IRB confirms first yellow for Bismarck du Plessis was a mistake

First topic message reminder :

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

Well GE, if the referee wants to pay it forward he will simply issue a yellow card for the first tackle made on a Bok, no need to allow Bismrck to get away wirh somthing, just keep it simple.

No 7&1/2 wrote: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!

Exactly my point. Behaviour changes based on what are perceived to be mistakes.

I agree that Poite didn't use the means at his disposal (the TMO, the big-screen) to make a correct decision, but the question then is: why not?

GE, I'm sure behaviour does change but I'd be more inclined to say that they would want it to change to get better not to even things out as thats just compounding mistakes.

and lets get this right. There are two people that played a part in the red card, the main instigator being Du Plessis himself. Yes Poite got the first yellow wrong. It cost his side 10 minutes down to 14 men.Assuming that Du Plessis knows the rules, the raising of the elbow put him and his side at risk of going down to 14 for the rest of the match. Du Plessis still made a choice of apply that instance of aggression at that moment, already knowing he'd been carded. The ref thought that instance warranted a yellow and a second had no choice to send him off.
Yes poite erred but equally so did Du Plessis but like Lawrence...and Barnes, the ref gets the wrath of the fans, the player, just as culpable, remains the victim, the squeaky clean aspect of all this.

No 7&1/2 wrote:GE, I'm sure behaviour does change but I'd be more inclined to say that they would want it to change to get better not to even things out as thats just compounding mistakes.

This is what they believe they are doing. It's human programming and you can't change it. If you make or observe a mistake you are reticent to repeat it. This causes a sort of pendulum effect in action and reaction. No one is trying to "even things up" they are just reacting to prior behaviour that was deemed incorrect.

You won't need to wait long for a demonstration. Don't worry I will remind you all of this post when you are expressing horror at the leniency if a referee toward an obvious card worthy infringement.

Taylorman wrote:and lets get this right. There are two people that played a part in the red card, the main instigator being Du Plessis himself. Yes Poite got the first yellow wrong. It cost his side 10 minutes down to 14 men.Assuming that Du Plessis knows the rules, the raising of the elbow put him and his side at risk of going down to 14 for the rest of the match. Du Plessis still made a choice of apply that instance of aggression at that moment, already knowing he'd been carded. The ref thought that instance warranted a yellow and a second had no choice to send him off.
Yes poite erred but equally so did Du Plessis but like Lawrence...and Barnes, the ref gets the wrath of the fans, the player, just as culpable, remains the victim, the squeaky clean aspect of all this.

Taylorman, you played rugby right?

You must never have injured a player unintentionally, never mistimed a fend, never hit a player high by accident, never commited any foul that could be deemed dangerous play?

Sorry mate, don't try to put the blame on Bismarck.

Bismarck is a 100% player, like most out there, he plays at 100 miles and hour. The elbow was accidental, not deliberate.

Lets be clear: the IRB confirm that the FIRST yellow was a mistake.

The second decision they believe is correct.  He knew he was on a yellow and still committed another reckless yellow card offence.  Someone has to have a word with him, or he needs to take a look at himself and ask whether that was in the teams best interest it not.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:GE, I'm sure behaviour does change but I'd be more inclined to say that they would want it to change to get better not to even things out as thats just compounding mistakes.

This is what they believe they are doing. It's human programming and you can't change it. If you make or observe a mistake you are reticent to repeat it. This causes a sort of pendulum effect in action and reaction. No one is trying to "even things up" they are just reacting to prior behaviour that was deemed incorrect.

You won't need to wait long for a demonstration. Don't worry I will remind you all of this post when you are expressing horror at the leniency if a referee toward an obvious card worthy infringement.

I think if Poite encounters this again he will ask the question to the TMO even if it leads to another yellow to a South African as this was his big mistake.

He still committed another reckless offence.

Are you actually reading what you said there?

Yes, the second yellow was awarded for a reckless offence. He elbowed a player in the throat. it's not Roman Poite's fault he did that and given the circumstances there was no option but to dismiss him.

Ma'a Nonu also plays at 100% physically but I'm not going to try to defend his shoulder charge. We need to be honest with ourselves.  Ma'a was a bit of a dick to do that, and so was Bismark.

