IRB confirms first yellow for Bismarck du Plessis was a mistake

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 4:03 pm

Following an initial review, the IRB confirms that it was incorrect for referee Romain Poite to issue a yellow card to Bismarck du Plessis in the 17th minute of The Rugby Championship match between New Zealand and South Africa in Auckland on Saturday.

Just as players and coaches make mistakes, the decision was an unfortunate case of human error by the match officials, who, having reviewed the match, fully recognise and accept that they made a mistake in the application of law.

All match official performances are thoroughly reviewed and assessed by the IRB and are considered when appointments are made for future test matches.

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2068799.html

by InjuredYetAgain Sun 15 Sep 2013, 4:20 pm

Well at least it is a small step but I feel sorry for the SAffers as it won't change the result in the record books. I think the most galling part of the whole sorry incident was that the TMO had the chance to say to the ref that the tackle was perfectly fair and didn't take it or didn't make himself properly understood.
I'd say the TMO was as much at fault as the ref

by majesticimperialman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 4:28 pm

What baffles me about that yellow card is that Poite ASK the TMO too have a look at it. The TMO says their was no wrong doing and yet he still gave a yellow card.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 15 Sep 2013, 4:35 pm

Poite actually asked for the TMO to check the aftermath and said he had had a clear enough view of the tackle to make the decision himself so it's compltely on poite that he got it so wrong.

by **Biltong** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 4:48 pm

Yeah, I am sorry too.

by Knowsit17 Sun 15 Sep 2013, 4:57 pm

Better than if the incident had just been waved away as past shoddy ref performances have been. Nice to know that Poite is at least flexible enough to recognise and admit his errors unlike some in the past.

by **Biltong** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm

The exact same thing happened in 2010 when Drew Mitchell was yellow carded unfairly, and then also received a red card later on, again, against the all Blacks.

That is when Pieter de Villiers made the comment of preference to NZ as the world cup was going to be held in NZ the next year.

At the time the stats showed NZ got a yellow card every 42 penalties, OZ a yellow card every 7 penalties and SA one every 6 penalties.

It seems the referees are in awe of NZ and thus make decision against other temas for whatever reasons.

by Standulstermen Sun 15 Sep 2013, 5:21 pm

Dont think any blame can be attached to the TMO as poite told him he was happy with his view of the tackle. Bad decision. I would expect the red to be rescinded?????

by emack2 Sun 15 Sep 2013, 5:26 pm

The citing then becomes a formality if IRB says it`s only one Yellow then presumeably no further action will be taken.Seems most poster s here thing had Bismarck stayed on the Boks would have walked it.Seem to recall there 4 Yellows given two late in the game but since the Boks are such strong finishers of a game.Take a look at the incidents by BOTH sides which could have been punished by yellow cards too.

by Cyril Sun 15 Sep 2013, 5:27 pm

Just as players and coaches make mistakes, the decision was an unfortunate case of human error by the match officials, who, having reviewed the match, fully recognise and accept that they made a mistake in the application of law.

This seems fair enough. A mistake was made and admitted. Human error. It's tough but it happens.

Hopefully players and coaches will recognise when they've made mistakes too.

by yappysnap Sun 15 Sep 2013, 6:36 pm

emack2 wrote:The citing then becomes a formality if IRB says it`s only one Yellow then presumeably no further action will be taken.Seems most poster s here thing had Bismarck stayed on the Boks would have walked it.Seem to recall there 4 Yellows given two late in the game but since the Boks are such strong finishers of a game.Take a look at the incidents by BOTH sides which could have been punished by yellow cards too.

Utter rubbish mate. Not a single poster has said that. What people are tired of is NZ getting an easy ride on the back of poor refs.

I know you love the AB's but come on, it was a cowpat decision made against the team playing the AB's and it isn't the first. As a neutral I don't care about SA winning or losing but Poite and his idiot reffing ruined what should have been a very good game and handed the match to a NZ team who are good enough to win their own games without help. If it hadn't been Dan Carter getting tackled then no one would of cared. In fact I'm fairly sure Nonu has made far worse tackles all RC and only just got yellowed for one finally.

by The Saint Sun 15 Sep 2013, 6:40 pm

yappysnap wrote:
emack2 wrote:The citing then becomes a formality if IRB says it`s only one Yellow then presumeably no further action will be taken.Seems most poster s here thing had Bismarck stayed on the Boks would have walked it.Seem to recall there 4 Yellows given two late in the game but since the Boks are such strong finishers of a game.Take a look at the incidents by BOTH sides which could have been punished by yellow cards too.
Utter rubbish mate. Not a single poster has said that. What people are tired of is NZ getting an easy ride on the back of poor refs.

