Red Card! Really?!?!?

First topic message reminder :

I am not normally one for bashing referees, as it is a tough job and a thankless task at times. But.....


How on gods green earth is this tackle a red card???

Spoiler:

Utter nonsense from JP Doyle who should hang his head in shame. 10 minutes into a crucial match for both teams. I really hope the referee review people have a good hard look at this and other similar decisions and issue some guidance. If that is a red card offence then we may as well be playing tag!!!

Has anybody got a link to the full judgement?

I expected LR (even if it was judged a tip-tackle, you couldn't call it a serious one) if anything, but given the non-guilty plea and Chris's record + the usual week added for a deterrent, I would expect 3 weeks added on from that, so 7 weeks if 4 weeks was the entry point. On the other hand if 2 weeks was the entry point (I think the entry point can be anything down to 50% of the maximum, but not sure) then that makes sense.

As to the tackle, I have nothing to add to my original post. There is no action from Chris's part which you could describe as a lift or twist.

Someone mentioned the Wales-Samoa, and the clear-out of Biggar. In my view, stonewall YC at least (I would certainly not quibble with red), deliberate targetting of the head with your shoulder and charging in from a distance. Very dangerous.

It'll be on the RFU website

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments-2012-2013/judgments-by-club/aviva-premiership

Usually go up after the appeal is sorted I think.

Based on the below I still can't see how they can support a red card being issued as Chris didn't lift the other player and, even if he had, he certainly didn't spear him into the ground or drop him from a height. In the absence of those elements, even if you think knocking him off his feet with a strong tackle counts as lifting, a yellow at worst might have been given - or am I missing something?

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

Appeal upheld.

Ban rescinded.

Chris free to play this weekend.

What's the betting he puts in one of his famous swinging arm tackles and gets a deserved red this weekend now!!!

How about a red card for the idiots who gave the ban initially?

Shame we won't get the points back we probably lost from playing without Chris for most of the match last week.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Appeal upheld.

Ban rescinded.

Chris free to play this weekend.

What's the betting he puts in one of his famous swinging arm tackles and gets a deserved red this weekend now!!!

Wow, I think that's the first time I've seen an appeal actually work (other than the Byrne 16 man ridiculousness). Fair play to them. Both reports will make interesting reading and I'm glad common sense (as in what I think) won through.

Wow indeed!

That is truely amazing. Not because it is wrong just extremely unexpected!

In the Ferris thing the disciplinary panel went way beyond what I thought they would that was surprising enough but this....Wow again.

Kinda restores my faith in the process a bit.

I know the card had a huge effect on the game and I'm not sure how the LI fans feel about it but my personal view is to have some sympathy for the ref in this situation. He is making a decision on far less information than we have had and we don't all agree.

I also think it is a very good thing for the game to get this sort of result which helps to clarify what is and isn't legal.

Well done Chris and LI!

That for the sake of sense, is brilliant news.

MrsP

I also have some sympathy for the ref - he gets to see the indicent once at full speed and perhaps through a few arms and legs. I do think in this case he saw the consequence of the tackle (i.e. the tackled player's legs coming up as he hit the ground) and thought it had to be a 'lifting' tackle for the guy to end up in that position. He also did the right thing in consulting with the TJ, although it happened a blooming long way away from the TJs position, so it's unclear how much more information the ref got there.

OK, further video evidence shows that he got the call wrong, but he erred on the side of player safety, which is (I understand) what the refs are expected to do.

Nobody should expect a ref or his assistants to do anything but call it as he sees it.

The fear is that for them is that they'd get marked down for missing a proscribed event.

It appears that justice has been seen (eventually) to be done in this case.

dummy_half wrote:MrsP

I also have some sympathy for the ref - he gets to see the indicent once at full speed and perhaps through a few arms and legs. I do think in this case he saw the consequence of the tackle (i.e. the tackled player's legs coming up as he hit the ground) and thought it had to be a 'lifting' tackle for the guy to end up in that position. He also did the right thing in consulting with the TJ, although it happened a blooming long way away from the TJs position, so it's unclear how much more information the ref got there.

OK, further video evidence shows that he got the call wrong, but he erred on the side of player safety, which is (I understand) what the refs are expected to do.

Agree dummyhalf, the referee sees it once, however the blundering, bltihering, citing commisioner saw it in slow mo, from 4 dimensions (OK, I am making up the fourth one), ban of 5 weeks imposed, and then recinded.

