Henderson's red card overturned - those damned TMOs.

First topic message reminder :

Basically creating this thread for Chunky so he can lay into TMOs when they make dodgy calls.....
Don't pull your punches this time Chunky!


On a more serious note though, like I've always asked - what happens in these cases behind the scenes???

Effectively - the panel has come out and said 'Errrr that was a wrong call'.

So, how many folks on here work in jobs where they do something wrong and the bosses shrug and say 'meh!'.

Not many I imagine.

Are refs and officials held to a high enough standard, that makes the tradition of respecting the ref easy to maintain?

If I sound like I have an agenda - it's probably because I do.

Do Nigel Owens or Kevin Beggs get penalised anyway for their incorrect call, do they at least get a 'refresher course' on this area of play. Or does nobody say anything, and allow them to continue earning a salary without question??

Munchkin wrote: We are used to the panel treating our players more harshly than would normally be expected.

 That's gold. Ulster players this season have by and large had the rub of the green as far as citing panels and officials have been concerned.

No ban for a flying headbutt.
No ban for a deliberate dangerous ruck entry resulting in fractured shoulder
16 weeks cut to 8 weeks for, erm "no previous"
1 week for a deliberate punch to the nose.

Poor Ulster, they've really been shafted there

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote: True justice has prevailed.

No not justice, he was just being punished for the wrong thing, he got off on a technicality.

Even if he did get off on a technicality it's still right that he did get off. The Citing panel ruled that incident wasn't worthy of a red card, it wasn't, and so proper justice has prevailed.

You keep up with this 'he got off on a technicality' but that's ignoring the point that he didn't deserve a red card in the first instance.

LordDowlais wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:He wasn't reckless imo,he went in with his usual technique which is excellent but due to no fault of his own his target moved.Not reckless.

He left the ground and aimed himself at the player, THAT IS RECKLESS.

That would be reckless but imo that's not what happened.Imo he aimed at the player in a legal attempt to clear out the ruck,the player then moved and he lost his balance,went off his feet and collided with the player while he was off balance.That is not reckless and no amount of sentences in capital letters will make it so.

Ok, I cannot argue with asoreleftshoulder anymore, he cannot fathom what the Laws are and what being reckless means.

But this is how I saw it.

Henderson hitting the ruck illegally- yes

Penalty- definitely
Yellow for recklessness - YES
Red- Harsh but understandable.

The citing commissioner rescinding the red- correct, he was being punished for the wrong crime, if he was being punished for being reckless then I think we would have seen a week or two ban.

There that is how I see this incident.

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:I still think they are by and large a joke as well. They came to the right decision, possibly the wrong way, but that doesn't mean the process is suddenly perfect.

I agree LD- we would be, and wrongly so. An action should not be solely judged by its consequences.

So do you agree Notch, what Henderson did was reckless and illegal ?

I've never said anything else. I've said many times already it was both of those things and should have been punished with a penalty and perhaps a yellow card, and whilst overturning the red card was right it wasn't the wrong decision to penalise him. And I don't think the citing commission think it was wrong he be penalised or even carded either. Just that it didn't merit a red by itself, which I agree with.

I've also stated many times on threads previous that we should use red cards only in the case of violent play, and acts which cause serious danger to other players only when the player can reasonably be expected to avoid the act. I think he entered the ruck recklessly, I don't think he needed to do that, I don't think it was violent play and I don't think he put anyone in danger by his actions. A forearm to the chest made to look worse than it was by him hitting a target that was already falling backwards.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote: We are used to the panel treating our players more harshly than would normally be expected.

 That's gold. Ulster players this season have by and large had the rub of the green as far as citing panels and officials have been concerned.

No ban for a flying headbutt.
No ban for a deliberate dangerous ruck entry resulting in fractured shoulder
16 weeks cut to 8 weeks for, erm "no previous"
1 week for a deliberate punch to the nose.

Poor Ulster, they've really been shafted there

Indeed, but then most of those points you make are the invention of your fevered imagination. All bar one, although more than 8 weeks for Williams would have been too much.

Munchkin wrote:

Indeed, but then most of those points you make are the invention of your fevered imagination. .

Only in Irish minds.

LordDowlais wrote:Ok, I cannot argue with asoreleftshoulder anymore, he cannot fathom what the Laws are and what being reckless means.

