Two players cited after weekend

by Adam D Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Two players have been cited following the RBS 6 Nations match between Ireland and Wales in Dublin on Sunday.

Bradley Davies (Wales) and Stephen Ferris (Ireland) have been cited by the independent Six Nations Citing Commissioner for the match, Achille Reali (Italy), for foul play under IRB Law 10.4(j)*.

The players’ hearings, before an independent Six Nations Disciplinary Committee, will be held on Wednesday (8 February) in London.

*Law 10.4 (j) states: “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”.

by Taffineastbourne Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:57 pm

Citings should be used for foulplay that went unpunished.BlueNote,how long have you played/followed Rugby?I am not sure that this is the game for you.
We have values.It is a hard game and cheap shots have no place.

by HammerofThunor Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:16 pm

I like to see the little digs in the act of scoring tries cited. It's becoming too popular. Not sure of the point because if it did disrupt a try should it would be by foul play and penalty try given. I seem to remember someone getting a back injury from it a while back (vague memory suggests Stoddart slid into someone, possibly Anglo-Welsh cup)

by BlueNote Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:23 pm

Taff, a slight overreaction to a difference of opinion, I think.

For the record, first match I ever went to live was 1977, starting playing for my school (badly) in 1979. Never kneed anyone in the back or tip-tackled anyone.

by bedfordwelsh Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:25 pm

Am bit surprised more hasn't been made of that incident but I guess it was over shadowed by the two incidnets involving Davies and Ferris.

by Taffineastbourne Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:35 pm

BlueNote wrote:Taff, a slight overreaction to a difference of opinion, I think.

For the record, first match I ever went to live was 1977, starting playing for my school (badly) in 1979. Never kneed anyone in the back or tip-tackled anyone.

Blue,your post @ 8.07pm made you look a bit of a Charlie.You seemed to not want "minor foul-play" cited for some reason.Not sure why not.Care to clarify?

by JmD Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:38 pm

mckay1402 wrote:It would have been a big deal had he broken JD2s leg

If your aunt had gonads she'd be your uncle.

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:42 pm

Surely the citing commision will only punish an offence which should have attracted a red card.

If the citing officer sees offences that could not possibly attract a red card there would be absolutely no point in reporting them.

If they think the maximum punishment is a penalty or even a yellow there is no sanction that the disciplinary hearing could impose so it would be a totally pointless exercise.

by BlueNote Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:43 pm

Yes, I think that it's best to draw a line after the game. There will always be incidents in games, I just think it's best left there unless something fairly serious is done. To me, what Murray did was petulant, pathetic, but not that big a deal, particularly given no harm resulted. If we cite incidents at that level it gets a bit silly.

by Taffineastbourne Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:46 pm

Why only red card offences?Any offence should be brought to notice.Cant wait until someone does this to an Irish player and he is injured and unavailable for an important game.You might see from whence I come.

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:51 pm

What on earth has this got to do with the nationality of the players involved?

I was merely pointing out that the disciplinary hearing has no sanction available to them for offences which would not attract red card on the pitch.

I didn't make the rule up to suit any Nation. I'm just telling you how it works!

What is the point is reporting an offence which could only have been punished by a penalty? What are the disciplinary hearing supposed to do, order the game replayed?????

by Taffineastbourne Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:58 pm

What is the Nationality got to with it?Have you had a bang on the head?If a Welsh fella had done what Murray(?) did,I would not want him selected for Wales.If you think cowardly thuggery is ok then,adios amigos.
At local club level anyone doing this would be twiddling his thumbs for a while.
Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.Simples.

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:07 pm

I have not said it is okay.

I have merely pointed out that there is no point in citing any player for an offence if all the disciplinary hearing can do is say,

"Naughty, naughty!"

And, is the view good from up there on that high horse? You sound as if every Welsh player who has given a sly dig is automatically consigned to third division rugby.

I am not condoning anyones actions just trying to explain how the citing process works!

by Taffineastbourne Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:09 pm

In the context of this match the "minor" foul play of Ryan caused Bradley to lose his temper and mete out retribution to merit a "red".If Davies had tw*tted Murray he would have got red.
Do you see what I am saying?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:11 pm

Taff, JD2 doesn't even react in any way to Murray sliding into his leg - didn't seem that big a deal to him, nor to me? Your line of thinking seems to be getting a bit Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat?