Quite quintessentially calamitous.

Justice has been done.

I don't think the citing officer has anything to do with it as it was a red card so automatically referred. I actually would not have minded it being referred if no red had been brandished as it is good to have these things clarified.

The disciplinary panel however....

Was it Blackett?

Not what I was expecting. Clarification is needed now for sure.

I sort of have some sympathy for the ref but if he wasn't sure and his TJs weren't able to help perhaps he should have left it for the citing officer to look at rather than potentially cost a team the game based on an assumption of what he thought may have happened? Given LI's current position this could be very costly come the end of the season.

Heaf,

I have sympathy with that view too but I suspect the ref was sure of what he thought had happened. As has been said, he can only call things as he sees them. We really don't want refs afraid to red card offences if they feel that is necessary as that favours the team of the offender.

Maybe MrsP - odd he was the only one on the pitch that did see it that way though - given the reaction of the LW players they didn't see the same thing at all either

Think of the children!

I can only imagine that Chris thought his excellent record and impeachable character would be enough to get him off. Only upon being found guilty did his expert legal team think to mention that there was clear video evidence showing that it wasnt a lifting tip tackle.

I shall await the publication of the judgements before giving my view on things.

Will it take that long for you to Ozzy?

I just like to have the facts in front of me before going off on one MrsP


Interestingly whilst researching Jeff Blackett on t'internet I found this...

espnscrum.com wrote:However, his work with the RFU appeared to be coming to an end in 2012 when the RFU Council agreed in principle that their in-house disciplinary officer should be replaced by an independent head of judiciary. However, a vote on the change will not be held until the RFU's AGM in July 2013.

I hadn't realised that he could be on his way out and a shake up of the prcess may be on the cards.

I rememeber that Ozzy.

I have no idea why there wasn't more of a fuss over the Clark debacle. I was sure either the QC who gave him the wrong/false information or Blackett himself would be hauled over the coals about that!

Should have been too!

Ozzy3213 wrote:I shall await the publication of the judgements before giving my view on things.

If and when the adjudication appears can it be assumed that anyone who first turns it up can publish the link?

On one occasion (13/4/12 regarding a Ben Youngs citing) I wrote to the RFU for the full written transcript for which I received a personal sight.

It did take a phone call to prompt 'Rebecca' to actually get the details pasted up on their site as she was out of the office and forgot.

Glad to see ban overturned.

Why did he plead guilty in the first place?

He didn't, he plead not guilty.

Ozzy3213 wrote:He didn't, he plead not guilty.

Ah ok - pretty sure original hearing report said he pleaded guilty. Must be having a senior moment.

LT,

Panic not. Senility is not yet upon you. The initial press reports did say he had plead guilty.

Clearly not a tip tackle in any way shape or form. Never goes horizontal, no attempted lifting or driving at all. I can understand how a referee could see the landing and think it was a tip tackle but if that tackle is going to be banned, and it was just a hard, excellent tackle with good technique, we may as well switch to touch. I can't help but feel that referees' judgment is slowly being removed from rugby, which would work if it were a simple game, but it isn't

Correct decision in the end in my view. Also have some sympathy for JP who gave what he saw and made an honest mistake; I am not so sure of the argument that if unsure he should have left it to the citing commissioner - for one, he may have been sure (if wrong) but more importantly we want refs to make decisions and make the potentially big decisions. In an ideal world referees approach every decision in the same way, no matter how big/important - if they approach the big decisions with more caution then you get the odd bottled call (e.g. all the actual spear tackles which have only received yellow but should have had red).

Whilst LI could have won with Chris not being sent off, they could have lost as well, and they could have won despite the sending off. To blame the defeat on the sending-off is failing to look at their own failings.

Really feel for Irish, they played 70mins of that game without 15 players on the pitch (10mins of which they were down to 13 players). If they had won that game (no certainty they would obviously) there would only have been 1 point between them and Welsh in the table rather than 7. I don't think it will matter too much for them in the end, I think Irish will gain more positions over the rest of the season, but it could mean the difference for Sale who I think will be in a fight to the end with LW.

