Slim margins

[belladonna]

What I feel WR have overlooked is the old adage, "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done."

 

[SimonSmith]

The Celtic Kaplan.

 

[shebeen]

Well he says ...

Well I went back to the original sauce, https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/nigel-owens-abuse-referees-sad-28026742

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.

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.
Anyone could see from 18months ago that this RWC was going to be highlighted by controversial card calls. WR decided they were going to take the pain by having so many dished out in the short term, and hopefully behaviour would follow. Some teams adapted better than others.

I mostly agree with him on the laws but he's missing some logic on the bunker.

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.


*not real name.

 

[SimonSmith]

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.

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.

 

[crossref]

A very interesting perspective @SimonSmith . Great post.

 

[crossref]

Nigel Owens also discusses Sam Cane RC in whistle watch

He doesn't actually say whether he thought it was a RC or not, but tellingly there is no "Quite Rightly".

(I surmise from it that he thought there was enough mitigation .. just .. both players dipping slightly. )

He does commit himself on Kolisi .. YC was correct

 

[shebeen]

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.

how long has the bunker been in play for NRL? Has it not improved with use?

 

[Locke]

how long has the bunker been in play for NRL? Has it not improved with use?

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?

 

[SimonSmith]

how long has the bunker been in play for NRL? Has it not improved with use?

I've only been in Aus three years, so I can;t help on how long.

Among some fans, the "another cooked decision from the bunker" is a common refrain.

 

[Dixpat]

how long has the bunker been in play for NRL? Has it not improved with use?

2016

In The Bunker

Inside Rugby League's technological masterpiece

www.nswrl.com.au

 

[Volun-selected]

Seems like transparency and undermining the ref‘s authority are the main concerns - so how about we keep the bunker and the YC with review. On getting the signal, the lead TMO does their thing then either goes YC only and the clock runs down or pings the ref with “we recommend a review”.

Next dead ball, ref reviews the best angles all prepped up and decides whether clear and obvious enough to upgrade to RC.

Saves some time and keeps things moving but leaves the ref to quickly make the final call for RC, and we can all see the what and why.

 

[shebeen]

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?

Want can't the TMO be "the bunker"?
Makes sense for the YC/RC decision to sit in the 8 minute period instead of a rush call
Bunker gives mystery to the decision which has pros and cons, but currently everyone just blames the man with the whistle anyway no matter what he wasn't involved in.

All I know about "the bunker" was that it was in the Roland Garros media centre and the TMO was three people Infront of 15 TV screens at each stadium

 

[Dixpat]

It is now 2 weeks since Cane’s disciplinary hearing and as yet the written decision is not on WR‘s website

 

[crossref]

Want can't the TMO be "the bunker"?

Because play is continuing, so the TMO is busy watching the live game ..

 

[crossref]

It is now 2 weeks since Cane’s disciplinary hearing and as yet the written decision is not on WR‘s website

I noticed that as well.. I imagine there is a reason for that ...

 

[crossref]

it's up!

https://resources.worldrugby-rims.pulselive.com/worldrugby/document/2023/11/20/72f51a86-e325-41b1-aba1-65d98d373b48/231117-RWC23-Judicial-Hearing-Decision-Sam-Cane-NZ-.pdf

I'd say that was a well written report. They give a vary careful and considered discussion on mitigation.

 

[BikingBud]

Interesting that they have now named the FPRO:

FPRO - Ben Whitehouse, Wales

and commented upon the FPRO's actions and contemporaneous records:

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.

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.

However in the discussion piece I feel that decisions made here, are again inconsistent with decisions made earlier in the tournament:

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.

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.

When does sudden become significant or are they 2 separate and discrete conditions?

Although to avoid 2 other players they must be of some significance otherwise Black #5 and #3 would have tackled him. You cannot step out of the tackle zone of 2 players and into the tackle zone of another payer without a significant movement!

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

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?"

So to my mind some areas where they have been very careful not to trip themselves up and on it's own it may be considered a valid and effective summary but perhaps reflect to previous decision and discussions on the role and conduct of FPRO and especially upon the Kriel incident v Scotland and its potential influence on the outcome of the championship.

RWC final was not a place to run an experiment!

 

[crossref]

They could have decided that the last minute change of direction was mitigating

 

[BikingBud]

They could have decided that the last minute change of direction was mitigating

Yep about 23 days and 4 hours ago.

But not now, where admission of wrong decision would undermine the outcome of the RWC final and the product would be damaged.

Much better to provide a very late, 21 days, report that nobody will bother about or read or highlight the inconsistencies in the report or the discrepancies between the (mis)management of HCP and the FPRO through the tournament.

However, the game moves on and the crowd are ushered on, nothing to see here!

What I would really like to see is an independent review, post championship, of the HCP process and the FPRO activities. If we don't review, analyse, learn we cannot improve!

 

[didds]

They make it up as they go along