He obviously didn't go out to deliberately elbow someone to get sent off he just made a mistake. 2 mistakes led to a very bad consequence.

You've convinced me GE, South Africans are royal thugs, and they just get what is coming to them, other teams are unjustly penalised for their foul plays.

The IRB can sort all this out by banning South Africa from rugby, anyway I have read enough of your clearly biased view of justifying why Bismarck deserved a red card, and there for decline to further partake in your discussion.

Keep the blinkers going, it suits you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He obviously didn't go out to deliberately elbow someone to get sent off he just made a mistake. 2 mistakes led to a very bad consequence.

"Mistake" or not. It was stupid to put himself in that position. And as the IRB have confirmed it was a valid yellow card offence.  Perhaps he needed to reign himself in and be a little cautious given the circumstances.

My comment was just as outrageous as saying the All Blacks get away with murder and other sides don`t.Bismarck was going in hard from an offside position Carter blind sided accident,clumsy but not deliberate certainly not a Yellow.The second was high,leading with
elbow and contact made to neck/head area a Yellow and possible citing in anyones book.
Nonu`s was a yellow without a doubt SBW was cited for similar offence when playing for
the AB`s.There were a lot of very cynical things going on by BOTH sides some of which
were Yellow cards.Holding back,tackling off the ball.knocking the ball away/down,Jersey
pulling all deemed "Professional fouls".To me that is just minor things and part and parcel of the game BUT Yellows have been awarded for them.
Frankly the whole card system stinks when you consider only two players were sent fom the field at test level in about 100 years.Maurice Brownlie and Colin Meads both All Blacks,Meads
arm was broken on 1970 Bok tour by a deliberately aimed kick.In 1974 the "In famous Riot call 99" by the Lions in 1974 to counter Bok perceived thuggery.The Bod incident Lions Tour
2005 by Umaga/and another player all perceived as thug acts.I can give you chapter and verse back to the AB`s Bok tour 1949.So DON`T tell me the ABs get a soft ride on over vigerous play.Poite got it wrong BUT not every time and BOTH sides got away with murder
and that is NOT Rubbish.Lions fans still go on about the BOD incident today.Meads always
gave as good or better than he got NO team are Angels and thinking they are is ludicrous.
Also when you here the words physicality it means NO HOLDS BARRED and the Boks are no angels either take it from one who knows.Any more than All Blacks,France,England or any other Test side is.

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.

You could tell that early that NZ were going to win could you? It must havbe been that first scrum when you when shunted backwards that makes you think like that. Even if SA hadn't won, the final margin wouldn't have been what it was so either way, the final result would have been different.

The stat someone (I think it was Bilting) posted about the number of penalties conceded before a card comes out is shocking and needs some explaining. I fhtta doesn't show leniency to NZ, I don't knwo what does.

Anyway, just to stop all these arguements, why don't the IRB impose a "no fly" zone around Dan Carter so he can't come to any harm?

As regards Du Plessis' second card, in one of my last games, I broke a guy's nose completely by accident. I caught the ball, looked round and he was closer than I was expecting so I raised my arm quickly - too quickly as it turned out - to hand him off but didn't have time to straighten it and caught him flush on the nose with my forearm. Total accident down purely to the gap between me and him closing quicker than I thought. Accidents happen.

Your double standards are astonishing

Biltong wrote:You've convinced me GE, South Africans are royal thugs, and they just get what is coming to them, other teams are unjustly penalised for their foul plays.

The IRB can sort all this out by banning South Africa from rugby, anyway I have read enough of your clearly biased view of justifying why Bismarck deserved a red card, and there for decline to further partake in your discussion.

Keep the blinkers going, it suits you.

Sigh. I deliberately used an example with both NZ and SA players to avoid this childish reaction. You need to drop that chip from the shoulder. 

If you want us to accept that Bismark just made a mistake and mistakes happen then perhaps apply that same logic to Mr Poite...

I don't deny the first yellow was ridiculous, but anyone sitting on a yellow needs to be careful. He wasn't. That's just dumb.

biltong. common consensus is that the second was an offence so blinkers on applies both ways. Any player knows that once you have been carded you, of any of the 30 players on the field have to be THE most careful on the field. Du plessis was the least careful of the entire 30 in that respect. go figure.