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:16 pm

Not really.

No-one caused what Bradley did except Bradley.

If what Ryan did would not have attracted a red card then there is absolutely no point in citing it as there would be no sanction available.

I didn't make the rules.

If you want to refer every act which may have attracted a penalty to the disciplinary hearing then we will never have any rugby to watch because the players will be waiting for their hearing.

by HammerofThunor Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:23 pm

MrsP wrote:Not really.

No-one caused what Bradley did except Bradley.

If what Ryan did would not have attracted a red card then there is absolutely no point in citing it as there would be no sanction available.

I didn't make the rules.

If you want to refer every act which may have attracted a penalty to the disciplinary hearing then we will never have any rugby to watch because the players will be waiting for their hearing.

Where have you got the idea that only red card offences have sanctions? I've never seen someone red carded for a trip but it gets a ban. Dropping a scrum has a recommended ban associated. Never seen anyone yellow carded for that even (except repeat offences).

Citing (re: RFU) is used in situations when a suitable punishment was not given on the field. The reason red cards are automatic citing is because it's the maximum punishment possible on the field. If a yellow was given for a red card offence then you may get banned. If a penalty was given for a yellow you might get banned.

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:33 pm

I don't think that is right Thunor.

I think there can only be a sanction applied if the offence would have justified a red card on the pitch.

I am trying to find some corroboration but all I have found so far is wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citing_commissioner

by HammerofThunor Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:42 pm

What I said is definitely true for the RFU (hence the "re: RFU").

Have you ever seen anyone red carded for a trip? Have you seen anyone yellow carded for a trip? The IRB HAVE banned players for trips.

by Taffineastbourne Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:42 pm

Sorry to have tried debating.I had hoped for some understanding.I am an optomist by nature.
Hope that you can enjoy Rugby with your degree of understanding.Try and learn a bit more and it will become much better,I promise you.

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:45 pm

Found this too.

http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/Regulations/Discipline/~/media/Files/2009/Regulations/DR_App_7.ashx

They refer to it as "The red card test".

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:53 pm

Taff,

No need for the condescension thank you!

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:04 pm

Yellow for a trip,

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/287582

by MrsP Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:09 pm

Here's the paragraph i was looking for in that RFU link above.

4.6 A citing may be made whether or not the alleged act of foul play was seen by a Match Official. Where a Match Official did not detect the act of foul play cited, then it must be shown that had the Match Official seen the act, a red card would have been awardedHowever, where a Match Official, having detected the alleged act, decided that it was either not foul play, or that it was, but he took action other than sending off, the citing Club must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Match Official was wrong.

by slartibartfast Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:57 pm

Ryan landed on his side and his head wasn't into the ground. Why would Bradley get a ban?

It was more like a judo throw than a spear tackle.

I can't remember anyone being injured at international level through a spear tackle accept Bod.

Are we making too much of all this?

by nathan Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:16 am

offload wrote:
roddersm wrote:Davies is in big trouble and Ferris will get an apology. There's nothing else to see here.

Yes agree. It will be unfair if Ferris gets anything - it was a penalty at most. I think Davies will have the book thrown at him.

How is it a penalty at most? Either it was a dangerous tackle or it wasnt..

by nathan Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:21 am

MrsP wrote:Ian Evans braces himself for the tackle.

Ian Evans puts his own head down to the level of his own hips as they make contact.

Ferris grabs Evans' right leg and heaves it up and back in the tackle.

Evans falls over with one foot on the ground until the force of the tackle knocks him over and his left foot leaves the ground.

Ferris does not "lift the player from the ground".

I wasn't aware that pushing a player over had become a citable offence in rugby.

How many times!!! You do not have to lift a player completely off the ground for it to be classed as lifting a player. So what your saying is that it's ok spear someone so long as there little toe is touching the ground. I'm sorry, but that's just not the case!!!

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:25 am

slartibartfast wrote:Ryan landed on his side and his head wasn't into the ground. Why would Bradley get a ban?

It was more like a judo throw than a spear tackle.

Are we making too much of all this?

Staggering.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:25 am

slartibartfast wrote:Ryan landed on his side and his head wasn't into the ground. Why would Bradley get a ban?

It was more like a judo throw than a spear tackle.

