What would you give?

[Phil E]

If anyone can embed this video it would help.

http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/Team/LeicesterTigers

Leicester v Wasps full match video 01:03:45 on the video slider.

Kick by Jimmy Gopperth, caught in touch by Mathew Tait

 

[FlipFlop]

Full speed - probably just a PK, maybe a YC, because I would have missed the important detail. And been in a bad position to see that detail, given you need to be the wrong side of play to see it.

But with a TMO - Jimmy clearly looks down at Tait, see he is in touch, and still tries to "compete" - by swinging an arm (punch to the head?), then it is a shoulder charge (no wrap) and so late he can't claim he is competing). Then Jimmy realises how bad that looks and tries to hold him arms in the "cradle catch" position. It's is minimum YC, and no-one would complain at a RC.

If his fist is closed - then for me a RC, if not - I can understand the YC and leave it to the Citing Officer at that level.

In case you link doesn't work (didn't for me). I hope this is the incident you mean.
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/11/unsuprisingly-this-jimmy-gopperth.html


EDIT: thanks for the link FF, I don't think the PRL videos are available outside the UK.
Phil E

 

[TheBFG]

I'd give him a 3 week ban :wink:

 

[RobLev]

If anyone can embed this video it would help.

http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/Team/LeicesterTigers

Leicester v Wasps full match video 01:03:45 on the video slider.

Kick by Jimmy Gopperth, caught in touch by Mathew Tait

RC. Slomo or no slomo, that was a deliberate and premeditated cheap shot with the elbow. He had no chance, and knew he had no chance, of catching the ball. Holding his arms out in front of himself after the shot as if he'd tried to catch it is the clincher.

Then again, I know I'm out of step with others on this forum about jumping players, and no doubt the correct answer is a YC for Tait for not jumping to catch the ball...

Should Leicester have been given the option of PK at the infringement, or lineout where the ball was kicked? I can't see anything in law that allows the PK to be where the ball was kicked, which the ref was proposing.

 

[RobLev]

RC. Slomo or no slomo, that was a deliberate and premeditated cheap shot with the elbow. He had no chance, and knew he had no chance, of catching the ball. Holding his arms out in front of himself after the shot as if he'd tried to catch it is the clincher.

Then again, I know I'm out of step with others on this forum about jumping players, and no doubt the correct answer is a YC for Tait for not jumping to catch the ball...

Should Leicester have been given the option of PK at the infringement, or lineout where the ball was kicked? I can't see anything in law that allows the PK to be where the ball was kicked, which the ref was proposing.

And he's got a 3 week ban, which Wasps are appealing.

 

[ddjamo]

he's lucky at 3 weeks.

 

[RobLev]

And he's got a 3 week ban, which Wasps are appealing.

I can't see grounds of appeal; the only reason I can see for it not being a top end entry point (8 weeks) is because he didn't do Tait any real damage. The JO was quite properly unimpressed with his "explanation" at the hearing, and I'd have thought he was lucky to be given the mitigation he was.

 

[RobLev]

I'd give him a 3 week ban :wink:

Softie.

Still, he's appealing, so he could get an increase...

Are Wasps playing a game between 20 and 23 November? Because if not, the only way they'll get a meaningful reduction in the suspension is if they persuade the Appeal Panel that the only option the JO had was a Low End sanction. Which is surely a remote possibility.

 

[Phil E]

Should Leicester have been given the option of PK at the infringement, or lineout where the ball was kicked? I can't see anything in law that allows the PK to be where the ball was kicked, which the ref was proposing.

It's an interesting question. The referees reasoning was that the ball was kicked straight out on the full, so the restart would be where the ball was kicked from, and that's where he said to the TMO he was going to give the kick, on the 15m line.

But when the play restarted the kick was on the 15m; in line with where the incident took place.

Under Law 10, misconduct while the ball was out of play, the PK would have been where any restart would have been (back where it was kicked from), but as the whistle hadn't gone when contact was made, then the ball was still in play. So we are back to law 21.

I would love to know on what basis they have appealed?

 

[TheBFG]

Appeal, he was a Leicester player and therefore deserved it :wink:

 

[crossref]

It's an interesting question. The referees reasoning was that the ball was kicked straight out on the full, so the restart would be where the ball was kicked from, and that's where he said to the TMO he was going to give the kick, on the 15m line.

But when the play restarted the kick was on the 15m; in line with where the incident took place.

Under Law 10, misconduct while the ball was out of play, the PK would have been where any restart would have been (back where it was kicked from), but as the whistle hadn't gone when contact was made, then the ball was still in play. So we are back to law 21.

It is interesting, especially given the modern trend - apparently - to not bother to blow the whistle when it's obvious the ball is out.

When is the ball out of play - when it goes out of play, or when the referee blows the whistle?

 

[Decorily]

It is interesting, especially given the modern trend - apparently - to not bother to blow the whistle when it's obvious the ball is out.

When is the ball out of play - when it goes out of play, or when the referee blows the whistle?

Is it not bothering or is waiting to see if the QTI is happening?

 

[crossref]

yes, probably.
Either way, if that's the whistle policy of the ref, we wil have time when the ball is clearly out of play, and no whistle has gone. (as the QTI is on, we're in a zombie ball situation, the ball neitehr live nor dead)

And one common reason for an off-the-pitch flashpoint is when the QTI is on and one player is trying to prevent another from taking it...

 

[Decorily]

This is my 'whistle policy' as you put it crossref...often wonder if it is the correct or best one!

Any other views?

 

[crossref]

This is my 'whistle policy' as you put it crossref...often wonder if it is the correct or best one!

Any other views?

I think it is an intersting idea - especially when there are no ARs signalling if QTI is on or not

BUT consistency across different refs is more important, and currently it's not correct - the Law says that the ref blows a whistle when ball is in touch.

My preferred idea would be
- whistle when the ball goes into touch
- second whistle to indicate the chance for a QTI has gone.

Sometimes obvisouly this would be a peep, and then a second immediate peep.

 

[Decorily]

I suppose I see it like playing advantage....don't blow to stop the game unnecessarily!

 

[Womble]

I think it is an intersting idea - especially when there are no ARs signalling if QTI is on or not

BUT consistency across different refs is more important, and currently it's not correct - the Law says that the ref blows a whistle when ball is in touch.

My preferred idea would be
- whistle when the ball goes into touch
- second whistle to indicate the chance for a QTI has gone.

Sometimes obvisouly this would be a peep, and then a second immediate peep.

This has been discussed pre zombie ball, Crossref, hold your head in shame

 

[Womble]

Players instinct is to stop when they hear the whistle ( start of each half & time on ,excluded)

 

[thepercy]

Players instinct is to stop when they hear the whistle ( start of each half & time on ,excluded)

Players Quick Tap after a penalty whistle, why not quick throw after a ball in touch whistle.

 

[crossref]

Shrug, there are arguments all ways, what's important is consistency, which we currently don't have