Stephen Ferris tackle- Was it a yellow card or even a penalty

by Rugby_Girl Sun 05 Feb 2012, 5:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

Wales won the match after Leigh Halfpenny kicked a penalty with under 1 min to go. Stephen Ferris was given a yellow card for a 'dangerous' tackle, everyone seems to agree yellow was harsh but was it even a penalty or was it just a good tackle?

**EDIT UPDATE from Adam**

The International Rugby Board and Six Nations have backed Referee Wayne Barnes over the penalty decision that led to Ireland's Stephen Ferris being yellow carded during the RBS 6 Nations match at the Aviva Stadium on February 5.

While an Independent Six Nations Disciplinary Panel did not ultimately uphold the citing, the IRB’s match officials performance review endorsed Barnes' decision to award a penalty. On first viewing the panel could understand exactly how the match referee came to his decision. In dismissing the citing no criticism of the referee’s on field decision should be taken or inferred. It was only after careful and prolonged analysis of the dynamics of the contact, including slow motion and step by step viewing, that the committee was able to see the strength of the submissions made in favour of Stephen Ferris.

All match officials are selected for International competition on merit. Performances are reviewed on an ongoing basis and taken into consideration when appointments are made for future international competitions.

Neither organisation will make any further comment on this matter.

by Glas a du Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:27 pm

MrsP wrote:Fo you think all the .... ...posters who said "penalty all day long", "definate yellow", " I hope he gets the same ban as Davies" will all come and accept they were wrong?

I'm not so sure why they should for the first two Mrs P (unless they were rude to a lady warning

) Are you totally sure it was not a cop out by the IRB? You may think they had to have clear water between Ferris and Davies, and so as not to go overboard on Davies they had to leave Ferris off?

Before I saw any replay (being at the match) it seemed to me Ferris tried to tip him but failed to get hold of both legs to do it properly. The angle of his elbows seemed to show a clear tipping motion. Barnes as I, didn't have a slow motion replay, he had to call it there and then but was a bit closer to it than me. To be honest, I can see why he called it the way he did. He was not as obviously wrong as many posters have claimed.

Having said that as to the third type of comment, some of the posts have been clean off it and they should apologise for some of the personal stuff. Ferris' tackle in no way equated with Davies' antics, that much is clear.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:29 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:

So unless you get the complete transcript, even though all the proof is there anyways, you still think you aren't wrong?
:

Tell me, very simply, so even I can understand it, what I am wrong about.

Thanks

Very simply? Okay

...

Everything! Whistle

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:29 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

But we both know that isn't all you did. Everytime a player is mentioned (strangely it is usually an irish one) you will come in with snide comments that don't even hold up. You do it all the time, and you did it with Tuilagi too.

Yet, strangeley, you seem to completely gloss over my compliments to the likes of Sean O'Brien, Ferris and Bowe. Strange that.

If your opinions are useless, keep them to yourself.

That is priceless. Absolutely priceless.

Isn't that bordering on Facism?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:30 pm

Right to make it clear here theres two different groups .. the refs assesors and the citing panel...who have differnet jobs.
One upheld Barnes' decision to issue a penalty ( no mention of card)
The other, with submissions from Ferris, decided that it was not a case to be cited. They do not explicitly say that they felt it shouldnt have been a penalty at all, its not their job to. They do make explicitly clear that the tackle falls very much in a grey area and is difficult to judge.

Anyone who was utterly entrenched in a position one way or the other and claims it was "obvious" should try and understand that not everything is crystal clear. Theres some things that different peopel will see differently and that fall right on the edge of the laws and intent of the laws.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:31 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:

So unless you get the complete transcript, even though all the proof is there anyways, you still think you aren't wrong?
:

Tell me, very simply, so even I can understand it, what I am wrong about.

Thanks

Very simply? Okay

...

Everything!

And there goes the money shot

You can not back up a single thing you say about me being "wrong". I gave you the chance to put me right and you failed. Epically.

