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

by Rugby_Girl Sun 05 Feb 2012, 17:25

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 Rava Fri 10 Feb 2012, 16:30

There I was, out all day and thought this would have died in the water. But we are now at almost 700 posts and still it goes on. Part of me is hoping its the Italians that are involved in any controversies this weekend Wink

Anyway I just wanted to wish everyone good luck for the games and may the better team win comfortably in every case Very Happy

by Glas a du Fri 10 Feb 2012, 17:04

Hear, hear clap

by Messymesina Sat 11 Feb 2012, 09:00

Just read the entire thread!
whew!
The levels of sanctimony, self righteousness and claims of the moral high ground were hilarious.

Despite all the abuse and ridicule you saw it through Chunky Norwich and for that I applaud you.

by Glas a du Sat 11 Feb 2012, 09:02

Who put 10 pence in this one?

Doh

by The Great Aukster Sat 11 Feb 2012, 09:54

So... what's the verdict was it a penalty?

by geoff999rugby Sat 11 Feb 2012, 11:45

I don't know I think we need to debate it Run

by geoff999rugby Sat 11 Feb 2012, 11:46

Messymesina wrote:Just read the entire thread!
whew!
The levels of sanctimony, self righteousness and claims of the moral high ground were hilarious.

Despite all the abuse and ridicule you saw it through Chunky Norwich and for that I applaud you.

I always find post that have a dig but actually say nothing a waste of space.

This definitely meets that criteria. Rolling Eyes

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 11 Feb 2012, 21:48

Might as well drag this up again for some light relief tonight

Heres what ESPN make of it:

This time, Barnes saw the tackle by Ireland's Stephen Ferris on Wales lock Ian Evans and awarded what would prove to be the match-winning penalty before sending the Irishman to the sin-bin. Ferris' citing for what was deemed a 'tip-tackle' has since been dismissed but the fact that he lifted and drove his player sideways did not negate from the fact that for a small amount of time Evans' hips were higher than shoulders - an accepted guide for foul play tackles - and therefore he was rightly penalised, carded and cited himself. However, the general consensus is that the appropriate judgements were handed down by disciplinary chiefs.

The penalty and card were correct, the citing was not required and was dismissed.

by doctor_grey Sat 11 Feb 2012, 21:59

Messymesina wrote:Just read the entire thread!
whew!

Wow. You must have a lot of time on you hands. But I guess there is nothing else to do tonight.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 11 Feb 2012, 22:00

doctor_grey wrote:
Messymesina wrote:Just read the entire thread!
whew!
Wow. You must have a lot of time on you hands. But I guess there is nothing else to do tonight.

If his hands were that unoccupied he couldve got some light relief from the england womens rugby thread...

by Guest Sat 11 Feb 2012, 22:02

This is why they had to cancel the Ireland game tonight. If there are 15 pages (to date) on one tackle from the last game then the Internet will soon get full up.

Wink

by The Great Aukster Sat 11 Feb 2012, 22:30

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Might as well drag this up again for some light relief tonight

Heres what ESPN make of it:

This time, Barnes saw the tackle by Ireland's Stephen Ferris on Wales lock Ian Evans and awarded what would prove to be the match-winning penalty before sending the Irishman to the sin-bin. Ferris' citing for what was deemed a 'tip-tackle' has since been dismissed but the fact that he lifted and drove his player sideways did not negate from the fact that for a small amount of time Evans' hips were higher than shoulders - an accepted guide for foul play tackles - and therefore he was rightly penalised, carded and cited himself. However, the general consensus is that the appropriate judgements were handed down by disciplinary chiefs.

The penalty and card were correct, the citing was not required and was dismissed.

Watching Barnes on the pitch tonight it looked like he was still seeing loads of dangerous tackles that weren't happening, and Pearson was still denying his own eyes and bottling a decision he should have made two days ago.

by **Enforcer** Sat 11 Feb 2012, 22:31

SafeAsMilk wrote:This is why they had to cancel the Ireland game tonight. If there are 15 pages (to date) on one tackle from the last game then the Internet will soon get full up.