But this is how I saw it.

Henderson hitting the ruck illegally- yes

Penalty- definitely
Yellow for recklessness - YES
Red- Harsh but understandable.

The citing commissioner rescinding the red- correct, he was being punished for the wrong crime, if he was being punished for being reckless then I think we would have seen a week or two ban.

There that is how I see this incident.

The problem is you see your opinion as the gospel truth and can't acknowledge that anyone else could have a point.You just ignore all my counter points by saying going off your feet is against the law.It is but you won't acknowledge how little this is actually punished in a real game.

You also keep saying Henderson was reckless yet offer no reasoning behind it,I have given you my reasoning as to why he lost his balance but you've just refused to try to rebut that point at all.

I have also prefaced most of my points with imo as I am aware that your opinion is different and I am not trying to change it,merely trying to illustrate mine.You seem utterly incapable of acknowledging that people can see the same incident differently and have lowered yourself to dismissing me since I don't agree with you.You are obviously unable to debate the point without getting worked up so I'll leave you to it.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Indeed, but then most of those points you make are the invention of your fevered imagination. .

Only in Irish minds.

True. Because all 6 and a half million of us north and south think EXACTLY THE SAME. It's uncanny.

I can accept you opinion, but I will not agree that the LAWS are not the laws. If you read my points I have replied to you about, I have said that I agree that the ref will turn a blind eye to infringements that do not affect the game, and that they will not see all the going off the feet at the ruck, but just because of that, it does not make it less illegal, for me whether Henderson went off his feet by his own accord or that he could not help it changes nothing, if he could not help it, then for me he was not in control thus he was putting himself in a reckless position, that is what the word reckless means.

I am not getting worked up either, and I have stated above how I see the incident, and I did it in a calm manner as well.

LordDowlais wrote:I can accept you opinion, but I will not agree that the LAWS are not the laws. If you read my points I have replied to you about, I have said that I agree that the ref will turn a blind eye to infringements that do not affect the game, and that they will not see all the going off the feet at the ruck, but just because of that, it does not make it less illegal, for me whether Henderson went off his feet by his own accord or that he could not help it changes nothing, if he could not help it, then for me he was not in control thus he was putting himself in a reckless position, that is what the word reckless means.

I am not getting worked up either, and I have stated above how I see the incident, and I did it in a calm manner as well.

That makes no sense. And no, it is not what reckless means.

LordDowlais wrote:I can accept you opinion, but I will not agree that the LAWS are not the laws. If you read my points I have replied to you about, I have said that I agree that the ref will turn a blind eye to infringements that do not affect the game, and that they will not see all the going off the feet at the ruck, but just because of that, it does not make it less illegal, for me whether Henderson went off his feet by his own accord or that he could not help it changes nothing, if he could not help it, then for me he was not in control thus he was putting himself in a reckless position, that is what the word reckless means.

I am not getting worked up either, and I have stated above how I see the incident, and I did it in a calm manner as well.

b]RECKLESS[/b]
adjective  

1.
utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually followed by of):
to be reckless of danger.
2.
characterized by or proceeding from such carelessness:
reckless extravagance.

That's the meaning of reckless

You can't say if he couldn't help it he still put himself in a reckless position, if he couldn't help it then he is devoid of responsibility

marty2086 wrote:
1.
utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually followed by of):
to be reckless of danger.

If he was concerned, he would have made sure his head had no chance of clearing out another players head, and would not have dived horizontally. Thus preventing it.

But he did. And it was reckless. Very lucky boy.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
1.
utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually followed by of):
to be reckless of danger.

If he was concerned, he would have made sure his head had no chance of clearing out another players head, and would not have dived horizontally. Thus preventing it.

But he did. And it was reckless. Very lucky boy.

As I said previously, theres an element of recklessness in every thing on the field of play from collapsed scrums to any tackle that's made you can't assess and predict every possible outcome of an action

How many teammates clash heads tackling the same player? Halfpenny is yet to learn how to tackle properly with his head on the wrong side, these would fall under the definition of reckless should they be red carded?

Pah. You call that a horizontal dive? Check out Bai, he did it properly.

marty2086 wrote:
As I said previously, theres an element of recklessness in every thing on the field of play from collapsed scrums to any tackle that's made you can't assess and predict every possible outcome of an action

Completely disagree. Unless you fly in to someone's head and tackle them with your own.

