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.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

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!

Chunky, where would you like me to start?

I really don't know what you are bitter about Chunky.

Only you can answer that!

Go nuts. Tell me what I'm bitter about.

I'm as happy as Larry

Chunky Norwich wrote:Go nuts. Tell me what I'm bitter about.

I'm as happy as Larry

Sorry, don't know him, so the comparison is meaningless to me

this thread still running hey.

funny that 90% of posts on rugby union end up being about reffing decisions.

if rules were simplified and or tech was used to make sports 99% plus fair, would the interent die from inactivity!

There's some quite nicely parsed sentences in the overall findings. Ultimately the citing committee finds that the tackle wasn't a red card offence, so ergo should not have been cited. And they ignore the question of whether or not it was a justified penalty or yellow card, because that's not in their remit.

That's pretty much spot on Kiwi

Kiwireddevil wrote:There's some quite nicely parsed sentences in the overall findings. Ultimately the citing committee finds that the tackle wasn't a red card offence, so ergo should not have been cited. And they ignore the question of whether or not it was a justified penalty or yellow card, because that's not in their remit.

Some fairly fancy footwork from the committee - do any of them have Scottish grandparents?

Kiwireddevil wrote:There's some quite nicely parsed sentences in the overall findings. Ultimately the citing committee finds that the tackle wasn't a red card offence, so ergo should not have been cited. And they ignore the question of whether or not it was a justified penalty or yellow card, because that's not in their remit.

Yes, except that the second to last sentence in finding (16) states outright that the tackle was not dangerous. They cloud this in the last sentence by reiterating that it wasn't "dangerous enough" to warrant a red card.

I'd suggest that second to last sentence is enough to conclude that there should not have been a penalty. Especially since they go on specifically to effectively say that they don't want to blame Barnes, but then heavily imply he got it totally wrong.

It was a penalty given for dangerous play. It was not dangerous play. It shouldn't have been a penalty.

The ref didn't know what Davies had done. He issued a yellow on the linesmans advice (the linesman bottled it and said it was a yellow, despite explaining in detail a clear red card offence).

Then the ref committed the cardinal sin (but quite common) of referee's. He gave a yellow to Ferris to "even up" the yellow he had given to Wales (without seeing himself how bad the Davies foul was).

It was a series of unfortunate officiating blunders which resulted in a Welsh win.

But that said, I have no problem in admitting the obvious conclusion from watching the whole 80 minutes, that Wales were the better side. If the result had gone the other way, it would have been one of those "how did we win that?" games, from an Ireland point of view.

There's all my thoughts on the subject.

I concur with your assessment 100% feckless.

by Feckless Rogue Today at 4:43 pm

It was a penalty given for dangerous play. It was not dangerous play. It shouldn't have been a penalty.


Indeed Feckless. Indeed!

watching it again i think it was 100% a red card. disgracfull tackle

I wonder how interesting it would be to look back to see what was written when Matthew Rees was cited for a tip tackle around Christmas time.

I don't remember quite the same rush to recommend penalties and cards on that occasion.

There's some quite nicely parsed sentences in the overall findings. Ultimately the citing committee finds that the tackle wasn't a red card offence, so ergo should not have been cited. And they ignore the question of whether or not it was a justified penalty or yellow card, because that's not in their remit.

They don't actually ignore it - they very carefully word the report so that they don't actually say it wasn't a penalty, but to anyone with the ability to read between the lines, they admit it. And they are perfectly correct in that it is not their business to referee or re-referee the match, but they have a certain obligation to ensure they do not imply that the perfectly legitimate tackle by Stephen Ferris was dangerous play, lest by so doing they emasculate the game of rugby - heavens forbid if that was the case the next thing would be a citing for elephantine wings knocking poor small centres over because it is dangerous.

There's some quite nicely parsed sentences in the overall findings. Ultimately the citing committee finds that the tackle wasn't a red card offence, so ergo should not have been cited. And they ignore the question of whether or not it was a justified penalty or yellow card, because that's not in their remit.

They don't actually ignore it - they very carefully word the report so that they don't actually say it wasn't a penalty, but to anyone with the ability to read between the lines, they admit it. And they are perfectly correct in that it is not their business to referee or re-referee the match, but they have a certain obligation to ensure they do not imply that the perfectly legitimate tackle by Stephen Ferris was dangerous play, lest by so doing they emasculate the game of rugby - heavens forbid if that was the case the next thing would be a citing for elephantine wings knocking poor small centres over because it is dangerous.