I know you love the AB's but come on, it was a cowpat decision made against the team playing the AB's and it isn't the first. As a neutral I don't care about SA winning or losing but Poite and his idiot reffing ruined what should have been a very good game and handed the match to a NZ team who are good enough to win their own games without help. If it hadn't been Dan Carter getting tackled then no one would of cared. In fact I'm fairly sure Nonu has made far worse tackles all RC and only just got yellowed for one finally.

+ 1. Well said. Cue GE telling me i'm anti-all black.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 6:47 pm

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Well at least it is a small step but I feel sorry for the SAffers as it won't change the result in the record books. I think the most galling part of the whole sorry incident was that the TMO had the chance to say to the ref that the tackle was perfectly fair and didn't take it or didn't make himself properly understood.
I'd say the TMO was as much at fault as the ref

Why should it change the result in books? NZ were looking good for a win anyway.

If you want to know the reason (contrary to some assertions that referee mistake ALWAYS favour NZ) then look no further than the failure to card Juan a week earlier that cost NZ a bonus point try.

The referee would have been desperate not to repeat a mistake inflicted on NZ the week before.

by Taylorman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 6:51 pm

well we dont need the irb to state the obvious and saying that NZ get preferential treatment from refs is pure rubbish. Wheres the proof that refs actually conspire and discuss this as a matter of course. Put up or shut up.

by **Biltong** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 6:51 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
InjuredYetAgain wrote:Well at least it is a small step but I feel sorry for the SAffers as it won't change the result in the record books. I think the most galling part of the whole sorry incident was that the TMO had the chance to say to the ref that the tackle was perfectly fair and didn't take it or didn't make himself properly understood.
I'd say the TMO was as much at fault as the ref
Why should it change the result in books? NZ were looking good for a win anyway.

If you want to know the reason (contrary to some assertions that referee mistake ALWAYS favour NZ) then look no further than the failure to card Juan a week earlier that cost NZ a bonus point try.

The referee would have been desperate not to repeat a mistake inflicted on NZ the week before.

So this was the redemption of last week at the cost of SA?

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 6:54 pm

Biltong wrote:The exact same thing happened in 2010 when Drew Mitchell was yellow carded unfairly, and then also received a red card later on, again, against the all Blacks.

That is when Pieter de Villiers made the comment of preference to NZ as the world cup was going to be held in NZ the next year.

At the time the stats showed NZ got a yellow card every 42 penalties, OZ a yellow card every 7 penalties and SA one every 6 penalties.

It seems the referees are in awe of NZ and thus make decision against other temas for whatever reasons.

Biltong I'm sorry but this is bitter rubbish and you are better than this.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 6:55 pm

Biltong wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
InjuredYetAgain wrote:Well at least it is a small step but I feel sorry for the SAffers as it won't change the result in the record books. I think the most galling part of the whole sorry incident was that the TMO had the chance to say to the ref that the tackle was perfectly fair and didn't take it or didn't make himself properly understood.
I'd say the TMO was as much at fault as the ref
Why should it change the result in books? NZ were looking good for a win anyway.

If you want to know the reason (contrary to some assertions that referee mistake ALWAYS favour NZ) then look no further than the failure to card Juan a week earlier that cost NZ a bonus point try.

The referee would have been desperate not to repeat a mistake inflicted on NZ the week before.
So this was the redemption of last week at the cost of SA?

Not deliberately so, but recent mistakes play on the mind And influence the present. Recall Wayne Barne's famous return to refereeing the all blacks where he penalised Ireland off the field?

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:00 pm

The Saint wrote:
yappysnap wrote:
emack2 wrote:The citing then becomes a formality if IRB says it`s only one Yellow then presumeably no further action will be taken.Seems most poster s here thing had Bismarck stayed on the Boks would have walked it.Seem to recall there 4 Yellows given two late in the game but since the Boks are such strong finishers of a game.Take a look at the incidents by BOTH sides which could have been punished by yellow cards too.
Utter rubbish mate. Not a single poster has said that. What people are tired of is NZ getting an easy ride on the back of poor refs.