How many teammates clash heads tackling the same player?

That's not illegal though. You can fly in endangering yourself because your doing your best to save a try, when it is against the laws of rugby, it becomes something else.

Halfpenny is yet to learn how to tackle properly with his head on the wrong side, these would fall under the definition of reckless should they be red carded?

Red carded for injuring yourself legally?

I know you boys like to bend the truth but that's taking the biscuit.

What about the Hibbard incident where he knocked out his own team mate in North?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What about the Hibbard incident where he knocked out his own team mate in North?

What about it?

Just another example that almost anything could be reckless. Martys right.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just another example that almost anything could be reckless. Martys right.

It's not though is it.

Tackling a rugby player is not reckless

Flying off your feet almost horizontally into opposition players entering a ruck is.

If you think these 2 things are comparable in recklessness, then...............well frankly I don't need to finish the sentence .

'If you think these 2 things are comparable in recklessness, then...............well frankly I don't need to finish the sentence .'

No I don't, but as Marty says everything has an element of recklessness,

Life itself carries an element of recklessness, but FFS, come on this is rugby and rugby has laws, and one of the laws involves going off your feet, and reckless play. Henderson did both he went off his feet and he was reckless, what is there to argue about ?

If as asoreleftshoulder says about tackling tackle bags, well for me you shouldn't be trained to dive at tackle bags, what that has to do with entering rucks though I don't know. But you cannot dive at players who are on the other side of the ruck, whether you mean it or not.

Still not a red. What's the point with this line of argument?

Citing panel have ruled it shouldn't have been red, and allegedly Owens agreed it shouldn't have been red. It's done and dusted.

Munchkin wrote:Still not a red. What's the point with this line of argument?

Citing panel have ruled it shouldn't have been red, and allegedly Owens agreed it shouldn't have been red. It's done and dusted.

I agree, as I have posted quite a bit upwards.

I know you do, LD. My point was why persist with the line of questioning on whether or not Henderson diving off the feet was legal? By the letter of the law it isn't legal. We know this. Henderson could have been penalised for this. A penalty and no more. Added to this he could have been further penalised for leading with the forearm. A marginal yellow for me.
There's really not much more to discuss.

Munchkin wrote:Still not a red. What's the point with this line of argument?

Citing panel have ruled it shouldn't have been red, and allegedly Owens agreed it shouldn't have been red. It's done and dusted.

Was it done and dusted when Marshall got 5 weeks?

No. People talked about it.

You should try following the conversation before jumping in, Chucky.

LD agrees that Henderson didn't deserve red. Done and dusted.

Some people benefit from having chunky and LD on ignore. I recommend it for everyone.

This is interesting;

It’s understood Ulster presented the Welsh disciplinary committee with footage of a number of similar and unpunished incidents ... in their defence of Henderson

http://www.the42.ie/iain-henderson-tommy-bowe-pro12-red-card-2103508-May2015/

It sure is interesting Notch. But it doesn't mean that this had a part to play it influencing the overturning. If it did, then why not own up to the inconsistencies of previous unpunished incidents.

Why not call out refs who are too lenient or too harsh. We won't get better consistency of they don't.

On that note, the boys at Rugbydump describe this as textbook tackle and play was allowed to continue.

In Pro12 I'm certain this would have been yellow. Above horizontal and would have landed on upper back had he not put his own hand back to save himself a little.

https://youtu.be/EgWKVCxL5KU

Standulstermen wrote:Some people benefit from having chunky and LD on ignore. I recommend it for everyone.

You're missing out though Stand, I'd miss the comic relief of the bilge they come out with on daily basis. They must be WUMs as I find it hard to believe anyone could think the way they do and not have drool lines on their chins.

Notch wrote:This is interesting;

It’s understood Ulster presented the Welsh disciplinary committee with footage of a number of similar and unpunished incidents ... in their defence of Henderson

http://www.the42.ie/iain-henderson-tommy-bowe-pro12-red-card-2103508-May2015/

I wonder if they used this one

Pete330v2 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Some people benefit from having chunky and LD on ignore. I recommend it for everyone.

You're missing out though Stand, I'd miss the comic relief of the bilge they come out with on daily basis. They must be WUMs as I find it hard to believe anyone could think the way they do and not have drool lines on their chins.

