That should never be seen in our game - Kolelishvili vs. Barnes

[DocY]

So -- 24 weeks?

I vaguely remember a similar incident with a Waikato(?) prop - same sort of actions from the player, but he pushed the ref over. I think he got 5 weeks.

 

[FatherFlipper]

Would love to hear WB's take on it now that the dust has settled.

I've heard him on mic when he's been admonishing players saying that they have a responsibility for the game. My personal take is that this is one occasion where he has failed in that. With a trickle down effect, it wouldn't be a great leap of the imagination to have this happen at lower levels, and players thinking they can get away with it. From WB's point of view, at his level, it can be dealt with afterwards by citing committee. At our level, with no access to TMO and various camera angles, we have to make a snap decision on it. What one week could be a shove to get us out of their line, could quite easily escalate the following week into something more serious.

 

[winchesterref]

Citing has been announced.

 

[L'irlandais]

Disciplinary Hearings - Round 5 Citing complaints.

 

[chrismtl]

I'm glad to see that he's been cited. It sets a very bad precedent if he's allowed to do this and it goes unpunished. That being said, I see this going one of 2 ways. A light slap on the wrist along the lines of 2-5 weeks, or hopefully they make an example of him and we never see this again in a match by any player for the fear of the potential repercussions.

You'll see a ref standing exactly where WB was quite often, and there's a reason for that. Usually the ball will go narrower or wider of where he was. If it starts to go to him, he'll slip between the defensive line and not be in the way. The ref has to stand somewhere, and it's not for the players to like or dislike where he is. I've had players ask me to move nicely, and I almost always will if I'm able to. If a player did this to me, he definitely wouldn't be continuing with the rest of the match.

 

[Crucial]

It was Big Ben Tameifuna playing for Waikato that did the same (to GJ) and got 5 weeks after.
I think that similar to this case the ref was in the way and there was no malice at all, just an unthinking reaction in the heat of the moment. (BT was right on the tryline under the posts and had little room to move as it was without GJ right in his way)
You can clearly see the player watching the ruck and looking to do his job in defence, anticipating that he may need to run in that channel. We can't see the attacking team in that clip, but I would assume there are attacking players lined up there or the defence wouldn't be.
No excuse for the contact, but certainly there is mitigation. I would expect a ban similar to BT's.
WB has terrible positioning at times for an elite ref.
It looks to me like the player has decided from WBs body language that he isn't going to move from there. He has planted his feet.
It is a fair enough place to stand while watching the breakdown, but as a player I would hope that as soon as the ball was won by the attackers he would move out of the way ready for the next breakdown.

 

[4eyesbetter]

It is a fair enough place to stand while watching the breakdown, but as a player I would hope that as soon as the ball was won by the attackers he would move out of the way ready for the next breakdown.

Would you take two steps forward, push him hard in the shoulder, and then retreat back onside? There's no moment for this to be in the heat of; the ball is stuck in a ruck and the halfback is only starting to dig for it by the time the whistle blows.

 

[Phil E]

Low end 24 weeks. How much do you get off for not eating the biscuits?

Law 10.4 (m) Physical abuse of match officials

Under World Rugby's Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 10.4 (m), Physical abuse of match officials, carries the following sanction entry points – Low End: 24 weeks; Mid-Range: 48 weeks; Top End: 96 weeks to life

 

[SimonSmith]

A maximum of 50%, but that assumes exemplary previous disciplinary history as well as other mitigating factors. They'd have to work REALLY hard to get to 50%

 

[Shelflife]

Personally I think its a weak message to send out from Barnes, Ive been told to move Ref and hands push on me to guide me out of the way and they were told in no uncertain terms not to lay hands on me again.

In this case it was a straight red for me, unfortunately players will now think that this is acceptable or that similar is acceptable.

 

[Shelflife]

12 weeks should soften his cough and make anyone think twice about laying hands on a ref again.

 

[FatherFlipper]

14 weeks - just come through....

