Will the citings committee be called in to dampen NZ celebrations?

Personally I think that it would be a great shame but there was the knee of God and two (maybe three) high tackles...

why would it be a shame,? its probally deserved- BUT how could anything really dampen a world cup win!

There were no incidents to cite, the 3 high tackles were clumsy at worst and just missed and the knee to the back of the head wasn't intentional, the angle Mccaw went into the ruck on needed his feet and legs putting where he did, it happened to him later on in the game, exactly identicle, it's just the difference between forwards and backs taking knocks.

mystiroakey wrote:why would it be a shame,? its probally deserved- BUT how could anything really dampen a world cup win!

Well It would certainly take the edge off for me. It would (if citings were upheld) forever be associated with a 'hollow' victory.

thebluesmancometh wrote:There were no incidents to cite, the 3 high tackles were clumsy at worst and just missed and the knee to the back of the head wasn't intentional, the angle Mccaw went into the ruck on needed his feet and legs putting where he did, it happened to him later on in the game, exactly identicle, it's just the difference between forwards and backs taking knocks.

Like Lawes and Warburton then - clumsy and unintentional.

But dealt with by the letter and every punctuation mark of the Laws.

And the All Blacks like any other team that has just won the world cup would say...WHO CARES....

So we lose Mccaw and one or two others for meaningless games.....woopdi do.

Portnoy... Touche!

I absolutely detest and loathe Mccaw, but i don't think the knee to the head was intentional, mores the pity, and as for the high tackles, well they were high, and no amount of prevarication or obfuscation can change it, and every one should have been at least a penalty and maybe a yellow, but Joubert wasn't going to ping the AB's in their Coronation game.

The Ab's were the best side and deserved their win, but the French and the Rugby viewing public deserve their officials to be even -Handed!

Congrats to AB's they were the best team at the Tournament!

Portnoy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:why would it be a shame,? its probally deserved- BUT how could anything really dampen a world cup win!

Well It would certainly take the edge off for me. It would (if citings were upheld) forever be associated with a 'hollow' victory.

no dont be so silly- many will feel as though its a hollow victory anyway- because many feel the ref cheated france- a citing wont make a blind bit of difference

None of the high tackles warranted a yellow card, so should not bother the citing officer.

Nor do I believe that McCaw deserves a citing - though I did not believe Lawes did either.

Portnoy wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:There were no incidents to cite, the 3 high tackles were clumsy at worst and just missed and the knee to the back of the head wasn't intentional, the angle Mccaw went into the ruck on needed his feet and legs putting where he did, it happened to him later on in the game, exactly identicle, it's just the difference between forwards and backs taking knocks.

Like Lawes and Warburton then - clumsy and unintentional.

But dealt with by the letter and every punctuation mark of the Laws.

mystiroakey wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:why would it be a shame,? its probally deserved- BUT how could anything really dampen a world cup win!

Well It would certainly take the edge off for me. It would (if citings were upheld) forever be associated with a 'hollow' victory.

no dont be so silly- many will feel as though its a hollow victory anyway- because many feel the ref cheated france- a citing wont make a blind bit of difference

The AB fans have long held a grievance since the missed forward pass in '87. Maybe a legitimate citing would redress the balance.

After all they came between one or two points of being the rebranded chokers.

Has everyone on here lost their mind? Warrior- really you hate/detest McCaw? I do when he playing against us, because he is so good. He seems like a decent bloke, and phenomenal player. Also I dont think there is a citing issue, if there is I dont really understand rugby anymore.
Also dont agree the ref cost France the game, if decisions were going against NZ they may have changed/upped their game, maybe not, but I think so.
Congrats NZ best team this tournament and best team in the world as usual.

I believe that the high tackles were penalties but no yellow cards so not really citing offenses.

I am suprised that McCaw got away with so much though, i thought that his constant infringements deserved a warning or even a yellow

eirebilly wrote:I believe that the high tackles were penalties but no yellow cards so not really citing offenses.

I am suprised that McCaw got away with so much though, i thought that his constant infringements deserved a warning or even a yellow

If they were unpenalised then the citings committee should be more involved:

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/guidelines/

"Memorandum

The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.

A stiff-arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
At an IRB Medical Conference held in November 2010 at Lensbury the results of studies related to injuries sustained as a result of tackles were outlined. A study in England concluded that “stricter implementation of the Laws of Rugby relating to collisions and tackles above the line of the shoulder may reduce the number of head/neck injuries”. A separate study in New Zealand concluded that “ball carriers were at highest risk from tackles to the head and neck region”.