Fantastic post, made me chuckle thumbsup

by MrsP Sun 12 Feb 2012, 17:24

Enforcer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:This is why they had to cancel the Ireland game tonight. If there are 15 pages (to date) on one tackle from the last game then the Internet will soon get full up.

Fantastic post, made me chuckle

Note he said tackle!

Not Yellow card.

Not penalty!

Just a tackle!

Whistle

by Guest Sun 12 Feb 2012, 17:34

Maybe I should have typed "tackle" for just the right level of ambiguity!

by MrsP Sun 12 Feb 2012, 18:30

Not a clue what you're talking about there Safe???

Whistle

by Guest Sun 12 Feb 2012, 21:55

It must point to a problem in our game when there are over 750 posts on a tackle yet less about the game. Is our game that boring?

by Guest Sun 12 Feb 2012, 21:56

Griff wrote:It must point to a problem in our game when there are over 750 posts on a tackle yet less about the game. Is our game that boring?

Nah, it was just a VERY exciting "tackle" Very Happy

by Guest Sun 12 Feb 2012, 22:01

Shut it Cyril!

by irfon17 Tue 14 Feb 2012, 17:28

I think it is irresponsible to be discussing this when we haven't yet established if the ball crossed the line during England's 1966 Football World Cup final victory.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:34

Here is the transcript:
http://press.rbs6nations.com/6_Nations_DC_SPEPHEN_FERRIS_8_2_12.pdf

What a mess. The entire panel and the way it's written up is like a cryptic clue to get everyone off the hook, apart from Wayne Barnes - who stands by his decision to award a penalty and says Ferris failed to bring him to ground safely as Ina Evans had to use his arm to break his fall..

The citing panel found that there shouldn't have been a red card, yellow car or indeed a citing. There is no clear evidence of what the Irish team manager alluded to.

by Glas a du Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:36

bar stewards

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:39

Brad Davies' transcript is also out in which it says that Dave Pearson gave evidence and said he didn't award Brad Davies a red card because he was standing too near the incident to see proeprly! Incompetent fool!

by miteyironpaw Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:43

So to paraphrase : Not even a penalty. Not Barnes' fault because he had to make a snap judgement, but now he's had a chance to review it he agrees it was just a good tackle. No lifting, foot remained on the ground, no driving, no dangerous upper body contact.

Shame it changed the outcome of the game!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:45

Chunky Norwich wrote:Brad Davies' transcript is also out in which it says that Dave Pearson gave evidence and said he didn't award Brad Davies a red card because he was standing too near the incident to see proeprly! Incompetent fool!

Really? Now that is priceless!! Maybe it's true tho, cos he misses most of the stuff going on right under his nose Doh

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:49

miteyironpaw wrote:So to paraphrase : Not even a penalty.

A more accurate description would be: Not a penalty udner a certain section of the law, and didn't want to investigate further because it might make the whole process look like a shambles..

Not Barnes' fault because he had to make a snap judgement, but they believe if he had a chance to review it he would have agreed it was just a good tackle.

Yep, even though Branes had just said he stands by the decision even after looking at the evidence on video!.

Utter lunacy.

by miteyironpaw Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:52

I don't like the part that says they don't want to criticise the referees or re-referee the game.

Surely if a referee has made a mistake, they should be free to say "look, the referee got this one wrong" and possibly even under the circumstances consider awarding the game to Ireland.

by Feckless Rogue Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:52

I think the Irish position is that if Ferris shouldn't have gotten a red, or a yellow, or been cited, then there was no dangerous play. If there was no dangerous play then there shouldn't have been a penalty. What's the point in complaining though?

The Irish should stop complaining though and look at their own performance. Wales were better. They made a huge amount of ground in the last two minutes and didn't look like losing the ball. They could have easily gotten closer to the try line and either won a penalty, attempted a drop goal or even scored a try.

