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

[Dickie E]

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.

it is difficult to deal objectively with an incident that you are personally involved in - it kind of looks pompous. For example, if someone touches the Queen, it would look odd for her to deal with the issue there & then. She would remain calm & dignified and let others deal with it later.

I imagine that if the push had been on an AR then WB would have been pulling cards.

Perhaps he should have gone to the TMO for an independent opinion.

 

[Pegleg]

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've said no such thing. I've said It is not our place to avoid taking the required action for fear of spoiling the game. The soiling of the game is done by the player not us. If the action requires a card then we should give it without fear or favour or worrying about "spoiling the game".

That is very different from your insinuation. Issuing cards when required is an essential part of managing a game.

 

[Pegleg]

it is difficult to deal objectively with an incident that you are personally involved in - it kind of looks pompous. For example, if someone touches the Queen, it would look odd for her to deal with the issue there & then. She would remain calm & dignified and let others deal with it later.

I imagine that if the push had been on an AR then WB would have been pulling cards.

Perhaps he should have gone to the TMO for an independent opinion.

The Queen analogy is not helpful. It is hardly the same. The Queen is some one with no real power to act, apart form being fair too old to achieve anything worthwhile. She also has bodyguards there to protect her. A referee doe not. However, he does have the power to act. Indeed he has the duty to protect the ref who comes after him. Barnes got it wrong. The Citing officer was then left to do his work for him. Citing officers should be picking stuff up the ref / To3 miss not correcting mistakes.

 

[Rushforth]

Barnes got it wrong. The Citing officer was then left to do his work for him.

Pegleg, how many matches have you refereed? How many at a level where there was a genuine stake have you been part of a team of three (or four)?

How many times have you refereed a game in which this kind of bizarre incident happened?

 

[SimonSmith]

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?

That's Chopperesque. It's also not our responsibility, as I think Cj said to the Australian winger when he sent him off for a silly second yellow

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.

I might be wrong, but I don't think the referee gets to make a recommendation as to sanction at that level. They certainly don't in the discipline cases I handle.
I'm also baffled by your math. How do you get to 3 weeks, based on the guidelines laid out in Regulation 17?

 

[Dickie E]

The Queen analogy is not helpful. It is hardly the same.

Yeah, a bit clumsy. It was the best I could think of.

But I still think the optics wouldn't have been great if WB had pulled out a red. He would (maybe) have appeared as petulant, a bit Joffrey Baratheon-esque. "How dare you touch me, don't you know who I am?"

 

[menace]

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.

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.

Can't quite think of the word I'm looking for.......oh that's it....BOLLOCKS!

 

[menace]

The Citing Officer is no pushover

No - but the judicial panel is. 12 weeks discount for saying 'sorry'?!:wtf::buttkick::shrug::deadhorse::holysheep::chair::Looser::Looser::Looser:
What a f@cking joke.

 

[FlipFlop]

But I still think the optics wouldn't have been great if WB had pulled out a red. He would (maybe) have appeared as petulant, a bit Joffrey Baratheon-esque. "How dare you touch me, don't you know who I am?"

Have to say I disagree. In a grassroots game with no AR/TMO, I can see a PK only, as you might not be sure what really happened. But at that level, for something so serious, do what we are always told - take your time. Ask to review on TMO, or ask TMO to look and tell you if you should review. Then it is a considered judgement.

And the optics would still look good. He was pushed, he considered it, he reached a decision that anyone in rugby would stand by - deliberately pushed the ref = Red Card.

And generally he isn't afraid of issuing the RC - just ask Hartley.... (for something that if he had ignored etc, no spectator would have noticed)

 

[DocY]

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

I don't think so, though it looked like he had a look at a replay on the screen and I think that reduced the sanction.
If this happened at a lower level game, all the ref (who was looking the other way) would know was that someone's come up to them and pushed them and there's only going to be one outcome.
I can only think that after seeing the replays it put a bit of doubt in his mind and he started thinking "maybe I was actually in the way".

 

[didds]

did anything happen about Cole's "collision" the other week?

I can't find the video now.

didds

 

[FatherFlipper]

No - but the judicial panel is. 12 weeks discount for saying 'sorry'?!:wtf::buttkick::shrug::deadhorse::holysheep::chair::Looser::Looser::Looser:
What a f@cking joke.