InjuredYetAgain 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.

You could tell that early that NZ were going to win could you? It must havbe been that first scrum when you when shunted backwards that makes you think like that. Even if SA hadn't won, the final margin wouldn't have been what it was so either way, the final result would have been different.

The stat someone (I think it was Bilting) posted about the number of penalties conceded before a card comes out is shocking and needs some explaining. I fhtta doesn't show leniency to NZ, I don't knwo what does.

Anyway, just to stop all these arguements, why don't the IRB impose a "no fly" zone around Dan Carter so he can't come to any harm?

As regards Du Plessis' second card, in one of my last games, I broke a guy's nose completely by accident. I caught the ball, looked round and he was closer than I was expecting so I raised my arm quickly - too quickly as it turned out - to hand him off but didn't have time to straighten it and caught him flush on the nose with my forearm. Total accident down purely to the gap between me and him closing quicker than I thought. Accidents happen.

Your double standards are astonishing

Whether by accident or not is irrelevant. It's still a yellow card if you do something illegal. 

If a team comes out in the week and brags about how physical and confrontational they will be then frankly they're loading a gun and holding it at their own heads and asking the referee to pull the trigger. 

It's quite normal to get shunted on the scrum feed when the hooker has to stretch his leg to hook the ball now. You have fewer players pushing. You see this both ways around and secondly you don't need to have the dominant scrum to win the game. NZ were outclassing SA everywhere and SA were making their old mistakes of kicking the ball away and running into contact instead of into space.

SA were no angels (I remember seeing some pictures of old Lions tours where it lloked like shirts had all but been rucked off a players backs which, incidentally, looked like the map of the London underground with all the stud marks on it!) but nowadays, one game at Twickers a few years ago excepted, they don't seem to play like that.

I have had this discussion with Biltong recently but the SA players don't seem to have any fire in their belly these days to feel the need to resort to how's-yer-father to win games or intimidate the opposition

emack2 wrote:Bismarck was going in hard from an offside position Carter blind sided accident,clumsy but not deliberate certainly not a Yellow.The second was high,leading with
elbow and contact made to neck/head area a Yellow and possible citing in anyones book.

1. Bismarck was NOT offside, the All Blacks kicked an up and under, it bounced Franks collected and passed back, Bismarck saw an opportunity to line up Carter, his timing was spot on.

2. The elbow to the neck is correct, it was NOT reckless, Messam was too close and Bismarck had his timing wrong. Was Messam a meter further away Bismarck would have been able to straighten his arm and fend Messam in the normal way.

You can choose to believe it was reckless if you so wish, or you can choose to believe Bismarck is a hard but fair player who got his timing wrong.

fair point. watching it again and again its not conclusive there was intent to injure, but what it does do is fall wide of being careful of a second offence. Unlucky? perhaps. Youd like to think the same player couldnt get that unlucky in a match.

It's easy to construct a reality for yourself. 

Ma'a unluckily found his target was too close and didnt have time to get his other arm into the tackle. 

Kieran Read just couldn't quite get out of the way in time.

Whatever. An offence is an offence. If its not deliberate then its reckless. Pretty much by definition. It's fairly hard to earn a technical yellow card.

Who's reffin the return game in SA?

Nigel Owens.

It didn't appear that Bismarck had any intention of extending his arm to fend. Have another look. His elbow was thrust out at an angle and kept at that angle. He saw Messam coming. Some players in that same position would have dropped into the tackle. Not Bismarck, he just wanted to keep bashing it up. No problem with that. But his accuracy and aggression let him down evidently because he elbowed a player in the neck. Is that in the rule book these days? Being allowed to elbow players. All other elbow incidents I've seen have been YCs.

And just for the record, I don't think Bismarck is a dirty player. It wasn't a brain fade deliberate attempt to injure on the cheap.

ebop wrote:It didn't appear that Bismarck had any intention of extending his arm to fend. Have another look. His elbow was thrust out at an angle and kept at that angle. He saw Messam coming. Some players in that same position would have dropped into the tackle. Not Bismarck, he just wanted to keep bashing it up. No problem with that. But his accuracy and aggression let him down evidently because he elbowed a player in the neck. Is that in the rule book these days? Being allowed to elbow players. All other elbow incidents I've seen have been YCs.

thats the guts of it. One yellow was wrong, one was probably right. Regardless, Du Plessis contributed to the red card 'as much' as Poites earlier decision was wrong. Yet does a single bok fan blame Du Plessis for any part of his actions?

