That's done it for me. Goodbye rugby I'm out

[Marc Wakeham]

However, in the hypothetical case. Lets say that due to Green 9 simulating an injury, Red 4 is sent off. The panel sits, reviews the evidence, and decides to recind the card. Could it then cite green 9, even though the usual citing period had passed?

Probably not given the time factor. But even if they could, only if they thought the simulation was worth a RC on its own. Highly unlikely I'd have thought.

 

[TigerCraig]

strikes me as a pretty flawed process.

4 match officials say one thing and a judiciary dude overrules them and thrown them under the bus. I wonder if the ref now has right of appeal?

Or maybe the TMO should be replaced by the judiciary dude.

Better yet, give TMO one job, was the ball cleanly grounded by a player in the field of play. No foul play, no going back to prior phases, no.obstructions ....

 

[crossref]

strikes me as a pretty flawed process.

4 match officials say one thing and a judiciary dude overrules them and thrown them under the bus. I wonder if the ref now has right of appeal?
.

4 match officials and the player himself! said it was a RC, and the judiciary dudes overturn them

 

[TigerCraig]

4 match officials and the player himself! said it was a RC, and the judiciary dudes overturn them

Best bet is always admit the charge. I've got plenty of guys off at the judiciary with a "send off sufficient" or "no case to answer" after they have admitted something happened. Managed to get a ref censured in one of them.

 

[crossref]

Best bet is always admit the charge. I've got plenty of guys off at the judiciary with a "send off sufficient" or "no case to answer" after they have admitted something happened. Managed to get a ref censured in one of them.

if the player admits the charge, then I don't see how a panel can conclude 'no case to answer' who presented the case? why would the case be presented?

Normally if a player admits a charge, the panel will go straight to considering the sanction and the best outcome for the player is sending-off-sufficient

 

[Camquin]

If I was the Gold player, I am almost forced to admit the charge. There is no possibility of misidentification.
All he can say is, I was trying for a good tackle, I put my arms up to wrap, I thought I had got low enough, it was an honest mistake. I am terribly sorry.

The panel has taken a look and gone, we cannot see any contact with the head. there is no foul play here.

The problem is there is no margin between, play on and red card.

Which is why there is discussion of bringing the legal tackle height down to to the line of the nipples.

 

[crossref]

But I think that would all go to mitigation and lower sanction

If the player accepts it is a RC offence, then a panel does not normally consider whether it really was, they just go straight to considering a sanction

 

[Camquin]

As I understand it, the player was prepared to admit the offence, but the union fought it.
They were able to show there was no clear evidence of head contact.

 

[Balones]

Basically I can’t understand how the match officials couldn’t see that the ball carrier was going down when he was ‘hit’. It was a YC all day long for me and normally I’m in the ‘flog em and hang them’ camp.

 

[Dickie E]

Basically I can’t understand how the match officials couldn’t see that the ball carrier was going down when he was ‘hit’. It was a YC all day long for me and normally I’m in the ‘flog em and hang them’ camp.

Blue #8 braced for impact. I would not consider that as a "change of height" mitigating aspect

 

[TigerCraig]

if the player admits the charge, then I don't see how a panel can conclude 'no case to answer' who presented the case? why would the case be presented?

Normally if a player admits a charge, the panel will go straight to considering the sanction and the best outcome for the player is sending-off-sufficient

My experience is that if you go in and plead innocent then the judiciary are off side straight away. It's not a court of law. When I take guys up it's always something like "yes I may have contacted him high but ...." . We don't have video so we need to build some mitigation, doubt and remorse in. I'm generally pretty successful

The one where the ref got censured was a special case involving threats of legal action, support from the other club and even the support of the union administrator

 

[SimonSmith]

strikes me as a pretty flawed process.

4 match officials say one thing and a judiciary dude overrules them and thrown them under the bus. I wonder if the ref now has right of appeal?

Or maybe the TMO should be replaced by the judiciary dude.

Yeah, no.
Over ruling happens - I hesitate to say a lot - more than zero.
If it didn't, it would mean no need for a Citing Commissioner

 

[didds]

or not :biggrin:

well... he did. Aus played with only 14 men as a result. That sounds like a red card.

Of course he hasnt any further ramifications from that issued red card.

but it was still a red card in the game.

</pedant>

Just sayin' ;-)

didds

 

[didds]

I've seen all the angles, and for me it was orange, so I can't really fault To3.

But someone needs to have a word with Koroibete. If he keeps RL tackling like that, there will be a real red in his future.

This ^^.

Noone can be surprised when they stick their shoulder/noggin so close to the runner's head as a general rule, that on occassion either they or the officials will not quite get it right.

Especially when the whole world has been banging on about it for months and there is plenty of empirical evidence wrt head clashes and red cards.

didds

 

[Balones]

Blue #8 braced for impact. I would not consider that as a "change of height" mitigating aspect

Yes he lowered himself to brace for impact. Therefore he was lowering himself and didn’t really allow the tackler time to adjust.
The only way round this is for tacklers to be coached to tackle around the waist or lower. Or to adopt the trial that was done a few years ago that regarded the nipples as a rough guide as to what a high tackle was. That should help to keep the head zone away from damage.

Fundamentally we have the problem of both ball carriers and tacklers (naturally) leading with their heads when going into contact and this will always lead to high tackles or dangerous ones. Unless leaning forward is penalised I can’t see any way around the problems we are having.

 

[crossref]

My experience is that if you go in and plead innocent then the judiciary are off side straight away. It's not a court of law. When I take guys up it's always something like "yes I may have contacted him high but ...." . We don't have video so we need to build some mitigation, doubt and remorse in. I'm generally pretty successful

The one where the ref got censured was a special case involving threats of legal action, support from the other club and even the support of the union administrator

I get this
But when I have been to a tribunal (not often!) They start by asking if the player is guilty or not and insist on the answer beginning with No or Yes

Then the process continues

 

[TigerCraig]

well... he did. Aus played with only 14 men as a result. That sounds like a red card.

Of course he hasnt any further ramifications from that issued red card.

but it was still a red card in the game.

</pedant>

Just sayin' ;-)

didds

I was thinking more the "infringement has been committed" bit. The tribunal said there was no infringement

 

[crossref]

I was thinking more the "infringement has been committed" bit. The tribunal said there was no infringement

Did they ? Or did they say it wasn't a RC

 

[TigerCraig]

Did they ? Or did they say it wasn't a RC

"Any contact with the chest and neck was incidental"

 

[crossref]

"Any contact with the chest and neck was incidental"

but it also says 'the act of foul play was secondary' which seems to suggest it was foul play (but not RC)

tbh, though, I don't think we can analyse that statement too much - it doesn't make much sense. I'd like to see the full hearing/resultsd.