Mike Selig wrote:Correct decision in the end in my view. Also have some sympathy for JP who gave what he saw and made an honest mistake; I am not so sure of the argument that if unsure he should have left it to the citing commissioner - for one, he may have been sure (if wrong) but more importantly we want refs to make decisions and make the potentially big decisions. In an ideal world referees approach every decision in the same way, no matter how big/important - if they approach the big decisions with more caution then you get the odd bottled call (e.g. all the actual spear tackles which have only received yellow but should have had red).

Whilst LI could have won with Chris not being sent off, they could have lost as well, and they could have won despite the sending off. To blame the defeat on the sending-off is failing to look at their own failings.

Once again spot on Mike. We lost because we didn't play well enough, not because of the sending off. I have no issue with JP Doyle. He did what he thought was right at the time, and that's all you can do. I have more issue with the initial disciplinary hearing finding, and await the publication of it with eager anticipation.

Never a red card, not worthy of a ban. Common sense eventually prevails.

Is it not possible that we didn't play well enough as we only had 14 players for most the match?

I agree we didn't play well and probably could have still won if we'd played better but ultimately I still believe even playing badly we probably would have won if we'd had 15 players on the pitch for the whole game rather than the equivalent of 7 yellow cards (given the often spouted average 7 points shipped during a yellow card period).

I don't buy into the common theme that when a ref makes an error that fundamentally affects the game (and I accept they make honest mistakes) the players get blamed for not playing well enough to make up a deficit not of their making.

Personally I thought this was an excelland tackle.

These sort of decisions by referees, make not only referees look stupid but they also reduce the game to a farce.

The refereee supected that a spear tackle had occured, when none of the required criteria were present, and accordingly the player was sent from the field on nothing more than suspicion.

This whole ridiculous situation could have been avoided if the referee had of had the "white card" option available to him, rather than feel compelled to make a pathetic over reactive snap decision which was clearly seen as wrong to everyone else subsequently.

Another possible solution would be to only make instances of foul play in the first instance punishable by a "sending off".

The referees action in this matter had absolutely nothing to do with player safety.

The problem I see with the "referral" thing is that refs would use it as a cop out. Then even players who have committed clear red card offences get to play on and the team offended against gain no advantage.

Would there ever be a case for the ref to issue a yellow only in those cases but have the TMO review the footage during the 10 mins the player is definately off the pitch and make a more informed decision as to whether the player returns or not?

Being trialled in the Jeff as well you probably know, is a TV/TMO experiment that extends the action the field of play and not just try-line activities.

If found successful (as it seems to be), I think that most YC/RCs will be reviewed prior to the decision.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Personally I thought this was an excelland tackle.

These sort of decisions by referees, make not only referees look stupid but they also reduce the game to a farce.

The refereee supected that a spear tackle had occured, when none of the required criteria were present, and accordingly the player was sent from the field on nothing more than suspicion.

This whole ridiculous situation could have been avoided if the referee had of had the "white card" option available to him, rather than feel compelled to make a pathetic over reactive snap decision which was clearly seen as wrong to everyone else subsequently.

Another possible solution would be to only make instances of foul play in the first instance punishable by a "sending off".

The referees action in this matter had absolutely nothing to do with player safety.

I'm sorry but how would that solve anything? Couldn't he have just said to the citing official at the end of the game "check that tackle, I was a bit 50:50 and felt I couldn't give it". The "white card" is a bizarre waste to time that may mollify people thinking action has been taken when in fact nothing has. Unless I'm mistaken and the white card is for the TMO to review while the game continues and then he comes back with yellow/red etc. Otherwise I really can't see the point.

The system in the Premiership before the HEC was better where the ref could refer to the TMO, who put it up on the big screen. Then you either had a decision from him or the ref reacted to the images shown on the big screen. Seemed to work really well.

The systems trailled in the jeff makes much more sense than the white card which just gives refs a way of bottling making on the field decisions.
By getting a TMO to look at it there and then they can get the player punished in the game where the incident occurred, rather than giving the offended teams rivals a boost by not having to face a banned player.

I dont much like the endless reviews, but its better than white cards

I don't mind endless reviews so long as I'm satisfied that the TMO has sought a justifiable outcome.

But what I do mind is them being limited to what the ref determines.

Now:
Ref: "Just check the x incident before the grounding"
TMO: "The x incident x incident was fine and you may award the try"

Rather than "The x incident was OK, but Black player A was blocking White player B and the scoring pass was forward but the grounding was good"