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_...lishvili-hit-14-week-ban-pushing-wayne-barnes

 

[chrismtl]

I guess he got the 50% reduction of the original suspension. Still, I'm glad he didn't get away lightly.

 

[crossref]

The Citing Officer is no pushover

 

[FlipFlop]

Did WB go to the TMO for this in the game?

For me it is strange that a PK becomes a 14 week ban. How wrong can a ref get something, that they notice, and have the ability to go to the TMO for?

being one level out is acceptable (YC for a low level red for example). But that far? Strikes me of refs being told - don't RC, leave it to the citing officer.

 

[crossref]

being one level out is acceptable (YC for a low level red for example). But that far? Strikes me of refs being told - don't RC, leave it to the citing officer.

that was certainly the way the RWC was reffed. Were there any RC at all? I am struggling to recall any, but there were many, many citings and bans, the vast majority for incidents that the ref had dealt with on the day, mostly with the help of the TMO.

 

[Rushforth]

I decided not to post yesterday, having written something about being able to see both sides.

A push to the chest during open play is clearly a moment of madness. It is also different to a sneaky push in the back during play, or a push to the chest with the ball dead.

Giving a red card so early in the game may clearly affect the final result. Do we as spectators want games decided because one side is a man down for more than an hour?

Yet would any of us be genuinely intimidated by such as stupid sequence of steps forwards, obvious push in the own 22, and then immediate steps back? I'd honestly be thinking "hold on, what on earth just happened there?" WB might not be perfectly positioned, but he can move himself away if asked, as said.

Most player comments I've seen elsewhere are "straight red", EVEN if they think WB was poorly positioned. They sometimes slip up verbally - players that is - but fortunately any kind of physical contact is rare, and even then mostly accidental, and followed up with an apology, in my experience at least.

If I have any criticism of WB, it would be that by not giving a RC he takes away the option to give a recommendation as to the punishment. RC + apology could have been basic 3 weeks for RC +100% added by citing commissioner for being a stupid action involving a referee. On the other hand, perhaps at pro level a 14 week ban is preferable to one of 6 weeks in combination with the match being played.

Would players at lower levels prefer 14 weeks personally to 6? I think not. Red card them, even if it is after just 17 minutes of the game, and if they apologise after the match, don't throw the book at them.

 

[Pegleg]

Giving a red card so early in the game may clearly affect the final result.

That's not our problem as referees. We only issue the card, we do not commit the offence. The Player chose to offend, not the referee. The player crossed the line, not the referee.

Our job is not to worry about how a card might impact the game. Ours is to deal with offences as they occur.

 

[Crucial]

Would you take two steps forward, push him hard in the shoulder, and then retreat back onside? There's no moment for this to be in the heat of; the ball is stuck in a ruck and the halfback is only starting to dig for it by the time the whistle blows.

Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning his actions at all. I just think it was a case of the player anticipating ahead of play, WB doing what he should (as ball has not yet been clearly won), and the player having a momentary lapse of judgement. I would think that as soon as he did it he probably wondered himself what he had just done and apologised.
I also think that WB probably realised all of this which is why he thought the best course of action at that moment was simply to talk and penalise.
Referees are oft quoted justifying their own mistakes by saying 'players make plenty of them as well'. This, to me, is the equivalent of a howler from a player.
I do agree though, that is is the type of howler that cannot go unpunished and the sanctity of the referee has to be upheld by setting an example.

 

[Crucial]

That's not our problem as referees. We only issue the card, we do not commit the offence. The Player chose to offend, not the referee. The player crossed the line, not the referee.

Our job is not to worry about how a card might impact the game. Ours is to deal with offences as they occur.

I understand the sentiment but this approach is contradictory to other game management. Do you penalise every infringement or apply letter of law in all cases? No, because you are charged with managing the game fairly for all parties.

I think what you mean is that this falls into a category of 'must apply law irrespective of consequences'.

Would be better if WR issued RC guidelines that drew where that line is (at different levels) because, as pointed out earlier, it appears that RWC games especially set a different bar for on field RCs (perhaps after the Warburton RC in 2011)