I can't remember anyone being injured at international level through a spear tackle accept Bod.

Are we making too much of all this?

Slarti the IRB crackdowns on tip tackles ( not just spears) and charging came about after they did a review of all contact injuries to see what was causing them. These were the types of hits shown to have the highest chances of causing serious injury ( the scrum the other area of concern). Due to ever increasing injury rates in pro rugby they did something about it from a player welfare perspective.
Its pretty uncommon that anyone gets injured by eye contact, theres only been two significant injuries that Im aware of , but are you saying it should be accepted as normal?

As for not landing on his head its not the point at all. Theres even a specific note in the guidance saying that a player managing to protect themselves by lifting their head or getting their arms down first (as in the Ferris case) doesnt absolve the tackler from responsibility for their action. In the same way that if i shot you and you managed to catch the bullet in your teeth youd still expect me to get detention at least. Evans was hurt by the drop, and it couldve been a lot worse.

You know damn well it was done as a deliberate attempt to harm the player, there was no gameplay reason for it to be done. It was pure thuggery and dangerous. Frankly trying to pretend it was a non issue shows you have zero credibility as a serious poster.

Im not in the " hang em and flog em " brigade by any means and I do feel theres too many cards and too much Holly Wilaboobie for tat we want blood citing fever, but that was up there with some of the most blatant acts of foul play we have seen in recent games ...if anythings going to get punished it should be that. He had already cleared the player form the ruck, it was off the ball and compeltley needless, at least the Ferris one was a legitimate attempt to tackle a player if somewhat reckless in the way it was done. The argument that he was reacting to the charge on Jones may be bought up in mitigation in the hearing, but it rightly wont absolve him altogether from responsibility.

Davies is lucky that he didnt do more harm or he'd be facing an even longer ban.

by MrsP Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:32 am

Nathan,

IRB definition of a Tip Tackle

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.

The IRB seem to think the player has to be off the ground.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:35 am

slartibartfast wrote:Ryan landed on his side and his head wasn't into the ground. Why would Bradley get a ban?

Because the ball was long gone and he picked up Donncha Ryan and flipped him upside down. If you think that's acceptable then I hope you don't play rugby yourself.

Also, he did not land on his side.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:56 am

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
slartibartfast wrote:Ryan landed on his side and his head wasn't into the ground. Why would Bradley get a ban?

Because the ball was long gone and he picked up Donncha Ryan and flipped him upside down. If you think that's acceptable then I hope you don't play rugby yourself.

Also, he did not land on his side.

lucky, i wouldn't even bother, mate Doh

by geoff998rugby Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:02 am

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
slartibartfast wrote:Ryan landed on his side and his head wasn't into the ground. Why would Bradley get a ban?

It was more like a judo throw than a spear tackle.

Are we making too much of all this?

Staggering.

And not the first either - the level of ignorance of some is staggering

by Chunky Norwich Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:05 am

Citing officer obviously thought Ferris' incident was worhty of a red card. I think he'll get off scott free. He's had enough punishment.

Donnacha Ryan incident is different though. How that has not been cited I do not know. It was far worse.

It's a complete lottery.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:Citing officer obviously thought Ferris' incident was worhty of a red card. I think he'll get off scott free. He's had enough punishment.

Donnacha Ryan incident is different though. How that has not been cited I do not know. It was far worse.

It's a complete lottery.

I see, Chunky, so as predicted the citing officer got it wrong?

by Chunky Norwich Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:10 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Citing officer obviously thought Ferris' incident was worhty of a red card. I think he'll get off scott free. He's had enough punishment.

Donnacha Ryan incident is different though. How that has not been cited I do not know. It was far worse.

It's a complete lottery.
I see, Chunky, so as predicted the citing officer got it wrong?

By the letter of the law yes. The only one he has got right was Bradley Davies.

Not my laws - the IRBs.

by RubyGuby Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:17 am

Shouldn't someone like Dave Pearson be asked to explain his actions here - Stevie Wonder could see it was a red, what he described to the ref suggested a red and when asked what card he said "yellow" - Baffling - I wouldn't see any complaints if he had been given a straight red - Now Warburtons on the other hand Run

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:18 am

I'm sure they'll have a word with Dave Pearson - especially as he's due to referee France v Ireland on Saturday!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:28 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:Citing officer obviously thought Ferris' incident was worhty of a red card. I think he'll get off scott free. He's had enough punishment.