I know you love the AB's but come on, it was a cowpat decision made against the team playing the AB's and it isn't the first. As a neutral I don't care about SA winning or losing but Poite and his idiot reffing ruined what should have been a very good game and handed the match to a NZ team who are good enough to win their own games without help. If it hadn't been Dan Carter getting tackled then no one would of cared. In fact I'm fairly sure Nonu has made far worse tackles all RC and only just got yellowed for one finally.
+ 1. Well said. Cue GE telling me i'm anti-all black.

No, I'll just diffuse this hysterical nonsense with facts. Like: nonu wasn't playing all rugby championship,
He was out with an injury and Francis Saili stepped in at 12. However the premise is laughable anyway.

You can always tell when NZ are approaching the peak of their power because its given away by the sound of vanquished opponents and nervous upcoming opponents bleating like lost lambs.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:01 pm

Taylorman wrote:well we dont need the irb to state the obvious and saying that NZ get preferential treatment from refs is pure rubbish. Wheres the proof that refs actually conspire and discuss this as a matter of course. Put up or shut up.

Preferential treatment for the better team is natural and inevitable in terms of small things like 50-50 offside calls and play in the rucks- the ref knows McCaw can turnover ball like a deity and Conrad Smith is an exce3llent rush defender and so is more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt for these calls. The way to get around this is to play better. As for Bissie's first yellow, it was clearly an error but I would say an isolated one not related to the the phenomenon I refer to above. The second yellow was clearly a yellow, so once the first was given , Du Plessis was doomed on the second as it is just as wrong to not give a correct second yellow to even up an earlier error as it is to give an unmerited yellow

by Taylorman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:03 pm

well that makes them worse than ever then GE. If you think that refs think they need to 'make up' for previous transgressions then theyre not doing their job- again. Theyre there to apply the laws of the game. Full stop.All this is supposition and once again the career path of being an international referee is once again a less favourable one.

One day a ref is going to be targeted physically by some over zealous 'fan' and that will change the game completely. Refs will only play where they think it is safe. Then lets watch the quality plummet... further

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:07 pm

I'm not saying they do it consciously Taylorman, but its part of human psychology to suffer from recentism, in making decisions based on recent mistakes. It's how we learned to not eat the poison berries and got out of the trees.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:08 pm

GE is right (in my opinion)

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:08 pm

I'm not saying they do it consciously Taylorman, but its part of human psychology to suffer from recentism, in making decisions based on recent mistakes. It's how we learned to not eat the poison berries and got out of the trees.

For example if you think there will be a foul play yellow against SA for the rest of this RC then you are sorely deluded.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:09 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm not saying they do it consciously Taylorman, but its part of human psychology to suffer from recentism, in making decisions based on recent mistakes. It's how we learned to not eat the poison berries and got out of the trees.

For example if you think there will be a foul play yellow against SA for the rest of this RC then you are sorely deluded.

Well, there might be if it is barn-door foul play!

by **Biltong** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:10 pm

So then by that theory south africa will benefit from recentism against the Wallabies as they are our next opponent?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:11 pm

Biltong wrote:So then by that theory south africa will benefit from recentism against the Wallabies as they are our next opponent?

Not sure you'll need it...

by Taylorman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:11 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taylorman wrote:well we dont need the irb to state the obvious and saying that NZ get preferential treatment from refs is pure rubbish. Wheres the proof that refs actually conspire and discuss this as a matter of course. Put up or shut up.
Preferential treatment for the better team is natural and inevitable in terms of small things like 50-50 offside calls and play in the rucks- the ref knows McCaw can turnover ball like a deity and Conrad Smith is an exce3llent rush defender and so is more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt for these calls. The way to get around this is to play better. As for Bissie's first yellow, it was clearly an error but I would say an isolated one not related to the the phenomenon I refer to above. The second yellow was clearly a yellow, so once the first was given , Du Plessis was doomed on the second as it is just as wrong to not give a correct second yellow to even up an earlier error as it is to give an unmerited yellow

Still opinion chequrered, probably one you feel is suported by all sorts of decisions, but I say again- aslk any fref to confirm tht is a true reflection of how refs interpret a match then youll get a negative every time.

