Uini Antonio Banned

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
So they're saying Wayne Barnes (and the rest of the To4) got it wrong? On what basis?

 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Yes but did they say WB's observation of fact was wrong, or that he was wrong to assess that there was mitigation?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,122
Post Likes
2,142
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
what does this mean? Is he back for the Wales game if he does the training?
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    12.1 KB · Views: 6

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,997
Post Likes
257
My first thought on replay was "His right arm is down by his side so he can hit with a 'hard' shoulder" although his left arm did come round afterwards. The head movement looks bad enough for a 'head contact' but WB gave him benefit of the doubt. Yellow for either, or both.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
WB: "OK so we've got some [impact] through the arm, and some through the chest. Ah. But we have got head contact. OK. So it's not all through the head. And we've got that whiplash going forward. So I'm not starting off at a high degree of danger."

Yet the disciplinary committee started off at a high degree of danger.

I don't think anyone could fault WB's statement of fact that the impact was through the shouder and chest, with some head contact also, so...

Do elite refs like WB have a different set of guidelines from the disciplinary committee as to how to assess a "high degree of danger"?

Would be weird if so, but I can't think of any other rational explanation.

Hopefully this clarifies my original question.

 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,057
Post Likes
1,788
I just think WB is a ref that looks for every reason to NOT give a RC. Thats neither good nor bad, I just think that that is his default position.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I just think WB is a ref that looks for every reason to NOT give a RC. Thats neither good nor bad, I just think that that is his default position.
IMO its a poor approach to take, especially at grassroots. If a player has committed an action which triggers enough of our spider senses that we are thinking straight RC then its pretty likely to be a RC. Taking the approach that "RC ruin matches" actually does a giant disservice to the game and makes it harder on the referee as smart players will know that they can push the envelope and foul play might not receive the sanction it deserves, which means poorer behaviour and grudges.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Interesting that NO doesn't make the distinction that WB did, about the force going through shoulder/chest, and also head, when assessing the level of danger. Makes me wonder again maybe WB has been briefed differently? They are both top refs after all...
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,057
Post Likes
1,788
well picking hairs one is no longer a top REF.... :)
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,353
Post Likes
1,455
Interesting that NO doesn't make the distinction that WB did, about the force going through shoulder/chest, and also head, when assessing the level of danger. Makes me wonder again maybe WB has been briefed differently? They are both top refs after all...
No, one of them is.

The other seems to have become a Welsh version of J Kaplan.
 
Top