The participants at the Medical Conference generally recognised that tackles above the line of the shoulders have the potential to cause serious injury and noted that a trend had emerged whereby players responsible for such tackles were not being suitably sanctioned.

The purpose of this Memorandum is to emphasise that as with tip tackles, they must be dealt with severely by Referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.

It is recognised of course, as with other types of illegal and/or foul play, depending on the circumstances of the high tackle, the range of sanctions extends from a penalty kick to the player receiving a red card. An illegal high tackle involving a stiff arm or swinging arm to the head of the opponent, with no regard to the player’s safety, bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a red card or a yellow card being seriously considered.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle."

Getting a bit extreme there Portnoy. If things like tat are going to warrent citings then Rugby will cease to become a contact sport.

Portnoy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:why would it be a shame,? its probally deserved- BUT how could anything really dampen a world cup win!

Well It would certainly take the edge off for me. It would (if citings were upheld) forever be associated with a 'hollow' victory.

no dont be so silly- many will feel as though its a hollow victory anyway- because many feel the ref cheated france- a citing wont make a blind bit of difference

The AB fans have long held a grievance since the missed forward pass in '87. Maybe a legitimate citing would redress the balance.

After all they came between one or two points of being the rebranded chokers.

look in my view they still are chokers- i said this before -the only way it will be close is if nz choke and even that wont be enough to lose to france- the All blacks can not playt that poor- they played that poor because there heads were on the moon- and they got lucky- oiverall i am happy they won they did enough- but still it was a terrible performance

eirebilly wrote:Getting a bit extreme there Portnoy. If things like tat are going to warrent citings then Rugby will cease to become a contact sport.

Once again, eirebilly, I have to appeal for people not to shoot the messenger.

Presumably the IRB have not made their directives with the intention that refs can just ignore them should they feel so inclined.

Portnoy wrote:[It is recognised of course, as with other types of illegal and/or foul play, depending on the circumstances of the high tackle, the range of sanctions extends from a penalty kick to the player receiving a red card. An illegal high tackle involving a stiff arm or swinging arm to the head of the opponent, with no regard to the player’s safety, bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a red card or a yellow card being seriously considered.

As none of the tackles appeared to be stiff arm or swinging arm tackles I can only see that a penalty should have been awarded, thus no citing required.

Should have been 3 red cards,


where's Rolland when you need him?

Can anyone give an exact time or examples of these high tackles, it doesn't help you just make general statements.

LondonTiger wrote:

Portnoy wrote:[It is recognised of course, as with other types of illegal and/or foul play, depending on the circumstances of the high tackle, the range of sanctions extends from a penalty kick to the player receiving a red card. An illegal high tackle involving a stiff arm or swinging arm to the head of the opponent, with no regard to the player’s safety, bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a red card or a yellow card being seriously considered.

As none of the tackles appeared to be stiff arm or swinging arm tackles I can only see that a penalty should have been awarded, thus no citing required.

Do the citings committee only get involved in what otherwise should have been a straight red?

That's news to me if that's true.

As far as I know a disciplinary panel can only issue a sanction for an infringement which would be punishable by a red card.

That is why every red card is automatically referred.

They do not take any action on incidents which would properely attract only a yellow. The citing officer could refer any incident he wanted I suppose but the panel could only punish if it should have been a red at least.

On the subject of McCaw's knee to the head of Parra. The main difference for me is that the incident today occured while the ball and the player were still in play and so were much more likely to be seen as accidental. Lawes went in on a player who was off the pitch and while play was not on-going.

I don't think there will be one New Zealander that will care one iota frankly.

MrsP wrote:As far as I know a disciplinary panel can only issue a sanction for an infringement which would be punishable by a red card.

That is why every red card is automatically referred.

Not true. The reason why a red card is an automatic citing is because it's the highest sanction that can be given in game. They cite it see if further sanctions are required. The way the RFU do it (and I presume it follows an IRB model) is that they cite anything that should have been more during the game. If it was only for red cards we should be having 2 or 3 people sent off in a lot of games.