Du plessis's action was another example of dumb rugby- something I alluded to in another post. To raise the elbow in that manner affter being carded puts him, and his side in a vulnerable position, so why do it? dumb? frustration? Either way. It cost them. He should have known that. Again supports the fact that the over aggressive approach dosnt help them.

by Taylorman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:12 pm

Taylorman wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taylorman wrote:well we dont need the irb to state the obvious and saying that NZ get preferential treatment from refs is pure rubbish. Wheres the proof that refs actually conspire and discuss this as a matter of course. Put up or shut up.
Preferential treatment for the better team is natural and inevitable in terms of small things like 50-50 offside calls and play in the rucks- the ref knows McCaw can turnover ball like a deity and Conrad Smith is an exce3llent rush defender and so is more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt for these calls. The way to get around this is to play better. As for Bissie's first yellow, it was clearly an error but I would say an isolated one not related to the the phenomenon I refer to above. The second yellow was clearly a yellow, so once the first was given , Du Plessis was doomed on the second as it is just as wrong to not give a correct second yellow to even up an earlier error as it is to give an unmerited yellow
Still opinion chequrered, probably one you feel is suported by all sorts of decisions, but I say again- ask any ref to confirm that is a true reflection of how refs interpret a match then youll get a negative every time.

Du plessis's action was another example of dumb rugby- something I alluded to in another post. To raise the elbow in that manner after being carded puts him, and his side in a vulnerable position, so why do it? dumb? frustration? Either way. It cost them. He should have known that. Again supports the fact that the over aggressive approach dosnt help them.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:13 pm

Taylorman wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taylorman wrote:well we dont need the irb to state the obvious and saying that NZ get preferential treatment from refs is pure rubbish. Wheres the proof that refs actually conspire and discuss this as a matter of course. Put up or shut up.
Preferential treatment for the better team is natural and inevitable in terms of small things like 50-50 offside calls and play in the rucks- the ref knows McCaw can turnover ball like a deity and Conrad Smith is an exce3llent rush defender and so is more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt for these calls. The way to get around this is to play better. As for Bissie's first yellow, it was clearly an error but I would say an isolated one not related to the the phenomenon I refer to above. The second yellow was clearly a yellow, so once the first was given , Du Plessis was doomed on the second as it is just as wrong to not give a correct second yellow to even up an earlier error as it is to give an unmerited yellow
Still opinion chequrered, probably one you feel is suported by all sorts of decisions, but I say again- aslk any fref to confirm tht is a true reflection of how refs interpret a match then youll get a negative every time.

Du plessis's action was another example of dumb rugby- something I alluded to in another post. To raise the elbow in that manner affter being carded puts him, and his side in a vulnerable position, so why do it? dumb? frustration? Either way. It cost them. He should have known that. Again supports the fact that the over aggressive approach dosnt help them.

Most of the time when I am subject to bias I am not aware/conscious of the fact that I am, if I were then I would attempt to neutralise said bias and would probably invert it

by **Biltong** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:14 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
Biltong wrote:So then by that theory south africa will benefit from recentism against the Wallabies as they are our next opponent?
Not sure you'll need it...

i don't think so either, but according to GE's theory

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:16 pm

Yes. Inevitably. Do you think there is a referee brave enough to wield a yellow card at a SA player in the return match? Unless he is 500% certain? This will mean SA will get away with fringe foul play, slowing the ball incessantly and so on.

In my opinion the All Blacks are facing a 130% gradient in the match.

by Taylorman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:17 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taylorman wrote:well we dont need the irb to state the obvious and saying that NZ get preferential treatment from refs is pure rubbish. Wheres the proof that refs actually conspire and discuss this as a matter of course. Put up or shut up.
Preferential treatment for the better team is natural and inevitable in terms of small things like 50-50 offside calls and play in the rucks- the ref knows McCaw can turnover ball like a deity and Conrad Smith is an exce3llent rush defender and so is more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt for these calls. The way to get around this is to play better. As for Bissie's first yellow, it was clearly an error but I would say an isolated one not related to the the phenomenon I refer to above. The second yellow was clearly a yellow, so once the first was given , Du Plessis was doomed on the second as it is just as wrong to not give a correct second yellow to even up an earlier error as it is to give an unmerited yellow
Still opinion chequrered, probably one you feel is suported by all sorts of decisions, but I say again- aslk any fref to confirm tht is a true reflection of how refs interpret a match then youll get a negative every time.