Donnacha Ryan incident is different though. How that has not been cited I do not know. It was far worse.

It's a complete lottery.

No they thought it needed investigating further. We will find out if they thought it worthy of a red card after the hearing.
Its a very odd one that shows up the grey areas in interpreting the laws. Read through all this, the combined might and knowledge of the internets comes up with everything from Evans should be cited for cartwheeling to it was a blatant red card.

by dummy_half Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:36 am

RubyGuby wrote:Shouldn't someone like Dave Pearson be asked to explain his actions here - Stevie Wonder could see it was a red, what he described to the ref suggested a red and when asked what card he said "yellow" - Baffling - I wouldn't see any complaints if he had been given a straight red - Now Warburtons on the other hand

Ruby
Agree entirely about Pearson - if he saw the Davies incident clearly (and his description of it suggested he did), how he could recommend anything other than a red is beyond belief.
Warburton's RWC red was correct to the letter of the Law (although was a far less intentionally dangerous tackle than Davies's and more dangerous than the Ferris one because he dropped Clerc), although as we see in this case many other refs would not have given the red card for it during the match (noting that the citing panel did suspend Warburton on review).

Now, whether you think the Law is right or has gone a bit too far in the name of player protection is a different matter for debate - personally I think they have gone a bit far in making 'tip tackles' a potential red card offence, and I would draw a distinction between these (Ferris's and Warburton's tackles) and intentional 'spear' tackles where the tackler makes a deliberate movement to invert the tackled player and either drop or drive onto their heads/necks/upper backs (which I think Davies did)

by RubyGuby Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:39 am

There are so many interpretations out there that it remains baffling for me it reads as follows

Davies - Red
Warburton - Yellow
Ferris - didn't think there was much in it - harsh decision thumbsup

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:40 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:Citing officer obviously thought Ferris' incident was worhty of a red card. I think he'll get off scott free. He's had enough punishment.

Donnacha Ryan incident is different though. How that has not been cited I do not know. It was far worse.

It's a complete lottery.

Ryan's was a penalty offence, and probably worthy of a yellow (had Adam Jones been holding the ball it would have been a no-arm-tackle which normally gets a yellow). Not a red-card offence so hence not citeable.

by Chunky Norwich Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:45 am

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Citing officer obviously thought Ferris' incident was worhty of a red card. I think he'll get off scott free. He's had enough punishment.

Donnacha Ryan incident is different though. How that has not been cited I do not know. It was far worse.

It's a complete lottery.

Ryan's was a penalty offence, and probably worthy of a yellow (had Adam Jones been holding the ball it would have been a no-arm-tackle which normally gets a yellow). Not a red-card offence so hence not citeable.

Then Bakkies Botha deserves a written apology from Paddy O'Brien.

They can't chop and change the laws when they feel like it.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:46 am

Warburton was very much a red, as upheld by the panel. Rolland received a lot of credit for his decision, for not doing what Pearson did and chickening out.
Refs need to make strong calls, its one of the things I dont like about the " on reprot " system, which will see more players banned, but less punishment on the field. In a tournament that means the team offended against loses out, whereas the next teams to play the offending side gains. How is that right?
There is no right answer and perfect system. We are all going to die.

by dummy_half Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:00 am

PSW
You only have to watch a few Super League games to see the drawback of the 'on report' system (and of increasing the importance of the video ref - almost every try gets reviewed 'just in case'). The refs tend to chicken out of the tough but correct call and instead put the player 'on report' for something that should have seen them off the field at least for a 10 minute sit down.

Personally, I thought Warburton's red was correct to the Laws as currently interpretted, but my question is more whether the Law is correct. Certainly when I was playing, that would have been considered a good tackle and not a penalty. Davies's was most definitely not legal though...

by miteyironpaw Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:20 am

Refs should be cited for making mistakes and have to publicly explain their thought process.