The only thing I was wrong about was missing all those nosnense posts about Ferris tackle being worse than Davies'

by Mickado Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:31 pm

He was penalised for a tip tackle, specifically. It was deemed that the tackle wasn’t a tip tackle.

Are you saying that although it wasn’t a tip tackle it was still dangerous? What was dangerous about it?

by eirebilly Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:33 pm

Dont you dare lock this thread Kiwi, this is comedy gold Wink

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:33 pm

I didn't gloss over them, I just found it bizarre that you mention Ferris and Bowe who had very bad games, and slag off players like Heaslip. You have also said he doesn't have a work rate and stays on the wing, which shows to me you actually don't have a clue what you are actually talking about.

Or maybe I am saying if your opinions don't actually come from anything at all but your need to come across as controversial, nobody wants to hear. Like I said, if I said North was crap, people wouldn't take me seriously and tell me to go away. Stop getting all "ooo he isn't letting me voice an opinion." Okay?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:33 pm

Mickado wrote:He was penalised for a tip tackle, specifically. It was deemed that the tackle wasn’t a tip tackle.

Are you saying that although it wasn’t a tip tackle it was still dangerous? What was dangerous about it?

I think I've posted this about 4 times now.

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:34 pm

Here Chunky, you told me to put it very simply. So would you rather I do prove you wrong?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:35 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I didn't gloss over them, I just found it bizarre that you mention Ferris and Bowe who had very bad games, and slag off players like Heaslip. You have also said he doesn't have a work rate and stays on the wing, which shows to me you actually don't have a clue what you are actually talking about.

Conversely, that says to me you do not watch the game proeprly, because Heaslip DOES stay out on the wing and have a low work rate. Just follow him around the pitch.

Or maybe I am saying if your opinions don't actually come from anything at all but your need to come across as controversial, nobody wants to hear. Like I said, if I said North was crap, people wouldn't take me seriously and tell me to go away. Stop getting all "ooo he isn't letting me voice an opinion." Okay?

I've got better things to do than try to be controversial. If you find my opinion outrageous it's not my fault.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:35 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Here Chunky, you told me to put it very simply. So would you rather I do prove you wrong?

I don't understand this sentence.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:38 pm

"Tell me, very simply, so even I can understand it, what I am wrong about."

I answered as simply as I could, so even you could understand it. I just said everything! And for anyone who does want proof they can have a quick read over the last couple of pages, and a few other threads you have posted nonsense on.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:39 pm

Sorry but whilst he may be a prize pillock and may have said some rubbish in this thread a fail to see where in that statement it says that the tackle was found to not be a penalty offence.

All it says is that the panel eventually decided there was no need for it to be cited. That does not in itslef mean that the tackle wasnt deemed to be a penalty or even a yellow card offence.

The statement does explicitly say that the decision to award a penalty was uphled ( by the refs assesors)

So if the penalty wasnt for a dangerous tackle, what was it for?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:40 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

I answered as simply as I could, so even you could understand it. I just said everything! .

I see. So you've still not oferred even 1 example.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

So if the penalty wasnt for a dangerous tackle, what was it for?

How do you know it wasn't for a dangerous tackle?

by **rodders** Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm

dummy_half wrote:Rodders
Except the release also includes the (contradictory) statement:
"the IRB’s match officials performance review endorsed Barnes' decision to award a penalty."

So I'd dispute your comment that it is 'extremely clear cut'. Two sentences in the same paragraph, on of which explicitly states that the decision to award a penalty was correct, and one which implies that there was no offence. Must have been written by a lawyer (or more likely, a team of lawyers...)

Not really. Endorsing the referees descision to award the penalty and should not be criticised is not the same as saying he was correct.

What they have clearly said is that on first viewing it is understandable as to why he awarded the penalty. However they have said clearly that with repeated viewings they have decided that Ferris committed no offence, hence the citing was not upheld.

I really cannot understand why people think there is a grey area here.

by MrsP Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm

Glas,

So you think the IRB have said what they said as a cop out?

It would have been so much easier for them to say that the Ferris tackle was adequately and appropriately dealt with and no further sanction was required.