Du plessis's action was another example of dumb rugby- something I alluded to in another post. To raise the elbow in that manner affter being carded puts him, and his side in a vulnerable position, so why do it? dumb? frustration? Either way. It cost them. He should have known that. Again supports the fact that the over aggressive approach dosnt help them.
Most of the time when I am subject to bias I am not aware/conscious of the fact that I am, if I were then I would attempt to neutralise said bias and would probably invert it

Perhaps, and that would be wrong. Two wrongs dont make a right so what youre really saying is refs get it doubly wrong, spend their days on the field making right previous transgressions, as well as having to know and apply all those rules at the same time.

Youd wonder how theyd get anything right with all that ground to cover.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:17 pm

For example, a scrum dominant in the early parts of a match will frequently win a penalty even if it is they who have collapsed the scrum, because:

a) the referee has seen that they are the better scrummagers and thus more likely to be forcing the opposition to collapse the scrum

and vitally

b) the rules of rugby and the number of things needed to be watched at any time to have a complete picture are very complex and thus the referee HAS to allow assumption and bias to guide him towards what the most likely happenstance is. He can't see everything, so like all good humans he is inferring from his past experience in similar situations as to what is the most likely cause of the collapsed scrum. This will also subconsciously and inevitably be influenced by his opinion of the prowess of each of the scrummagers before the match even started.

We are all subject to biases, they are unavoidable and actually very useful much of the time

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:19 pm

Taylorman wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taylorman wrote:well we dont need the irb to state the obvious and saying that NZ get preferential treatment from refs is pure rubbish. Wheres the proof that refs actually conspire and discuss this as a matter of course. Put up or shut up.
Preferential treatment for the better team is natural and inevitable in terms of small things like 50-50 offside calls and play in the rucks- the ref knows McCaw can turnover ball like a deity and Conrad Smith is an exce3llent rush defender and so is more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt for these calls. The way to get around this is to play better. As for Bissie's first yellow, it was clearly an error but I would say an isolated one not related to the the phenomenon I refer to above. The second yellow was clearly a yellow, so once the first was given , Du Plessis was doomed on the second as it is just as wrong to not give a correct second yellow to even up an earlier error as it is to give an unmerited yellow
Still opinion chequrered, probably one you feel is suported by all sorts of decisions, but I say again- aslk any fref to confirm tht is a true reflection of how refs interpret a match then youll get a negative every time.

Du plessis's action was another example of dumb rugby- something I alluded to in another post. To raise the elbow in that manner affter being carded puts him, and his side in a vulnerable position, so why do it? dumb? frustration? Either way. It cost them. He should have known that. Again supports the fact that the over aggressive approach dosnt help them.
Most of the time when I am subject to bias I am not aware/conscious of the fact that I am, if I were then I would attempt to neutralise said bias and would probably invert it
Perhaps, and that would be wrong. Two wrongs dont make a right so what youre really saying is refs get it doubly wrong, spend their days on the field making right previous transgressions, as well as having to know and apply all those rules at the same time.

Youd wonder how theyd get anything right with all that ground to cover.

Wrong yet unavoidable. You have to trust their judgement though. It's not perfect but like logic, there is no better system we can come up with right now so we'd all better man up and deal with it, flaws and all

by Cyril Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:22 pm

I'm sure this didn't say 'Insane Conspiracy Theory Thread' when I clicked on it.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:23 pm

Cyril wrote:I'm sure this didn't say 'Insane Conspiracy Theory Thread' when I clicked on it.

It's a thread on 606. You should have known better

by Norfolklass Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:24 pm

BismarkdP is one of the best players in the world. The whole spectacle of the game was ruined by Poite.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:25 pm

Yes I agree withe chequered. I think some percentage of the game is anticipated by referees rather than actually witnessed.