Of course not. thats not the way it works. Keep the elbow down, and SA would have kept 15 on. Poite will be penalised- will Du Plessis?

Why not blame Meyer then?

He should have taken him off, shouldn't he?

Or lets blame the TMO for not standing his ground and insisting o telling Poite there was no foul?

In fact lets go back to the RWC and blame Brussow for running into Horwills shoulder in the QF that cracked his ribs.

Lets blame Bismarck foe not recieving the ball further back so he could have time to plan, preplan and check his fend on Messam.

The cause of thisvissue starts with Poite. If you ecpected Bismarck to be careful for the rest of the game, rhen you just have no clue as to how we play the game.

In fact I retract that statement, you gave a faur perception we are all bullies.

Bismark raised his elbow into the opposition players throat. Whether it not he intended to injure is debatable. But he alone did it. I don't get why you are willing to blame everyone but Bismark.

Perhaps you'd prefer than Messam was yellow carded for being too close to Bismark for him to hand off legitimately too? 

I've watched it over and over and to me it's a reckless elbow to the throat. No problem on the yellow there.

I've also noted on the first incident that Poite had already decided on the tackle as late and high (the world disagrees but this is what Poite thought) as another poster had mentioned Poite only asked the tmo about foul play in the ensuing fracas so the Tmo is blameless here. 

It's just one bad call from Poite that has gone on, along with Bismark's own reckless second act to unfortunately yield  red card.

All good points biltong and youre alluding to my earlier stance of an at times over agression approach. There are ways to play the game without being yellow carded. 95% of the others managed it. Ultimately it was the combination of one bad ref decision combined with one over aggressive player that caused this. two people. no one else. just the two. See it any other way and I'd suggest you'd be off the mark. Yes Poite started it, but dP compounded it.

The first yellow was wrong but the forearm smash for the second yellow by du Plessis deserved a red anyway.

If that eas a red card iffence I will bring you a thousand similar incidents that warrants red cards.

I don't think we can expect to agree on it, other than to say the first yellow was ridiculous and the second a marginal call. He's unlucky and springboks have taken it well so far. 

The shame is that it overshadowed an otherwise pretty good game that would probably have been a tense and exciting finish. 

NZs two late yellows were entirely products of stupid behaviour and both players should've been too experienced to make such dumb mistakes.

Biltong wrote:If that eas a red card iffence I will bring you a thousand similar incidents that warrants red cards.

I am sure you could. That just goes to show how since the introduction of the yellow card referees consistently take the easy option and give a yellow rather than a red. When the yellow card was introduced it was supposed to be a way of punishing lesser offences that would not deserve a sending off. However one regularly see players getting yellow cards for punching and tripping which were previously considered sending off offences.

Why do you not consider smashing a player in the face with an elbow a red card offence?

It was a leading elbow to the collar bone. If we're debating things, lets debate the actual things in question.

Easy to be analytical after a match when you win- not so easy when your side lose so the points gathering here isnt nice so I'll bow out of it and look forward to the next one. Hopefully SA still have an even chance of lifting the title and we have a ref up to the occasion. This match lived up to the hype of the biggest matchup in world rugby- one of the most brutal seen in recent years so the return match hopefully will be based on the skills of either side, rather than the whistleblower.

For our side, I'm proud of the way the guys went, including the subs.

Thats all we can really ask of them.

Not sure how the irb can clarify the yellow was wrong and then still allow the guy to be cited on two yellows. 

Surely the first thing they could do would be quash the hearing?

That is rediculous if the IRB don't rescind the first yellow

Apparently he will be required to plead guilty in order to avoid a second hearing...

Let's just hope it's over quickly so we can all put this sorry turn of events behind us. My guess is they'll say. He's only been cited because it's mandatory for a red card, the red was issued because it was a second yellow. The first yellow was an error. Case dismissed.