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

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.

eirebilly wrote:

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

It's quite possibile I've misread the report. Have you got a link to where they said "no offence was committed?"

You are describing a 'tip tackle' here?

Down to the referees interpretation here isn't it. And if I was the referee, as I've said, I'd have gone to the third part of the law.

Slowly now, for the hard of thinking,

The IRB said,

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

The submission made in favour of Stephen Ferris was that the tackle was legal.

Now, tell the bit you don't understand or is it that you are just not man enough to admit you were wrong?

MrsP wrote: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!

MrsP youre gettinmg muddled up, theres two different reviews here.

The refs assment panel upheld that the penalty decision was niot a bad one.
It was also refered to a displinary panel. The panel on first viewing thought there was a case, but later decided there wasnt a case for it to be cited or for further punishment with input from Ferris and his representatives. In the statement they make it clear that they can understand why the ref gave a yellow, but dont endorse that decision.
Nowhere does it say explicitly that anyone thought it was a bad decision or that a penalty shouldnt have been awarded, although we can read between the lines and take the IRFU statement to infer that.
You have the first viewing thing comepltly wrong though, they had to be dissuaded that it was a tip tackle worth of further punishment.

MrsP wrote:Slowly now, for the hard of thinking,

The IRB said,

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

The submission made in favour of Stephen Ferris was that the tackle was legal.

Now, tell the bit you don't understand or is it that you are just not man enough to admit you were wrong?

So you've taken "able to see the strength of" as "able to completeley admonish the player of any wrongdoings whatsoever"

Do you see where I'm having trouble here?

MrsP wrote:Slowly now, for the hard of thinking,

The IRB said,

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

The submission made in favour of Stephen Ferris was that the tackle was legal.

Now, tell the bit you don't understand or is it that you are just not man enough to admit you were wrong?

You are adding the last bit. The submission may have been that it wasnt worthy of citeing, thats a different. Thats why hes having a hard time admitting he was wrong. Because npeopel like yourself are equally as stubborn and refuse to acknowledge that you are adding your own interpretation to a statement that does not explicitly spell out that a penalty should not have been awarded for that challenge.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

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

It's quite possibile I've misread the report. Have you got a link to where they said "no offence was committed?"

You are describing a 'tip tackle' here?

Down to the referees interpretation here isn't it. And if I was the referee, as I've said, I'd have gone to the third part of the law.

Ok The words 'No offence' were literally not used. You got me there That said, the tackle was deemed legal.

It is down to the referees interpretation. I can understand why Barnes did what he did, no complaints at his interpretation. He just got it wrong, no biggie.

The tackle has not been deemd "legal", by :

-the citing panel
-the irb
-the refs assessment panel
-the referee hismelf

What worries me a little is the line

Neither organisation will make any further comment on this matter

Does that mean they're not going to release transcripts of the hearing?

Not sure you can really say that either Seabiscuit but I am trying to keep it simple as you will appreciate.

I think it is very telling that such a carefully worded statement clearly mentions understanding why Barnes awarded a penalty but does not mention understanding why he awarded a yellow card.

If they felt it wasn't even a yellow card offence then it, by definition, could not have warranted a citing.

Chunky Norwich wrote:The tackle has not been deemd "legal", by :

-the citing panel
-the irb
-the refs assessment panel
-the referee hismelf

Now i am really lost. Ferris was yellow carded, faced a citing commission, recieved no ban or anything of the sort and yet he has still commited an offence?

MrsP wrote:Slowly now, for the hard of thinking,

The IRB said,

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

The submission made in favour of Stephen Ferris was that the tackle was legal.

Now, tell the bit you don't understand or is it that you are just not man enough to admit you were wrong?

Yeah, but Mrs P you have to admit the hearing was after lunch, in London. I mean there were probably port glasses in front of them and strippers under the table.

eirebilly wrote:
Ferris was yellow carded, faced a citing commission, recieved no ban or anything of the sort and yet he has still commited an offence?

YOU GOT IT!!!

Just a quick little message (for my sanity more than anything else!) can one of you please just be the bigger person, and walk away from this? Even the news released today is still open to interpretation, from both sides, so it's clear we are not going to get to a finalised answer here. And trust me it's getting more than tiresome to keep reading you all going around in a circle, it's starting to look more than a little silly. From both sides. Thanks.


(And I'm not putting this in red just yet, but trust me, I'm getting to that point.)

rugbydreamer wrote:Just a quick little message (for my sanity more than anything else!) can one of you please just be the bigger person, and walk away from this? Even the news released today is still open to interpretation, from both sides, so it's clear we are not going to get to a finalised answer here. And trust me it's getting more than tiresome to keep reading you all going around in a circle, it's starting to look more than a little silly. From both sides. Thanks.


(And I'm not putting this in red just yet, but trust me, I'm getting to that point.)

I'll respect this. But find it disappointing.

Is this not a chat forum?