Remember a few years back when bakkies Botha was given a yellow card after about 30 seconds because the ref thought he'd kneed Richie McCaw in the head? It was all based on what all three protagonists brought into the game and not what happened on the field.

Forward wind a few seasons and we saw an ensuing great reluctance to sin bin SA players for foul play and so we had Dean Greylings flying elbow to the head occurring because fouling McCaw was so acceptable and largely unpunished.

Well, the pendulum has just swung back.

by **Biltong** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:27 pm

Oh my goodness, what rubbish you spout.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:28 pm

However, this is all off topic. There is no way in hell that the first yellow was a foul and the thought processes behind the referee's decision must be called into question

by **Biltong** Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:29 pm

2009 John Smit is dumped on his head right in front of the referee by Thorne, no card, Smit is out for nine months after a neck operation.

See how easy it is, which swibg do we take next?

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:29 pm

Accept the truth BT. Give in to your feelings. You know it to be true. Bryce Lawrence is your father.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:32 pm

The fact is we don't need the IRB to confirm it was a mistake. We all know I was a mistake.

What they did to do is tell is what they're doing about it, not just that it will be taken into account in future appointments.

Truth I theyre running out of refs to appoint. Because the small pool is full of largely incompetents and the whole selection process is clearly affected by cultural bias.

by Taylorman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:35 pm

agree. the thought that refs all carry around this baggage and actually make decisions based on historical events is absurd. They deserve a little more credit than that. Fans making suppositions about the supposed intentions of referees are far worse. Poite stuffed up...Lawrence stuffed up...Barnes stuffed up. Simple as that. They all failed to apply the laws correctly. Any accusations of deliberate intention to favour one side or another is, by absence of any admission or facts, rubbish.

by Mr Fishpaste Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:35 pm

Apart from the conspiracy theories: I think a real issue is Refs being swayed by crowd 'pressure'. After Bissie's hit, the crowd went wild, baying for blood as it were. This, no doubt impacts a referee's decision-making process.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:37 pm

TM, it's not deliberate, but they'll still be doing it. It's fairly basic psychology

by GloriousEmpire Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:40 pm

Taylorman wrote:agree. the thought that refs all carry around this baggage and actually make decisions based on historical events is absurd. They deserve a little more credit than that. Fans making suppositions about the supposed intentions of referees are far worse. Poite stuffed up...Lawrence stuffed up...Barnes stuffed up. Simple as that. They all failed to apply the laws correctly. Any accusations of deliberate intention to favour one side or another is, by absence of any admission or facts, rubbish.

You are refereeing the return match in SA Taylorman and you suspect a tackle is late and high and perpetrated by Bismark. It was off the ball and behind play slightly and your attention was on whether the pass was flat or forward so you caught it in your peripheral vision and you can't be 100% sure. Do you issue him a yellow card?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:41 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Taylorman wrote:agree. the thought that refs all carry around this baggage and actually make decisions based on historical events is absurd. They deserve a little more credit than that. Fans making suppositions about the supposed intentions of referees are far worse. Poite stuffed up...Lawrence stuffed up...Barnes stuffed up. Simple as that. They all failed to apply the laws correctly. Any accusations of deliberate intention to favour one side or another is, by absence of any admission or facts, rubbish.
You are refereeing the return match in SA Taylorman and you suspect a tackle is late and high and perpetrated by Bismark. It was off the ball and behind play slightly and your attention was on whether the pass was flat or forward so you caught it in your peripheral vision and you can't be 100% sure. Do you issue him a yellow card?

Won't Bismark get an automatic ban as he got an unfair red card?

by No 7&1/2 Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:42 pm

You'd probably want to consult the TMO surely if you're unsure. Even if you are sure you would probably consult him after yesterday!

by Taylorman Sun 15 Sep 2013, 7:43 pm

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Apart from the conspiracy theories: I think a real issue is Refs being swayed by crowd 'pressure'. After Bissie's hit, the crowd went wild, baying for blood as it were. This, no doubt impacts a referee's decision-making process.

still supposition and if thats the case then he stuffed up under pressure. It meant he didnt apply the process of the TMO correctly and as we all heard the transcript, between the two they didnt resolve the incident correctly. Poite asked the wrong question...re the aftermath only and the tmo answered in that respect only, but could have offered what he thought about the tackle. stuffed up under pressure.

by Sponsored content