The funny thing is that two controversial refereeing decisions (ballboygate) have gone against us when facing Wales now. And it's some Welsh fans who are constantly complaining about biased refs and accusing the Irish of mad refereeing conspiracies. Their morale outrage at poor refereeing seems to disappear completely when they result in a Welsh victory.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:53

miteyironpaw wrote:I don't like the part that says they don't want to criticise the referees or re-referee the game.

Surely if a referee has made a mistake, they should be free to say "look, the referee got this one wrong" and possibly even under the circumstances consider awarding the game to Ireland.

Theys eemed to acknowledge Pearson got the Davies one wrong.

The Ferris citing panel also got the wrong legs mixed up in the report.

Can we really take a judiciary panel seriously if it can't tell left from right?

by Feckless Rogue Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:54

miteyironpaw, award the game to Ireland?? Stop winding the Welsh up. They were the better team and they happened to get the rub of the green with that last decision.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:57

Feckless Rogue wrote:
The funny thing is that two controversial refereeing decisions (ballboygate) have gone against us when facing Wales now. And it's some Welsh fans who are constantly complaining about biased refs and accusing the Irish of mad refereeing conspiracies. Their morale outrage at poor refereeing seems to disappear completely when they result in a Welsh victory.

At international level Ireland seem to have been hard done by but at domestic level, I cannot believe what the Irish teams get away with.

by MrsP Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:24

Glas a du wrote:bar stewards

Who?

Why?

by MrsP Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:52

In paragraph (17) where it says,

"Mr Barnes did not have the luxury of sitting with the Disciplinary Committee replaying, reviewing, analysing and dissecting, with unlimited time to do so, what was a rapidly moving, fluid and dynamic situation. If he had such luxury he may well have come to a different decision, but that is not to say that he was wrong coming to the decision he did."

What do you think they meant?

Chunky Norwich,

"Yep, even though Branes had just said he stands by the decision even after looking at the evidence on video!."

Does Barnes say he has seen it on video?

by Guest Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:54

Well he's noted as having looked at the extensive DVD replays at the hearing, no? that's video replays, right?

by miteyironpaw Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:56

Somewhere else in there it says something like "There was no evidence of lifting or driving, and that the tackle was not dangerous per se, which Mr Barnes accepts now" or something like that, so it sounds like against the overwhelming weight of evidence he's been forced to admit it was a mistake to award Wales a penalty, let alone issues a yellow card.

by Guest Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:57

MrsP wrote:In paragraph (17) where it says,

"Mr Barnes did not have the luxury of sitting with the Disciplinary Committee replaying, reviewing, analysing and dissecting, with unlimited time to do so, what was a rapidly moving, fluid and dynamic situation. If he had such luxury he may well have come to a different decision, but that is not to say that he was wrong coming to the decision he did."

What do you think they meant?

Chunky Norwich,

"Yep, even though Branes had just said he stands by the decision even after looking at the evidence on video!."

Does Barnes say he has seen it on video?

and what's with the selective reading? he may have come to a different decision, but they aren't saying he's wrong with the one he did come to. Just that it definitely wasn't deemed a yellow card or a citing.

by MrsP Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:58

Barnes wasn't there. He gave his evidence by phone.

I was just wondering if he had seen the videos or if he just gave his account from the match.

Does it say he saw the videos?

I might be going daft??? Erm

by Guest Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:59

I would be hugely surprised that as a ref, when reviewing his own performance of a game, hadn't viewed any video replays MrsP.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:59

MrsP wrote:In paragraph (17) where it says,

"Mr Barnes did not have the luxury of sitting with the Disciplinary Committee replaying, reviewing, analysing and dissecting, with unlimited time to do so, what was a rapidly moving, fluid and dynamic situation. If he had such luxury he may well have come to a different decision, but that is not to say that he was wrong coming to the decision he did."

What do you think they meant?

Chunky Norwich,

"Yep, even though Branes had just said he stands by the decision even after looking at the evidence on video!."