Instead they have gone out of their way to say that, when closely examined, it wasn't.

In fact they say,

"...the committee was able to see the strength of the submissions made in favour of Stephen Ferris."

Now, since the Irish management have clearly stated that their submissions were that the tackle was fair, we can see that the committee agreed!

I suspect that the committee would have loved to be able to just endorse the yellow but the evidence was so strong that they couldn't.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:45 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Sorry but whilst he may be a prize pillock and may have said some rubbish in this thread a fail to see where in that statement it says that the tackle was found to not be a penalty offence.

All it says is that the panel eventually decided there was no need for it to be cited. That does not in itslef mean that the tackle wasnt deemed to be a penalty or even a yellow card offence.

The statement does explicitly say that the decision to award a penalty was uphled ( by the refs assesors)

So if the penalty wasnt for a dangerous tackle, what was it for?

It quite clearly says that they agree with Barnes' decision to award the penalty. However, they agree that after closer inspection and with the ability to slow it down etc, that the tackle made by Ferris was not dangerous.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:45 pm

roddersm wrote: However they have said clearly that with repeated viewings they have decided that Ferris committed no offence
.

Seriously - where are you getting that from? It says nothing of the sort.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:46 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:

I answered as simply as I could, so even you could understand it. I just said everything! .

I see. So you've still not oferred even 1 example.

Here is one, the things you said about Heaslip because it isn't true and one of his biggest strengths is his work rate. Keep asking for more until I run out and I will keep giving you some.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:46 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

It quite clearly says that they agree with Barnes' decision to award the penalty. However, they agree that after closer inspection and with the ability to slow it down etc, that the tackle made by Ferris was not dangerous.

?????

Again - where is this reported?

by **rodders** Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:47 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Sorry but whilst he may be a prize pillock and may have said some rubbish in this thread a fail to see where in that statement it says that the tackle was found to not be a penalty offence.

"It was only after careful and prolonged analysis of the dynamics of the contact, including slow motion and step by step viewing, that the committee was able to see the strength of the submissions made in favour of Stephen Ferris"

They studied the dynamics of the contact and ruled in Ferris favour. So unless Ferris and the IRFU were arguing that it was a penalty offence and a dangerous tackle then what else does that mean?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:48 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Here is one, the things you said about Heaslip because it isn't true and one of his biggest strengths is his work rate. Keep asking for more until I run out and I will keep giving you some.

So because you don't agree with it - it isn't true?

Have you ever heard EB Hall's old adage "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

I think you ought to heed that advice.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:49 pm

roddersm wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Sorry but whilst he may be a prize pillock and may have said some rubbish in this thread a fail to see where in that statement it says that the tackle was found to not be a penalty offence.

"It was only after careful and prolonged analysis of the dynamics of the contact, including slow motion and step by step viewing, that the committee was able to see the strength of the submissions made in favour of Stephen Ferris"

They studied the dynamics of the contact and ruled in Ferris favour. So unless Ferris and the IRFU were arguing that it was a penalty offence and a dangerous tackle then what else does that mean?

It means they agreed with Ferris lawyers' evidence that he shouldn't be cited.

It says nothing about whether it was a penalty at all.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:50 pm

So just because you disagree, does that make it true?

And since Heaslip does have a very high work rate and that is one of the reasons he is such a good player, then I don't see how you can be anything but wrong. It is like me saying Shane Williams doesn't score tries. Shane Williams is very one dimensional. I would be quite clearly wrong, and I am sure every welsh person would be telling me where to go, and rightly so.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:51 pm

roddersm wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Sorry but whilst he may be a prize pillock and may have said some rubbish in this thread a fail to see where in that statement it says that the tackle was found to not be a penalty offence.

"It was only after careful and prolonged analysis of the dynamics of the contact, including slow motion and step by step viewing, that the committee was able to see the strength of the submissions made in favour of Stephen Ferris"

They studied the dynamics of the contact and ruled in Ferris favour. So unless Ferris and the IRFU were arguing that it was a penalty offence and a dangerous tackle then what else does that mean?

