- Nov 14, 2018
- Post Likes
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
What I feel WR have overlooked is the old adage, "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done."
Well I went back to the original sauce, https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/nigel-owens-abuse-referees-sad-28026742Well he says ...
Takes a big leap of faith to infer that he is referring to the Cane RC there, as he mentions it elsewhere without his opinion.Wayne Barnes was appointed to referee that final because he was deemed the best person to referee that final. He's the one who should be making those decisions. Certainly if I was reffing that game, there's no way I'd want to send it to two people in the bunker to make that decision. It also means that now referees are no longer giving red cards themselves on field and to me that is wrong.
What's more, it's not doing anything to eliminate the controversy. At the moment there are red cards being given for highly contentious incidents, and it's in danger of spoiling the appeal of the game for supporters.
I also think that when you have these sorts of red cards dished out for debatable decisions, it does open referees up to the sort of abuse we've seen recently. That's not to excuse it in any way. It's still utterly wrong. But when there's controversy, everyone's going to have an opinion and that's inevitably going to be taken too far by some.
I'm honestly not sure about that. I watched the bunker at RWC and I watch it every sodding week with the NRL.The bunker clearly takes pressure of the referee on these foul play decisions. If he thinks there is too much abuse on referees, then taking the bunker away is only going to make it worse. The fact that Josh in Auckland* sent Wayne Barnes death threats on instagram over the Sam Cane RC just shows that people don't realise who is making the actual calls, yet. A bit of education there would not hurt.
how long has the bunker been in play for NRL? Has it not improved with use?I'm honestly not sure about that. I watched the bunker at RWC and I watch it every sodding week with the NRL.
What is noticeable is that the referee in the middle has just become a mouthpiece for the bunker, relaying a message he has no ownership over, and I think it affects the dynamics with the players.
When I referee, I can explain my decisions to the captain, explaining what I saw, understand he has a different view, and try to manage a situation where they understand, even if they don't agree. That opportunity goes away now, and I think to the detriment of the referee.
In NRL, there's been more than one game where I've said that the referee has lost it - not because of anything he did, but because of a questionable decision from the bunker. I rather suspect we're on that slippery slope.
For me, no amount of time in use will improve the bunker as it currently is. I want the know the name and see the face and hear the voice of a test level referee and hear the explanation of the decision in his/her own words.
Want can't the TMO be "the bunker"?For me, no amount of time in use will improve the bunker as it currently is. I want the know the name and see the face and hear the voice of a test level referee and hear the explanation of the decision in his/her own words.
This silent, mysterious, behind the curtain stuff zaps all credibility for me. How can I trust the decision of an unknown person of unknown qualifications whose words I only get secondhand after the referee gets it in his ear?
FPRO - Ben Whitehouse, Wales
The FPRO, relevantly, completed his report as follows:
“SA were in possession in an upright carrying possession. NZ 7 attempted to make an upright tackle in doing so he made direct contact with the shoulder to the head of the SA ball carrier. I deemed it to be a high degree of danger with no mitigation after applying the Head Contact Process and I upgraded to a Red Card.”
The FPRO applied the HCP and circled the box which identified that a high degree of danger was present.
However in the discussion piece I feel that decisions made here, are again inconsistent with decisions made earlier in the tournament:The FPRO when applying the HCP also considered the question of mitigation and determined that there was no mitigation present by circling the “NO” box under the section in the report headed “Mitigation applied?”. In the FPRO Incident Form the FPRO crossed box 3 and upgraded the Yellow Card to a Red Card on the basis of a High Degree of Danger, No mitigation.
The Player continues to track the ball carrier (SA 13) and has a clear line of sight. SA 13 is then observed to run back infield towards the sideline, jig, stop and suddenly change direction towards the Player. It appears SA 13 suddenly changed his direction to avoid contact with NZ #5 and NZ #3 who were in New Zealand’s defensive line.
The Player’s oral evidence was broadly consistent with his written statement. He gave evidence that he was watching or tracking the ball and at no point did he expect to make a tackle on SA 13 until there was a sudden movement back towards him by SA 13. He said it was unusual the way that SA 13 came back towards him.
When does sudden become significant or are they 2 separate and discrete conditions?Like all good openside breakaways the Player is hunting the ball carrier and is always in a realistic position for contact to occur. In our opinion, the Player should have anticipated that SA 13 might come back towards him when his path forward was impeded by NZ #5 and NZ #3. We accept that SA 13 suddenly changed direction, however, we do not accept that SA 13’s change of direction was “significant” as required under the HCP because the Player was tracking SA 13 and was always in a realistic position to make a tackle.
The contact zone was moving due to the sudden change of direction from SA13; what is sudden and how much time does that provide for observation, assimilation and adjustment? Even for a "good breakaway?"In our opinion, if the Player had sufficient time to make a conscious decision to enter the tackle in an upright position, then it must follow logically that he also had sufficient time to either first, decide not to make a tackle at all because it may be unsafe, or secondly, decide to adjust his body height or position to avoid entering the contact zone in a dangerous manner. The Player consciously chose to enter the contact zone too high
Yep about 23 days and 4 hours ago.They could have decided that the last minute change of direction was mitigating