This always gets me whenever I read these reviews - "good conduct at the hearing". That should be the standard, he's a grown adult ffs - I would certainly be adding weeks on if he was a complete knob in the hearing, but showing remorse, saying please and thank you and smiling politely is just basic "being a human 101". Certainly shouldn't be a reference point for deciding a ban length!

 

[4eyesbetter]

Yeah, a bit clumsy. It was the best I could think of.

But I still think the optics wouldn't have been great if WB had pulled out a red. He would (maybe) have appeared as petulant, a bit Joffrey Baratheon-esque. "How dare you touch me, don't you know who I am?"

By this logic, how would any referee ever be able to penalise any player for any dissent?

 

[Rushforth]

By this logic, how would any referee ever be able to penalise any player for any dissent?

Reductio ad absurdum?

Players know damn well when they've crossed the line, most of the time. Their team mates are not surprised when a lippy player gives away an extra ten metres or gets a YC.

There are those who argue that it was good game management to only give a penalty originally. I am not of that opinion myself, but the argument was sound nonetheless, before the citing commissioner made it serious.

Would the manhandling shown in the video be worth a yellow card between two players? No, of course it would not; it was a small shove by the standards of any code of rugby.

My personal opinion is that such an incident should be red-carded consistently, whether it takes place with ball live or dead. Strict consistency is important in protecting grass-roots referees, and I believe that to be more fundamental than the pro game.

In particular I would rather see a RC for this kind of incident, even if the subsequent ban is only 3-6 weeks/matches, or perhaps especially in that case. Apparently my opinion is bollocks according to a person who will be ignored by me from now on who has none. So be it.

Again, the incident in question was so bizarre that I'm not surprised a card was not issued. In my opinion nobody would have been surprised if one had, and even expected it to be of red colour.

 

[Pegleg]

Pegleg, how many matches have you refereed? How many at a level where there was a genuine stake have you been part of a team of three (or four)?

How many times have you refereed a game in which this kind of bizarre incident happened?

374 games. For the teams involved there was something at stake in around 300. Not as much as in Europe but every play has his or her own world cup. Barnes did us all a disservice. No I've never been pushed over, knocked over accidentally but not pushed. I don't issue a lot of cards but sorry that incident had RED painted all over it. Clearly the DC agreed with the CO and me.

 

[Dickie E]

Apparently my opinion is bollocks according to a person who will be ignored by me from now on who has none. So be it.

You must be PMing with someone. There is no post in this thread that suggests, even vaguely, that your opinion is bollocks.

 

[menace]

Apparently my opinion is bollocks according to a person who will be ignored by me from now on who has none. So be it.

You must be PMing with someone. There is no post in this thread that suggests, even vaguely, that your opinion is bollocks.

Twas me Dickie...in post #47.

It was in reference to this...

Giving a red 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.

I stand by my comment. IMO opinion it's bollocks to downgrade an offence for a physical attack that was calculated and deliberate simply because a hollow 'sorry' is rolled out. I certainly won't be saying sorry for saying it....because I meant it. Rushforth is obviously feeling wounded by it. Though I won't be losing any sleep that I'm in his ignore list....so be it. he's appeared on mine more than once in the past. :hap:

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

This I'm sorry is really hollow both at the hearing and immediately after the game. It should be totally discounted. I never take these apologies seriously though in the past I have put it on a red card form as I have been told to.
It's usually the club Blazers who encourage the player to do it and more often than not it is not the players first offence.
The last guy I sent off, for dissent, I didn't get an apology but many of his team mates said to me thank f*ck somebody has sent him off, we are down to 14 every week when he plays.

 

[Dickie E]

Twas me Dickie...in post #47.

Ah, yes

 

[Phil E]

In particular I would rather see a RC for this kind of incident, even if the subsequent ban is only 3-6 weeks/matches, or perhaps especially in that case.

I don't understand why you think giving a red card will result in a lesser sentence than a citing?

The Low End for this offence is 24 weeks. The maximum reduction for not eating the biscuits is 50%.

That applies regardless of whether it's a red card on field or a citing.