Mrs P it doesn't even go that far. It says on first viewing they could understand why he gave the penalty.

This statement is basically to explain the discrepency between the citing commission who found the tackle to be legal and the referee who deemed it dangerous.

It is clear to everyone apart from Peter and Chunky that there was no penalty offence committed.

And me. I think it was a penalty. You can't decide penalties in an agreeable London office a few days after with the benefit of slow motion.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:Just a quick little message (for my sanity more than anything else!) can one of you please just be the bigger person, and walk away from this? Even the news released today is still open to interpretation, from both sides, so it's clear we are not going to get to a finalised answer here. And trust me it's getting more than tiresome to keep reading you all going around in a circle, it's starting to look more than a little silly. From both sides. Thanks.


(And I'm not putting this in red just yet, but trust me, I'm getting to that point.)

I'll respect this. But find it disappointing.

Is this not a chat forum?

Indeed it is, and carry on if you like, I'm not stopping you, just pointing out how ridiculous and tiresome it's getting. You've all been saying the same thing for about 10 pages now (tis why I said it was for my sanity!)

One of who dreamer? There is about 6 of us discussing this.

I am actually finding it very interesting myself and what PSW is saying actually makes alot of sense and i am now viewing this whole thing from a different angle.

Not me. I've only just rejoined the fray.

eirebilly wrote:One of who dreamer? There is about 6 of us discussing this.

I am actually finding it very interesting myself and what PSW is saying actually makes alot of sense and i am now viewing this whole thing from a different angle.

RIGHT STOP THE FORUM RIGHT THERE

we have history people. It makes you kind of emotional.

Glas a du wrote:And me. I think it was a penalty. You can't decide penalties in an agreeable London office a few days after with the benefit of slow motion.

So you think that the citing process should be scrapped then Glas?

roddersm wrote:
It is clear to everyone apart from Peter and Chunky........

-and the citing panel
-and the referees assessors
-and the irb

oh I don't know billy, this whole thread just makes me want to .

Can't believe with how good the match was so much time has been dedicated, by usually very good posters, to going round in circles and making themselves look just a bit daft. That's all.

Glas a du wrote:

eirebilly wrote:One of who dreamer? There is about 6 of us discussing this.

I am actually finding it very interesting myself and what PSW is saying actually makes alot of sense and i am now viewing this whole thing from a different angle.

RIGHT STOP THE FORUM RIGHT THERE

we have history people. It makes you kind of emotional.

Hey, i will always acknowledge a decent point during a debate, even acknowledge that i am wrong if need be

roddersm wrote:

Glas a du wrote:And me. I think it was a penalty. You can't decide penalties in an agreeable London office a few days after with the benefit of slow motion.

So you think that the citing process should be scrapped then Glas?

No. But I do think though that it has limited capacity to rewrite history. I heard him blow his whistle as clearly as you. It was a penalty, the citing committee don't and shouldn't get into what happens to cases where there is no case for them to consider i.e. under the citing threshold which they have clearly found this to be.

rugbydreamer wrote:oh I don't know billy, this whole thread just makes me want to .

Can't believe with how good the match was so much time has been dedicated, by usually very good posters, to going round in circles and making themselves look just a bit daft. That's all.

I was like that yesterday dreamer but there have been some very good and interesting points made today. Its not about that match but the interpretations of laws that i find fascinating.

This is a problem of logical extension. That is when an inference from a finding just isn't supported. As such it is fascinating.

I would probably find it fascinating too billy, if the discussion of this law hadn't been done to death already after the world cup! Makes for tedious reading for moi

Do you have to be with Mensa to understand where this thread is going? I read the last 7 or 8 posts and my IQ is not as high as I thought it was! Carry on.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

roddersm wrote:
It is clear to everyone apart from Peter and Chunky........

-and the citing panel
-and the referees assessors
-and the irb

The citing panel ruled in favour of Ferris and said the tackle was legitimate as stated by Kearney.

The referees assessor supported Barnes descision to award the penalty on the basis of how the tackle appeared 'on first viewing' but acknowledged that the citing panel came to a different conclusion.

Tell you what, we'll give you a tinkle if it gets out of hand.

I say Kearney at 15, Kearney at 14, and the new Kearney for 13 because he knows how to tackle and attack!

roddersm wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

roddersm wrote:
It is clear to everyone apart from Peter and Chunky........

-and the citing panel
-and the referees assessors
-and the irb

The citing panel ruled in favour of Ferris and said the tackle was legitimate as stated by Kearney.

The referees assessor supported Barnes descision to award the penalty on the basis of how the tackle appeared 'on first viewing' but acknowledged that the citing panel came to a different conclusion.

But the citing panel are not there to decide that and as such were ultra viries. The assessors were there to decide that and they...erm, backed up...erm...their man

roddersm wrote:
The citing panel ruled in favour of Ferris and said the tackle was legitimate as stated by Kearney.

