Steward RC

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
It appears to me that the whole "was there foul play?" question is skipped and they go straight from "was there head contact?" to "was it with force?, etc"
I think they quickly applied law 9.11 (turned in shoulder, leading with elbow) and didn't subsequently discuss.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,145
Post Likes
1,838
thats doing a lot of heavy lifting to put the entire head contact in tackle thing on one person!
"in part" is still a lot of heavy lifting.
He is FAR form alone. That isnt to excuse his efforts. But "in part" is what ... less than 1% ?
pedantically though, yes "in part" as in "he is a perpetrator". But no more so that every other pro player that has highlighted the issue, going back at least a decade.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,145
Post Likes
1,838
Its just a farcical mess now isnt it? WR has painted everybody into a corner. Same as the Biggar leap into Russeel scenarios. That/this wasnt what the laws were introduced to combat, but its where the laws have led the game.
whatever.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
yes - but how has WR got us here? A lot of blame of the overuse of slo-mo replays has to be borne from the professional clubs demanding that every decision is 100% correct because of the amount of money on the line and people jobs. There has been no latitude afforded to 'human error'.

What was once a decision on 'clear and obvious' and moving on has turned into if it's not clear or there is any doubt then we want it checked and even then, best check it, "just in case".

Luckily for most us we don't have TMO and we just make a call on what we see once whether right or wrong, and then we move on.
 

pedr

Getting to know the game
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
96
Post Likes
6
For public understanding the officials could have spent a few more seconds on foul play, but I understand that’s not the main reason they’re talking.

The “current climate” is, I think, an ambition to do everything possible to reduce head contact. While initially I was surprised by the red card and unsure of it, there is an argument that rugby wants to retrain players’ instincts. And in this case, even assuming there was no intent to do anything highly dangerous, pushing weight forward, with a jump, and turning a hard part of the body towards another player is a instinctive reaction which is dangerous. It will be difficult to eliminate this kind of outcome but this isn’t a player running into an elbow or knee which was already there in a genuine accident - this was made more dangerous due to the actions/reactions of the England player and seeking to emphasise that this isn’t unfortunate but generally understood as part of rugby is arguably important.

The rugby disciplinary system being what it is, this might be overturned, of course!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
Which is why we need the 20 min rule..

(And perhaps two types of RC)
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,145
Post Likes
1,838
The rugby disciplinary system being what it is, this might be overturned, of course!
Yes. But it doesnt then alter the fact that one side played a man down for half the game. That isnt to say England would have won it of course. But that the RC will have had a material effect on the match outcome.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,209
Post Likes
2,205
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
This kind of stuff is just not on
 

Attachments

  • 20230320_151242.jpg
    20230320_151242.jpg
    172.3 KB · Views: 34

dfobrien

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
19
Post Likes
3
I don’t think it should have been a RC either, and this incident does indeed make a good example of the case for a two-tier sanction system, but I am not buying the argument about Steward acting on “instinct” and having no choice over his action. Assuming he knew, and from his position it seems unlikely that he could have been in any doubt, that England were operating with a knock-on advantage, all he had to do was get out of the way once he realised he wasn’t going to be able to secure the ball himself and counter-attack. The one instance in which avoiding the contact WON’T see you dropped for the next match. So to me he definitely does bear some responsibility for his action.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Good points all round for and against the RC. Did anyone mention on this thread that the refs discussed "duty of care" on the field, before deciding on red?
 
Last edited:

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
A lot of people are saying, he had NO TIME TO REACT, so HE BRACED for impact.
If he had no time, how he could brace?

He turned and presented the elbow.
Had he worn one in the chest, he would have remained on the pitch.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
586
Post Likes
340
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
He turned and presented the elbow.
Had he worn one in the chest, he would have remained on the pitch.
Maybe at the last moment the monkey part of the brain just went “nope” and took over?

As much as I think the protocols have painted us into a corner, at the least I think he could have applied mitigation.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
586
Post Likes
340
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
There is this thing called "Slow Motion Intentionality Bias". When you are watching something being replayed in slow motion, your brain is still funtioning in real time and this leads to the perception that reaction time is longer than it really is.

Maybe one option would be for the ref to call out their initial decision before the replays? If the TMO is raising sight unseen, then replay the incident at full speed for the ref to make the call.

They can then review to see if there is a clear and obvious reason to change the initial call? That should give them a way out if needed.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
Maybe one option would be for the ref to call out their initial decision before the replays? If the TMO is raising sight unseen, then replay the incident at full speed for the ref to make the call.

They can then review to see if there is a clear and obvious reason to change the initial call? That should give them a way out if needed.
i think that (in general) that places far too much importance on the ref's initial opinion (from where he was standing, seeing it once).

and also it it actually unhelpful as, once an opinion is stated, it's only human nature to then defend the opinion.

for me, once you go to TMO for anything at all, then completely forget the ref's initial view and judge everything on its merits. (like hawkeye in tennis - no attention is paid to what the line judge intitially thought)
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Which is why we need the 20 min rule..

I think I agree. The RC was arguably a little hard on FS, but then he's the one who put himself in a position he couldn't get out of. And, at the same time, Ireland lost one of their starting line-up for the duration. So if England had gone a man down for 20 mins, maybe that would have been fairer in terms of the match result.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,622
Post Likes
499
A lot of people are saying, he had NO TIME TO REACT, so HE BRACED for impact.
If he had no time, how he could brace?

He turned and presented the elbow.
Had he worn one in the chest, he would have remained on the pitch.

Regardless of this case in particular, it's perfectly reasonable to say that as long as you understand "react" to mean "in a meaningful way to avoid the issue". You can be surprised while driving/cycling/jogging and have no time to swerve out of the way, so you slow as much as possible and brace yourself.

I think he was expecting a kick (Keenan's leg trails, then he picks up the ball), so he starts to turn; Keenan then ducked into a sprint and Steward flinched. Of course, we all know we can't referee intent anyway...

Looking at the relative heights, I don't think Keenan's lowered height would have made for any mitigation; even stood up his face is level with Steward's shoulder at impact. I think the citing case will come down to whether they agree that he was acting instinctively or not, as that will then make it hard to argue recklessness, or whether he was closing too fast and too upright for it to matter.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
if the card is rescinded then that will really clinch the argument for the 20 minute rule.
 
Top