Yeah I kind of get that but all it still doesnt explictly say that it wasnt a penalty offence, just that it didnt warrant a citeing and a ban. Not all penalties get cited and result in bans.

The only thing thats 100% certain is that its not clear even to the experts where the divideing line falls on these things. There always will be evenst that fall into grey areas.

I do beleive the IRFU statement to be correct, but it isnt 100% clear.

by **rodders** Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:53 pm

He was cited for a dangerous tip tackle which is what he was penalised for. If the tackle was ruled as legitimate by teh citing committee then there was no penalty offence.

I'm not sure why you are struggling to grasp this chunky?

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:53 pm

And I think you have made it very clear multiple times how you view the irish after this incident etc, bringing the game into disarray, sore losers, etc etc so why aren't you consistent with what you say? You are also saying it was a dangerous tackle etc so clearly you feel you are right and everyone else is wrong. Otherwise, why are you moaning about it so much?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:54 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:So just because you disagree, does that make it true?

I'm not the one throwing a hissy fit lad.

And since Heaslip does have a very high work rate

Well that's debatable.

Normally.

It is like me saying Shane Williams doesn't score tries.

Yeaaah not really. Because tries are quantifiable.

Aren't they.

by MrsP Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:55 pm

They said,

"While an Independent Six Nations Disciplinary Panel did not ultimately uphold the citing, the IRB’s match officials performance review endorsed Barnes' decision to award a penalty"

They very carefully do not say they endorse the yellow card.

If they can not even endorse the yellow card on first viewing, why would the Ferris team have to argue that the citing was unnecessary?

The panel had that figured out on first viewing!

There seem to be people here who still can not work that out even though they have had the chance to watch it in Slo Mo!

There are none so blind as those who will not see!

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:56 pm

roddersm wrote:He was cited for a dangerous tip tackle which is what he was penalised for

I think this is the bit you need to revise ^

by eirebilly Fri 10 Feb 2012, 2:56 pm

Maybe i am being a bit of a thicko here but did'nt Ferris receive a yellow card and a citing for a 'Tip tackle' and not Dangerous play? Therefore if the citing commision deem it not to be a 'Tip tackle' then no offense was committed?

Surely then they cant say that 'well it wasnt a tip tackle but it was dangerous so the penalty was justified'?

by Mickado Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:00 pm

eirebilly wrote:Maybe i am being a bit of a thicko here but did'nt Ferris receive a yellow card and a citing for a 'Tip tackle' and not Dangerous play? Therefore if the citing commision deem it not to be a 'Tip tackle' then no offense was committed?

Surely then they cant say that 'well it wasnt a tip tackle but it was dangerous so the penalty was justified'?

No, you're not the one being a thicko.

by **rodders** Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:00 pm

To be honest the IRB and IRFU statements are irrelevent anyway.

Anyone who can read and interpret article 10.4 and understands the game and the dynamics of tackling should be able to tell that its a legitimate tackle from the replays anyway.

Its as clear as day that Barnes got it wrong.

by MrsP Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:00 pm

eirebilly,

Believe me, you are not the one being "a bit of a thicko".

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:02 pm

eirebilly wrote:Maybe i am being a bit of a thicko here but did'nt Ferris receive a yellow card and a citing for a 'Tip tackle' and not Dangerous play? Therefore if the citing commision deem it not to be a 'Tip tackle' then no offense was committed?

Surely then they cant say that 'well it wasnt a tip tackle but it was dangerous so the penalty was justified'?

Does Wayne Barnes say to the players "that's a penalty lads - tip tackle" ?

by eirebilly Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:04 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Maybe i am being a bit of a thicko here but did'nt Ferris receive a yellow card and a citing for a 'Tip tackle' and not Dangerous play? Therefore if the citing commision deem it not to be a 'Tip tackle' then no offense was committed?

Surely then they cant say that 'well it wasnt a tip tackle but it was dangerous so the penalty was justified'?

Does Wayne Barnes say to the players "that's a penalty lads - tip tackle" ?