My feeling is that Barnes didn't see the first incident, and imagined that because Pearson had recommended yellow rather than red, that it must have been a borderline incident. When he saw the later Ferris tackle, he probably wondered if that was a similar "sort of spear tackle worthy of a yellow" and issued the penalty and card to try to be consistent...I've noticed he tends to try to "even things up" nowadays after his criticism of being perhaps a bit overly focused on one side at a certain time in the past.

by dummy_half Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:29 am

Mitey
I certainly don't think Barnes deserves any criticism for the Bradley Davies incident - he was following play, which was moving in-field at the time, so didn't see anything. He acted entirely on the recommendation of Pearson, who was very positive in both his description and recommendation of the yellow card. Obviously, it is pretty widely acknowledged both on here and by all the pundits that the recommendation was wrong and that a red was meritted, but the fault there lies with Pearson.

I also think Barnes's call on the Ferris tackle was justifiable - some may disagree with it, but I don't think anyone wold call it a blatant error, rather that it was a marginal call. I also don't think the yellow was about 'evening up', but was genuinely Barnes's interpretation of what he saw (and he couldn't have been much closer to the action in this case).

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:36 am

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Kiwireddevil wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:Citing officer obviously thought Ferris' incident was worhty of a red card. I think he'll get off scott free. He's had enough punishment.

Donnacha Ryan incident is different though. How that has not been cited I do not know. It was far worse.

It's a complete lottery.

Ryan's was a penalty offence, and probably worthy of a yellow (had Adam Jones been holding the ball it would have been a no-arm-tackle which normally gets a yellow). Not a red-card offence so hence not citeable.

Then Bakkies Botha deserves a written apology from Paddy O'Brien.

They can't chop and change the laws when they feel like it.

I suspect that Botha wouldn't have been cited had Jones not been injured.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:36 am

miteyironpaw wrote:Refs should be cited for making mistakes and have to publicly explain their thought process.

Or they could just be placed in the stocks and pelted with tomatoes?

Refs will make mistakes. People will also look at incidents and make their own minds up and never be swayed when they wrong, theres clealry still a lot of peopel who bizzarely think Rolland was at fault for the Warburton red.

Refs are held to account on these decisions. Their input is considered in the hearing, and the findings will note any over or under punishment on the field.

Unless we comepltely shift to a system were all decsions are reviewed after the game and the ref is only their as an observer in the game we will continue to get msitakes. In many cases they are difficult to interpret evenst that even with video review its hard to fit them excatly under the laws and the inetnt of the laws. The Ferris incident is a classic example of this. As Dummy says the ref shouldnt be cast as an evil villain for making a decision based on what he saw. Had he not called anything hed get the same stufffing.

Hanging and flogging refs for making a call isnt the way to go. Standards have to be kept up but some of the junk that came out at the world cup was ridiculous. Forcing refs to explain every detail and all this over analysis only adds to the effect you suggested may have influenced Barnes to card Ferris and Pearson hedging his bets on Davies. Rolland was hung out to dry for having the guts to do his job properly.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:53 am

There's a really good reason why these tackles have been targeted by the IRB. Between 1976 and 2000, scrums accounted for 63% of all spinal cord injuries, and tackles accounted for 36% (the remaining 1% spread among rucks, mauls lineouts and other causes. When the IRB targetted scrum safety between 2001 and 2005 this changes, with the proportion of spinal cord injuries cause by scrums drops to only 12%, while those from tackles rise to 87%. Thats right, 87% of spinal cord injuries were caused by tackles. This number remained fairly static, but after 2005 this rose rather dramatically again with the IRB attributing this to 'tip-tackles' or 'spears' or whatever people are called them on this forum. These tackles accounted for 65% of all tackle-related spinal cord injuries. The IRB have decided that if they can eradicate these tackles then they may be able to prevent nearly 57% of spinal cord injuries (that number is 65% of 87%)

So that's why the IRB are looking at these incidents.

Look at point four in the following case;
http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/Discipline/Judgements/Judgments2010-2011/JudgmentsOffence/~/media/Files/2009/Discipline/2010-2011/Judgments/sevealiilondonirishjudgmentsept10.ashx

That will explain perhaps the rationale of why Ferris may very well received no punishment, not because, according to one totally uniformed poster 'he has been punished enough.' Of course this would have to have some knowledge of the citing process to know this, but surprise surprise, the poster doesn't.

by Chunky Norwich Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:34 am

Kiwireddevil wrote:

I suspect that Botha wouldn't have been cited had Jones not been injured.

Which is frankly pathetic. Isn't it?

by Sponsored content