Does Barnes say he has seen it on video?

He says "on reflection". He would of course have seen the replays by the time the hearing was conducted, even though he gave evidence by telephone.

by MrsP Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:00

Well I wasn't reading selectively.

That's why I quoted the whole thing.

I just highlighted the part that I was questioning.

by Guest Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:01

Yes I just wondered why you deemed that more significant then the underlined bit I pointed out. That's why it appeared selective to me.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:01

MrsP wrote:In paragraph (17) where it says,

"Mr Barnes did not have the luxury of sitting with the Disciplinary Committee replaying, reviewing, analysing and dissecting, with unlimited time to do so, what was a rapidly moving, fluid and dynamic situation. If he had such luxury he may well have come to a different decision, but that is not to say that he was wrong coming to the decision he did."

What do you think they meant?

Just a penalty perhaps? No yellow?

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:05

The Irish evidence is all very footballesque as well:

"There is little reaction from the players to the tackle until the referees whistle is blown, and a penalty awarded, followign which there is marked contrast reaction of delight or despair"

That really is a bitter, statement, I think that is the Irish evidence, but it might be the citing commisioenr. Don't know.

by MrsP Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:07

Because the committee are saying that he might have come to a different decision if he had had the chance to see the replays like the committee did.

Does that not imply that he didn't get to see the replays with the committee?

The bit I highlighted was to emphasise the point that I have been making in posts since the day of the match that I can completely understand why Barnes gave a yellow but on reviewing the footage I don't think it was dangerous.

It seems to me the committee have said pretty much the same thing.

Why do you soo want it to be a penalty offence?

by Guest Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:12

I think what they meant MrsP was if Barnes had the chance to watch the replays at the time it could have affected his decision. Obviously at the time he's in the middle of refereeing a match so doesn't have that option. I wouldn't take it to mean he heasn't seen any replays whatsoever.

And it's not about people wanting it to be something, it's about how they view it, which for many, coincide with how Barnes viewed it. Can't see what's so bad about that myself. It's just a difference in opinion.

by MrsP Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:14

Chunky Norwich wrote:The Irish evidence is all very footballesque as well:

"There is little reaction from the players to the tackle until the referees whistle is blown, and a penalty awarded, followign which there is marked contrast reaction of delight or despair"

That really is a bitter, statement, I think that is the Irish evidence, but it might be the citing commisioenr. Don't know.

Chunky,

The bit you quote is from the video evidence in SUPPORT of the citing complaint!

It is not evidence from the Irish camp.

I think we can all see where the bitterness is coming from.

Sad really.

by miteyironpaw Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:14

There is no direct statement in the report that suggests Barnes has reviewed video footage. There is also nothing that indicates he didn't. It's ambiguous and we're unlikey to know.

I'm under the impression that refrees have their own review process after every international, at which point they must surely use video replay as a tool, and I can't imagine any review of the match could have failed to include this incident.r

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:14

MrsP wrote:

Why do you soo want it to be a penalty offence?

It clearly was. Under the rules. Just like many other penalties that have been given this season, that weren't retrospectively complained about.

by Chunky Norwich Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:15

MrsP wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:The Irish evidence is all very footballesque as well:

"There is little reaction from the players to the tackle until the referees whistle is blown, and a penalty awarded, followign which there is marked contrast reaction of delight or despair"

That really is a bitter, statement, I think that is the Irish evidence, but it might be the citing commisioenr. Don't know.

Chunky,

The bit you quote is from the video evidence in SUPPORT of the citing complaint!

It is not evidence from the Irish camp.

I think we can all see where the bitterness is coming from.

Sad really.

What do you think I'm bitter about? We're on for a triple crown!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:16

MrsP wrote:Barnes wasn't there. He gave his evidence by phone.

I was just wondering if he had seen the videos or if he just gave his account from the match.

Does it say he saw the videos?

I might be going daft???

What's with the 'going'? Run

by Sponsored content