Well i am glad that this can finally be put to bed. It has taken too much away from what was an excellent game of rugby. A game that i enjoyed very much even though Ireland lost.

eirebilly wrote:Well i am glad that this can finally be put to bed. It has taken too much away from what was an excellent game of rugby. A game that i enjoyed very much even though Ireland lost.

There was a game? I just remember two tackles* lasting 40 minutes each

* Disclaimer - 'tackles' may have been legal, illegal, off-the-ball or actually unconnected to known reality depending on your viewpoint.

I am impressed that Mrs P is standing her ground on this but surely even the most avid WUM will actually admit that it wasn't a penalty and therefore not a Yellow Card.

Rava wrote:I am impressed that Mrs P is standing her ground on this but surely even the most avid WUM will actually admit that it wasn't a penalty and therefore not a Yellow Card.

Don't be silly, Rav, admit that they were wrong? Have you been smoking te Gibbo stuff?

It was a penalty though, I saw it with my own eyes. Incompetence of execution is no excuse for him.

The biggest question here is after more than 750 posts, with half saying it was a justifyable penalty, and the other half saying it wasn't.

Then half says it is correctly carded and the other half says it isn't.

What I want to know has anyone been able to convince anyone differently to their original stand point, and if so how many?

I am researching the effectiveness of debate on the internet.

I am hoping that 10% of the posters could be convinced otherwise, if not, then debate and bias are mutually exclusive.

doctor_grey wrote:MrsP,
You have made your point, as I think you knew you would. If you had not been so persistent, I would not trolled around looking for the replay (instead of seeing patients). But, alas, you win. A close call, though. I have to admit, my evil twin wanted to disagree since it would have been more fun.

The biggest shame, of course, is that it decided the match. It is always bad when a match is decided on a controversal call. Especially one like that.

But, look at the bright side: You still have the match against England to raise your spirits......

One at least biltong.

I have been persuaded from my original view that Barnes copped out and only gave a yellow because there was under 10 minutes on the clock. I am now questioning whether it was a yellow on the basis that intent alone is not enough. However it was a penalty, whatever fudge the IRB came up with.

Why Glas?

They have ruled it wasn't a dangerous tackle so why was it a penalty?

Which Law did he break?

His elbow came up in a tipping motion. It was dangerous and the only call Barnes could make in real time.

I am not familiar with the "Elbow" law.

I was looking for a real actual Law of Rugby that was broken to justify your assertion that a penalty was the right decision?

And the panel have already established it was not a dangerous tackle so...?

Thanks Mrs P, that makes two, some way to go before I am convinced debate on sports forums aren't just places to put across biased views with no intent to modify one's perception.

For some it would appear you are correct biltong.

MrsP wrote:I am not familiar with the "Elbow" law.

I was looking for a real actual Law of Rugby that was broken to justify your assertion that a penalty was the right decision?

And the panel have already established it was not a dangerous tackle so...?

You know which law, dangerous play. Refs determine whether a tip tackle is deliberate by the shape of the tacklers arm. If the elbow points skywards he's tipping.

The 'determination' was a politically motivated utterance of a kangaroo court and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

That's my view, it's honestly held, probably subconsciously influenced by my background (you can call that biased if you want) and in all truth completely irrelevant. If you prefer I can pretend to agree with you, but what would that achieve?

Soo... that would be a no I can't find a law then? It seems the Disciplinary Panel looked too, with the same result.

What possible motive could the IRB have in judging this as NOT a dangerous tackle? their natural response at all times is to maintain the status quo.

Even they couldn't do that here.

If you can't quote a law and they can't quote a law which was broken, how was it a penalty?

Or is Biltong right?

It just once again proves the ambiguity of the law and hence the various interpretations that comes out of it.

The tackle law for the tip tackle also says you must get him safely to the ground. Now I can't remember the incident ver clearly, but from memory not both feet left the ground. Ferris seemed to have only one leg in the tackle.

So in my view if you haven't got hold of both legs and are tipping the player in a manner where he completely leaves the ground, it cannot qualify for a tip tackle.

MrsP wrote:Soo... that would be a no I can't find a law then? It seems the Disciplinary Panel looked too, with the same result.

What possible motive could the IRB have in judging this as NOT a dangerous tackle? their natural response at all times is to maintain the status quo.

Even they couldn't do that here.

If you can't quote a law and they can't quote a law which was broken, how was it a penalty?

Or is Biltong right?

Mrs P, in this case the debate is about more than the fact that it was an Irish player being penalised against a welsh team who won because of the decision made by the refree.

In my view it is also the ambiguity of the law, which is difficult to prove or disprove and allows for a myriad of different interpretations.

