action. A Citing Commissioner may not cite a Player for an act(s) of Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off save where the Ordering Off is as a result of two yellow cards. A Player in that situation may also be cited for the act(s) of Foul Play which resulted in either or both yellow card(s).

A Red Carded player is in effect automatically cited, and only the DC or JO can exonerate him.

Thank you. That's good to know. I only read the judgment on S1 and did not see S12 had been nailed. I retract my comment unreservedly.

(Note to self: read all links in a thread! :redface

 

[TheBFG]

Here's a view from Wayne:

http://sport.bt.com/sport-hurts/rugby-tonight-analysis-new-tackle-directives-91364135809017

And he thinks the DC got it wrong! Very diplomatically put :wink:

In the new guidance it says that if a player ducks into a tackle it is still the responsibility of the tackler to ensure it's safe, so what the hell were they thinking here by clearing him?

 

[didds]

You've made the elementary mistake (easily done) of assuming they were thinking.

didds

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

And he thinks the DC got it wrong! Very diplomatically put :wink:

In the new guidance it says that if a player ducks into a tackle it is still the responsibility of the tackler to ensure it's safe, so what the hell were they thinking here by clearing him?

Wasn't the guidance in the original World Rugby guidance was that in this kind of example (where player is slipping/falling) the contact could be deemed "accidental" and that would be a minimum sanction of a PK (rather than minimum YC), so makes sense they can rescind the red card. Maybe they could have said the actions were not worthy of a RC but a penalty only, so the player is cleared of any potential ban etc? Not sure if the CO is allowed to provide such judgement?

 

[Ian_Cook]

56. In the Panel’s view, the Player was in a position from which to effect a lawful contact, and that, had it not been for the actions of S12, he would have done so. Given that E5 fell onto the Player in under 1/3 of a second later, the Panel did not feel it had been possible for the Player to have altered his position to avoid the collision with
E5

58. In the Panel's view, the incident had arisen in consequence of the specific dynamic of E5 falling unconscious into the Player, which as noted had happened in a split second.

Finally, finally, some JO's who understand how important reaction time is in reaching decisions.

 

[winchesterref]

Finally, finally, some JO's who understand how important reaction time is in reaching decisions.

Better late than never!

They'll probably all have next week off duty.

 

[OB..]

I still don't understand. He got a RC because his shoulder made contact with the opponent's head. Now it may indeed be argued that he might have hit him lower down, but it would still have been an illegal tackle that went a little higher than intended. Is that not a RC offence?

I don't see that his tackle attempt only became illegal when the opponent started to fall - it never looked like an attempt to wrap below the armpits.

 

[beckett50]

I still don't understand. He got a RC because his shoulder made contact with the opponent's head. Now it may indeed be argued that he might have hit him lower down, but it would still have been an illegal tackle that went a little higher than intended. Is that not a RC offence?

I don't see that his tackle attempt only became illegal when the opponent started to fall - it never looked like an attempt to wrap below the armpits.

OB, they are saying that without the reckless tackle by S12 the contact with S1 would (probably) not have been with the shoulder. And I use as evidence their wording paragraph 56 "Given that E5 fell onto the player..."

Being legal people the language is well chosen and by using "fell" the inference is that he was not in control of his own momentum.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I still don't understand. He got a RC because his shoulder made contact with the opponent's head. Now it may indeed be argued that he might have hit him lower down, but it would still have been an illegal tackle that went a little higher than intended. Is that not a RC offence?

I don't see that his tackle attempt only became illegal when the opponent started to fall - it never looked like an attempt to wrap below the armpits.

OB, they are saying that without the reckless tackle by S12 the contact with S1 would (probably) not have been with the shoulder. And I use as evidence their wording paragraph 56 "Given that E5 fell onto the player..."

Being legal people the language is well chosen and by using "fell" the inference is that he was not in control of his own momentum.

Also this

50. The Panel did not consider that, in all the circumstances, the Player’s actions could be judged to be a charge, noting that there only been a very limited forward movement of the Player towards E5. There was no aggressive/positive forward movement as one would normally associate with a "charge".

51. The Panel was further not able to conclude that the Player had knocked down E5, noting again that the collision that had ensued appeared to have been inevitable in consequence of E5s unconscious fall

52. Even if an alternative determination of that movement could have been arrived at, as noted above, the offence contrary to Law 10.4(g) requires, in addition to a charge or a knock down, there to have been no attempt to have grasped the opponent involved.

53. Having reviewed the footage at length, the Panel found that the Player's right arm and hand was in full contact with E5s left arm. Whilst pointing downward it then moved up consistent with the hand seeking purchase on E5. That was rendered more difficult due the uncontrolled fall of E5. In addition, the Player's left hand was reaching up towards E5's body consistent with trying to grab E5.

I think they are saying that S1 was unable to grasp E5 because his fall closed the distance so quickly that S1 had no chance to grasp. However, S1's actions indicated that he was attempting to grasp and would probably have been successful but for the prior contact by S12 which led to E5's fall.

I see this as somewhat similar to the Sam Cane - Robbie Henshaw collision late last year, where Henshaw was legally tackled by another player and as a result, swung into Cane's path before he had any chance to react. Cane was cited but found not guilty of foul play.

 

[OB..]

Barrington's left arm was up but his right arm was down. His body was almost upright. Any contact would surely have been high enough to be considered reckless if it ended up too high. Was the fall really too fast for him to adjust to a legal tackle? I don't see it.

Should the fact that Parling was clearly knocked out by Barritt before any contact by Barrington make any difference? I am uncomfortable with the outcome though would happily have accepted a reduction to YC for Barrington.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Barrington's left arm was up but his right arm was down. His body was almost upright. Any contact would surely have been high enough to be considered reckless if it ended up too high. Was the fall really too fast for him to adjust to a legal tackle? I don't see it.

49. E5, who had been moving at pace then fell forward towards the incoming Player. He was also further propelled across, and left, into the Player’s path by the follow through of S12 from the initial contact. The footage timer showed that this happened in under 1/3 of a second.

1/3 (0.33) of a second is about human reaction time; the best fast jet pilots can be down as low as 0.19 sec. And that is just the time taken to BEGIN to react to what you have seen. Do you really think that a rugby player should be able to see, react and complete the adjustment of his position and change his body position all within that 1/3 of a second time frame?

You should get someone to do the ruler drop test with you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XM-4Qavh5k

 

[menace]

49. E5, who had been moving at pace then fell forward towards the incoming Player. He was also further propelled across, and left, into the Player’s path by the follow through of S12 from the initial contact. The footage timer showed that this happened in under 1/3 of a second.

1/3 (0.33) of a second is about human reaction time; the best fast jet pilots can be down as low as 0.19 sec. And that is just the time taken to BEGIN to react to what you have seen. Do you really think that a rugby player should be able to see, react and complete the adjustment of his position and change his body position all within that 1/3 of a second time frame?

You should get someone to do the ruler drop test with you?
]

And a Forward no less!!! No chance of quicker reaction.....but perhaps if it was saving a cheeseburger from hitting the deck????

Ill get me coat...

 

[OB..]

I was making the point that Barrington was not lined up for a legal tackle. I suggest he would not have had time to adjust to a legal tackle even if Parling had not been falling.

I think we can over-analyse this, but I remain uncomfortable with adjudging that Barrington did nothing wrong.