McCaw's looked completely accidental to me. Lawes went to push the guy into touch but someone beat him to it. If he held back the guy would have been in in the corner. Happens all the time and no-one batters an eyelid. Lawes was clumsy and accidental caught the guy with a knee. No different than McCaw.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I don't think there will be one New Zealander that will care one iota frankly.

Why should I care two hoots what any Kiwi should feel? Basically all I want to see is a fair game with fair referees and a fair administrative structure.

The game is being turned into an adaptation of Orwell's Animal Farm.

What would be the point of citing an offence that everyone thought should have had a yellow card?

As far as I am aware the panel could do nothing about a missed yellow card offence so what would be the point?

Portnoy wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I don't think there will be one New Zealander that will care one iota frankly.

Why should I care two hoots what any Kiwi should feel? Basically all I want to see is a fair game with fair referees and a fair administrative structure.

The game is being turned into an adaptation of Orwell's Animal Farm.

Hyperbolic nonsense and minority Welsh bitterness. Suck it up and look forward to us getting our revenge over you in the Six Nations!

I wonder what match some people were watching,did they use there eyes or go on Dallagio`s commentary.
BOTH sides were getting away with murder in the breakdown area Dusauitor as much as McCaw.
The knee was accidental and did France a favour Trinh Duc is abetter FH than Parra.
Certainly there were high tackles unpunished by BOTH sides,also at one Maul.French players were throwing punches un punished,this myth that only France were punished is far fetched.
BOTH sides were dabbling in the illegal come Scrum time,the French front row is famous for its skill in the dark arts.
France may have been marginally the better side today,BUT winning is about more points on the board.
It was two massive defensive sides goal kicking was rubbish by both sides.
The All Blacks won ugly,when England did it no one complained ditto Argentina.
Winning a RWC means winning 7 matches NZ did that no one else did.

Imaginery head high tackles and kneeing inthe head incidents that only exist in the minds of fools that know absolutely nothing about rugby are outside the jurisdiction of the citing commissioner...

aucklandlaurie wrote: Imaginery head high tackles and kneeing inthe head incidents that only exist in the minds of fools that know absolutely nothing about rugby are outside the jurisdiction of the citing commissioner...

AL,

There were head high tackles. McCaw's knee did hit Parra in the head. In my opinion the tackles were worthy of penalties but no cards and the knee in to head was just one of those things that can happen. Calling for bans is foolish but so is denying the incidents occurred.

Tiger ,then what about the knee to Read? Or is only that one ruled accidental.

Mate, I watched the game last night, and really had to go in slow motion to check some things, CJ in my opinion did a good job.

Looking at the pace of that game, he did well.

As for head high tackles, I saw one, Woodcock, deep in french territory. At the end of the day ths is still rugby and the way players front up to tackles it can often be generally high, but that is not to say it is above the shoulder.

I am happy with the result and if I have to be honest, I was willing France to do it at the end.

I did not see Read being kneed, so cannot comment on whether it was accidental. McCaw on Parra certainly was.

Woodcock's was the clearest high tackle, but there were at least two more form NZ (and one from France) that I would have penalised.

As to Joubert - he had a nightmare at the breakdown - allowing both teams to lie all over the ball. I felt NZ were better at using this to their advantage - repeatedly going beyond the ball and flopping over.

Not the nightmare that many have claimed - but as with the players he did seem nervous - as if the situation got the better of him.

I gather the French did nothing that would have drawn the attention of the citing commissioner.
Dont be so selective with you're ant New Zealand bile it only shows youre disappointment that New Zealand didnt Choke ..You must be real sad...

auklandlaurie; Joubert had a shocker of a match and to be perfectly honest he did appear to ref the AB's differently than the French, especially in the last 10-15minutes of the match.

I dont buy into this theory that Joubert cost France the RWC either.

Well done to the AB's, by far and away the best team in the world and the best team in the RWC, deserved world champions.

My cynical side thinks - "what a surprise, the 10 gets injured in the first 10 mins by a number 7 who's fist and knee seems to be magically near the 10s head. And isn't it surprising that accidental striking of someone on the ground rarely happens to the 7s own team mates. "

If a tackler has to take the attackers safety in to consideration then someone entering a ruck should do the same.

Should there be citings - yes, if the commissioner deams there's a case to answer for. The last thing needed is to sweep it under the carpet because it's the end of the tournament.
Will it dampen NZ - no

thebluesmancometh wrote:There were no incidents to cite, the 3 high tackles were clumsy at worst and just missed and the knee to the back of the head wasn't intentional, the angle Mccaw went into the ruck on needed his feet and legs putting where he did, it happened to him later on in the game, exactly identicle, it's just the difference between forwards and backs taking knocks.

