Uini Antonio Banned

[belladonna]

So they're saying Wayne Barnes (and the rest of the To4) got it wrong? On what basis?

The tackle which earned France's Atonio Six Nations ban

Six Nations Rugby Special's John Barclay and Jonathan Davies analyse a tackle by Uini Atonio on Ireland's Rob Herring that earned the French prop a three-match ban.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[crossref]

 

[belladonna]

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]

what does this mean? Is he back for the Wales game if he does the training?

 

[Locke]

what does this mean? Is he back for the Wales game if he does the training?

That’s my reading of it

 

[BikingBud]

So they're saying Wayne Barnes (and the rest of the To4) got it wrong? On what basis?

The tackle which earned France's Atonio Six Nations ban

Six Nations Rugby Special's John Barclay and Jonathan Davies analyse a tackle by Uini Atonio on Ireland's Rob Herring that earned the French prop a three-match ban.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wasn't the only thing they got wrong in that game!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Fair citing.

 

[tim White]

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]

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.

 

[crossref]

my thought it's a great

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"?

Not a bad theory.

 

[didds]

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]

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.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

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.

Mine too, I hate Saturday night paperwork!

 

[Dickie E]

 

[belladonna]

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]

well picking hairs one is no longer a top REF....

 

[SimonSmith]

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.