Sorry, there is no evdience that the citing panel ruled the tackle was legitimate, the only person who has alluded to this was one of Feriss' mates.

Call me Mr Cynical, but I'll wait for that to be official before taking it as gospel.

I think we'll just accept our yearly public apology from the IRB and move on.....

i'm nearly ready to move on. I just want 1 Irish person to say "I think it was a penalty"

(and mean it)

I think it was a penalty.

It wasn't pretty. Can understand the ref giving the penalty. Having seen the replay think he may have over reacted as it wasn't a tip-tackle as it appeared to him, in the heat of the moment, with another player just sent off (sadly with only a yellow that should have been a red for a myriad of reasons - off the ball, retaliatory, tip-tackle and so on) for dangerous play.
Don't think it was a bad call by the ref - just dealing with it as he saw it, and I personally see it differently.
It's a game officiated by people. People's opinions vary, and sometimes mistakes are made.
I know that the more .... enthusiastic Welsh fans will never see it this way.
That's fine. We all know we should move on...
Cueto's try should definitely have been given!!
Have I mentioned 2003 or 1966 recently?

Chunky Norwich wrote:Call me Mr Cynical, but I'll wait for that to be official before taking it as gospel.

I can think of more appropriate things to call you than Mr Cynical but this is a family forum .

Chunky said:

'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..'

The thing is the above isn't true. The first part of Davies body to touch the ground was his arm. Now if this is going to be interpreted as upper body most tackles in rugby would be illegal.

...how is this discussion still going on?

The other thing is the wording form the various official bodies go as close as they dare in saying it wasn't a penalty without coming out and saying the referee got it wrong. To expect them to do more is niave.

geoff998rugby wrote:Chunky said:

'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..'

The thing is the above isn't true. The first part of Davies body to touch the ground was his arm. Now if this is going to be interpreted as upper body most tackles in rugby would be illegal.

Yes, agreed, I should have added that he was titled above the horizontal. ie. legs/ hips above upper body or head. sorry.

Fair play to you Chunky

And in a spirit of letting sleeping dogs lie I agree with you Heaslip has often been guilty of show boating, although Sunday definitely was not one of them.

Notch wrote:...how is this discussion still going on?

God only knows, seriously, tis baffling.

geoff998rugby wrote:Fair play to you Chunky

And in a spirit of letting sleeping dogs lie I agree with you Heaslip has often been guilty of show boating

I don't agree. He's not smart enough (joke keep your hair on ireland)

I would however, urge everybody to track him throughout tomorrow's game and see how often he is in the 12, 13, and wing position waiting for the ball to come to him.

That's just rubbish, it's plain to see that in Euclidean plane geometry, π is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference C to its diameter d:[1]

The ratio C/d is constant, regardless of a circle's size. For example, if a circle has twice the diameter d of another circle it will also have twice the circumference C, preserving the ratio C/d.

This definition depends on results of Euclidean geometry, such as the fact that all circles are similar, which can be a problem when π occurs in areas of mathematics that otherwise do not involve geometry. For this reason, mathematicians often prefer to define π without reference to geometry, instead selecting one of its analytic properties as a definition. A common choice is to define π as twice the smallest positive x for which the trigonometric function cos(x) equals zero

... so it's obvious a torso isn't an arm....in brief.

this is nuts lol- my brain is hurting

I think it very strange that this part of the discussion is the one that attracted Moderator intervention.

After the pages and pages of bile spilled why now?



Seabiscuit,

They absoluetly do not explicitly say that the tackle was not a penalty, on that we can wholeheartly agree. I also agree and have said so on this very thread many times that Barnes' call was completely understandable. I would have been very disappointed if they had criticised him, something I have also said on here.

And I can also agree that we are left to read between the lines.

I do find it difficult to understand why they would go to all this trouble if they had decided after all the evidence was submitted that a penalty offence had been committed.

Why not just say,

After careful analysis we find that a yellow card was sufficient,

or

We agree that the tackle warranted a penalty?

Why say ,

"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"?

Knowing that the submission by the Irish was that the tackle was legal and that someone who was there has said that the committee felt that the tackle was legal and that they do not refute this, leads me to believe that Michael Kearney's report was true.

Can you see where I am coming from?

SecretFly wrote:

That's just rubbish, it's plain to see that in Euclidean plane geometry, π is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference C to its diameter d:[1]

The ratio C/d is constant, regardless of a circle's size. For example, if a circle has twice the diameter d of another circle it will also have twice the circumference C, preserving the ratio C/d.

This definition depends on results of Euclidean geometry, such as the fact that all circles are similar, which can be a problem when π occurs in areas of mathematics that otherwise do not involve geometry. For this reason, mathematicians often prefer to define π without reference to geometry, instead selecting one of its analytic properties as a definition. A common choice is to define π as twice the smallest positive x for which the trigonometric function cos(x) equals zero

... so it's obvious a torso isn't an arm....in brief.

Exactly whats the problem ...it is plain as the nose on your face