Lawes got a 2 week ban for his "accidental knee" which was a far less severe incident than McCaws.

Even if they were Clumsy tackles, they were still dangerous and high. France could feel rightfully aggrieved that they were not awarded these.

emack2 wrote:
The All Blacks won ugly,when England did it no one complained

Are you new to this forum?

Within approx. 1.3 nano seconds the forum was clogged up with frothing "celts" and certain Kiwis living in London... blarting on about disgraceful, boring, sh1te England who never deserve to win anything.

Get used to the negative attention... NZ are consistently the best team in the world, and let's face it, most of us are envious of that. That's why we enjoy seeing you lose so much. Yesterday almost everyone I knew was cheering on France. I know I was.

The AB's won. That's all that matters.

The tackles were high but I didnt see any that would warrant a red card. As noted in the memo above the sacntions have much more leeway than for tip tackles. The main driver for a card is the stiff swinging arm "clothesline".

Also remeber that a lot of "high" tackles are ones that went in legally and slid up.

There should have been at least two penalties awarded for them in the game, but when was the l;ast time wyou saw a match where there wasnt a few penalties that shouldve but wernet given Im sure you coudl say the same for both sides.

The knee to the head...thats difficult. I doubt it will get cited despite the precedent waith lawes.

Metal Tiger wrote:

emack2 wrote:
The All Blacks won ugly,when England did it no one complained

Are you new to this forum?

Within approx. 1.3 nano seconds the forum was clogged up with frothing "celts" and certain Kiwis living in London... blarting on about disgraceful, boring, sh1te England who never deserve to win anything.

Get used to the negative attention... NZ are consistently the best team in the world, and let's face it, most of us are envious of that. That's why we enjoy seeing you lose so much. Yesterday almost everyone I knew was cheering on France. I know I was.

+1

HammerofThunor wrote:Lawes went to push the guy into touch but someone beat him to it. If he held back the guy would have been in in the corner.

Surely those sentences contradict each other? Let's be clear: Ledesma had been tackled and both he and the ball were in touch. Courtney Lawes then slid into him with his knee. It had nothing to do with stopping Ledesma 'getting in in the corner' and everything to do with putting in a cheap shot.

Lawes started towards him before he was in touch (as all players do). someone else pushed him into touch and Lawes couldn't pull out. Not difficult I thought. My mistake

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Also remeber that a lot of "high" tackles are ones that went in legally and slid up.

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even
if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or
head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

...and if he's incompetent enough to go so high he misses with his swinging arm then it's still dangerous!

HammerofThunor wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Also remeber that a lot of "high" tackles are ones that went in legally and slid up.

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even
if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or
head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Yeah but they tend not to be cards that was the point. Same goes for players ducking into contact at the last minute, in general those will be treated more softly

hmm, general consensus seems to be that Lawes didnt necessarily deserve the citing, and that McCaw incident was very similar (no-intent and clumsiness)

Two wrongs dont make a right

Also, Warburton's was a red-card offence, it could have been yellow (as had been awarded earlier in the tournament for similar tackles) but the referees who awarded those decisions werent the ones picked to ref the later stages of the tournament (from what I remember - surely someone will correct me if im wrong).

Finally, I dont think any New Zealander would be too gutted to have someone banned for a couple of weeks considering they just flipped the bird at one of the largest back-riding monkeys in international rugby history.

Hang on, how do you know the monkey has gone? He may just be taking a little rest and will reappear in all of his glory in late 2014.

haha glas, i didnt say he'd gone, i said they'd flipped him the bird!

that'll just make him angry and all the more determined to stay!

Comfort wrote:

Also, Warburton's was a red-card offence, it could have been yellow (as had been awarded earlier in the tournament for similar tackles) but the referees who awarded those decisions werent the ones picked to ref the later stages of the tournament (from what I remember - surely someone will correct me if im wrong).

It could have been a yellow but that would have been the wrong decision as proven by the citing office who told Walsh and Poite they were wrong in only awarding yellow cards and that the "tip tackle" is a red card offence and hence the other players were banned. For some reason did officiate in the knockout stages, Walsh was there referee for the England v France game and Poite was a touch judge in the Ireland v Wales game.