But we should be able to separate the actual tackle from the players involved and it's context in a match.

That is the bit I find disappointing, that it would appear that some people are unable to produce any other response than a nationalistic one. I wanted people to look at the facts, not at the people involved.

It is really interesting to read how some of the same people viewed the situation when it was Matthew Rees on the receiving end of the citing.

Yes, I agree we should be able to seperate the nationality of the participating parties from the incident.

Do you have a link to the tackle, I would like to see it againas I am working from memory here?

I am really reluctant to post it in here again biltong.

PM!

Found a link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUm9Whlaydc

Ferris only got hold of one leg, thus in my point of view it wasn't a tip tackle.

The fact that his elbow shoed the intent of tipping the player is irrelevant as a tip tackle by implication needs you to have the player lifted off the ground and then turned over.

In this case Ferris attmepted to lift the players leg as high a possible.

In comparison Bradley Davis' tackle should actually been a red, it is in comparison with the tackle warburton did in the world cup against france.

but again it is the interpretation of the law that causes these debates.

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

Clearly an 'other' type.

Ah.

So it's not so much that you feel my interpretation of the findings of the Disciplinary Panel are wrong, you just totally disagree with their judgment?

They clearly said that,

"...the lifting of the leg in this situation, where the other leg remains on the ground, is not sufficient of itself to make this a dangerous tackle."

The bold is my addition.

So you just think they are wrong?

Yes.

Look at it the other way, does the fact that one leg is on the ground make it not dangerous? I don't think so. Bear in mind that the ruling had not been made (or that aspect not considered in any other judgements) at the time Barnes made his call.

In my view if you have one foot on the goround you have some control of your momentum and how you fall. It also implies you have not been lifted beyond the horizontal

The one leg aspect was an accident on Ferris' part in that he didn't get hold of both - that's why it's a pen not a RC or YC.

A fine and fuzzy morning to you all,
I guess I am a bit surprised to see this thread still going, but I think the discussion is good.

As quoted earlier, I had to change my mind about the tackle because looking at the replay I really see nothing in it. I feel it is a good tackle, a strong tackle, but not a dangerous one. I appreciate people finding and showing the relevent Laws, but reading them and seeing the tackle only re-affirms this point of view for me.

However, clearly,this was a close call. A referee has a second to see a play and have it register correctly. For me, viewing in slow motion makes it a clear non-penalty. But live, I can see it being difficult to get correct.

Now, we all know there is great, and belated, concern about player safety by Rugby's officialdom. And a general sense it is good to err on the side of player safety. As a doctor who works with many athletes I continue to be a very strong advocate for everything we can do within the spirit of the game to do so. But, for me, this does not fit how I interpret the Laws regarding a dangerous tackle. Consequently, I agree with the decision that Ferris had nothing to answer in his hearing.

To me, its a shame that the match was decided on that call.

To me, its a shame that the match was decided on that call.

And you were doing so well!

I totally agree Dr G!

Glas, you or I can have no idea what was in Ferris' mind when he made that tackle and it makes absolutely no difference to it's legality or otherwise.

By your logic if he had missed both legs it would still have been an illegal tackle, even though no contact was made.

No. He had hold of one leg and continued to lift and dump. That's dangerous, but less dangerous than if he had managed to get hold of both, hence my view it was a penalty only.

But you agree that the Disciplinary Panel have said it was not dangerous?

Glas a du wrote:No. He had hold of one leg and continued to lift and dump. That's dangerous, but less dangerous than if he had managed to get hold of both, hence my view it was a penalty only.

Technically there was no lift. Hence there was no dump.

I had my view changed twice.

I initially thought it was a fair penalty when I saw the tackle on TV as Ferris had unintentionally lifted the player off the ground. Both legs eventually came off the ground.

Replays during the match showed another angle in which it appeared as if Ferris was driving the player into the ground and the players shoulders were lower than the hips.

I watched it again after viewing some discussion on it here and other fora and was convinced that it wasn't a yellow card offence but at the lower end of the scale, meriting a penalty only.

My interpretation of the wording of the panel's statement definitely rules out the citing, and the yellow card. However, the panel does seem to indicate that they only arrived at this point of view with the benefit of repeated viewings and a number of angles from which to view the incident - none of which was available to the referee - and therefore they could see why Barnes made the decision he did.

I'm now of the view that the citing was wrong, the tackle was borderline on whether it constituted a dangerous tackle, and therefore understand why Barnes awarded the penalty.

So was it unfair? In the circumstances, no.

And besides all that, Ireland didn't deserve to win the game. Wales did.