I believe they were his words to POC when asked why Ferris got the yellow?

by **rodders** Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:05 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:Does Wayne Barnes say to the players "that's a penalty lads - tip tackle" ?

He did actually yes. Watch the game.

Chunky what do you think the offence was?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:06 pm

roddersm wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Does Wayne Barnes say to the players "that's a penalty lads - tip tackle" ?

He did actually yes. Watch the game.

Chunky what do you think the offence was?

Itw as a dangerous tackle. Clearly under the 3rd part of the law I posted.

Penalty all day long. The Irish trying to wriggle out of it and claim some moral victory is hilarious.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:08 pm

"Have you ever heard EB Hall's old adage "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

I think you ought to heed that advice."

Yet you criticise us for what we say and say we are claiming moral victory. You are actually hilarious!

by eirebilly Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:09 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
roddersm wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Does Wayne Barnes say to the players "that's a penalty lads - tip tackle" ?

He did actually yes. Watch the game.

Chunky what do you think the offence was?

Itw as a dangerous tackle. Clearly under the 3rd part of the law I posted.

Penalty all day long. The Irish trying to wriggle out of it and claim some moral victory is hilarious.

But he didnt say it was a dangerous tackle, he said 'tip tackle' in his explaination to POC on the field.
Your interperation means nothing here compared to that of a ref and a citing commision as to what a dangerous tackle is.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:11 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:"Have you ever heard EB Hall's old adage "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

I think you ought to heed that advice."

Yet you criticise us for what we say and say we are claiming moral victory. You are actually hilarious!

Cheers Rory.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:13 pm

And here comes the victim card. You're perfectly welcome Chunky!

"While you all laugh at me, the rest of the rugby world laughs at the bitterness of Ireland.

I can live with that."

Just stick to that and you will be fine

tbh I think that sort of sums up everything you have had to say in this thread.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:14 pm

eirebilly wrote:
But he didnt say it was a dangerous tackle, he said 'tip tackle' in his explaination to POC on the field.

So Wayne Barnes was incorrect. It was not a tip tackle.

Your interperation means nothing here compared to that of a ref and a citing commision as to what a dangerous tackle is.

Well sure. But I think it's plain to see that it was a clear penalty - as the third part of the law suggests.

So the right action was taken by Barnes, even if he got the words mixed up.

Ireland were down to 14 men for 50 seconds unjustly. I doubt if that made a huge difference though.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:14 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And here comes the victim card. You're perfectly welcome Chunky!

"While you all laugh at me, the rest of the rugby world laughs at the bitterness of Ireland.

I can live with that."

Just stick to that and you will be fine tbh I think that sort of sums up everything you have had to say in this thread.

I think you fancy me

by eirebilly Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:15 pm

Chunky;

If the citing commission have deemed it not to be a 'tip tackle' and that no offence has been committed. Could you please, in your own words without posting the same rule again, explain to me what you found in that tackle that was dangerous?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:18 pm

eirebilly wrote:Chunky;

If the citing commission have deemed it not to be a 'tip tackle' and that no offence has been committed.

They haven't.

Could you please, in your own words without posting the same rule again, explain to me what you found in that tackle that was dangerous?

For the sake of clarity. Lifted off the ground (even though it was only for a split second), player then touches ground with upper body first.

by eirebilly Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:20 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Chunky;

If the citing commission have deemed it not to be a 'tip tackle' and that no offence has been committed.

They haven't.

So they havent deemed that there was no offence committed in the tackle?

Could you please, in your own words without posting the same rule again, explain to me what you found in that tackle that was dangerous?

For the sake of clarity. Lifted off the ground (even though it was only for a split second), player then touches ground with upper body first.

You are describing a 'tip tackle' here?

by Glas a du Fri 10 Feb 2012, 3:23 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:And here comes the victim card. You're perfectly welcome Chunky!

"While you all laugh at me, the rest of the rugby world laughs at the bitterness of Ireland.

I can live with that."

Just stick to that and you will be fine tbh I think that sort of sums up everything you have had to say in this thread.

I think you fancy me

by Sponsored content