Yeah cheers for that, just because I do not agree with how you go about supporting rugby on here I am a WUM and some sort of idiot.

I will tell you what you and your Irish chums keep up the crusade of claiming this forum for yourselves, how dare I have an opinion on anything.

Again I will wait for Notch's red pen to come out, I have seen him do this to Chunky for calling SecretFly mental, but I am yet to see him do it when people call me xenophobic and now this.

LordDowlais wrote:

Again I will wait for Notch's red pen to come out, I have seen him do this to Chunky for calling SecretFly mental, but I am yet to see him do it when people call me xenophobic and now this.

Nobody got the red pen out for the abuse I got yesterday. I had to ask admin to remove it.

Keep fighting LD. It's like Rorke's Drift.

removed.

This sort of comment was actually exactly why the other thread was locked- because both sides just antagonise each other until it descends into pettiness. Frankly, I think everyone should put everyone else on ignore or else the forum is basically going to be made unreadable.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Again I will wait for Notch's red pen to come out, I have seen him do this to Chunky for calling SecretFly mental, but I am yet to see him do it when people call me xenophobic and now this.

Nobody got the red pen out for the abuse I got yesterday. I had to ask admin to remove it.

Keep fighting LD. It's like Rorke's Drift.

It's not abuse if it's true. I don't know why you have such xenophobic opinions about "the Irish", but frankly your posting record speaks for itself. I think you should take a hard look at yourself. That's all I have to say on the matter. Go and report it to whoever you want.

Notch wrote:

It's not abuse if it's true.

Farking hell.

Anyone antagnoised by that comment has a think skin Notch! removed it anyway.

I've probably done more myself to 'antagonise' now, but to be honest it just wears you down and we should be able to use the forum without having to see endless bile being flung at Irish Rugby and "the Irish" more generally. I'm not going to intervene as a moderator anymore. If Chunky is unhappy, he can take it up with the other mods and admins.

What we really need is the Ireland England semi final to roll round so the 'banter' is shared out1

No 7&1/2 wrote:What we really need is the Ireland England semi final to roll round so the 'banter' is shared out1

Heh, that may be true.

"Yeah cheers for that, just because I do not agree with how you go about supporting rugby on here I am a WUM and some sort of idiot"

It's got nothing to do with differing opinions though it's simply you and your best pal chunky on the anti-Irish campaign/WUM. Mud-slinging exclusively at Irish rugby and more often Ulster rugby where chunky's concerned, merely proves the pair of you are either entirely WUMs or you actually have something against Irish rugby.

When Hendo was red carded it wasn't hard to predict which two posters would immediately get on the forum bemoaning the Irish thug etc, etc, etc.

Lads,

I've been on the receiving end a few times over the years. It's easy to become more and more entrenched when the slags and digs start to come flying in.

The group separates into two extremes and we stop being open minded and start dodging valid questions, and start trying to trip each other up.

Yes, I mentioned Chunky in my OP, but ultimately I had a serious question about the standard of officiating. I actually managed to get Chunky to engage with this briefly. And he managed to get me to provide him with some visual evidence on the incident itself.

It IS possible to have discussions with these people. Truth is, when you become angry - you are no longer trying to win the other over, but humiliate and embarass them.

Lets just settle down and genuinely debate the points without the anger. Tis only the internet.

I'm sure for every one of us, these threads matter far more than they should. Perhaps we ALL need to take a long hard look at ourselves.

clivemcl wrote:I'm sure for every one of us, these threads matter far more than they should. Perhaps we ALL need to take a long hard look at ourselves.

It's true.

clivemcl wrote:Lads,

I've been on the receiving end a few times over the years. It's easy to become more and more entrenched when the slags and digs start to come flying in.

The group separates into two extremes and we stop being open minded and start dodging valid questions, and start trying to trip each other up.

Yes, I mentioned Chunky in my OP, but ultimately I had a serious question about the standard of officiating. I actually managed to get Chunky to engage with this briefly. And he managed to get me to provide him with some visual evidence on the incident itself.

It IS possible to have discussions with these people. Truth is, when you become angry - you are no longer trying to win the other over, but humiliate and embarass them.

Lets just settle down and genuinely debate the points without the anger. Tis only the internet.

I'm sure for every one of us, these threads matter far more than they should. Perhaps we ALL need to take a long hard look at ourselves.

You're totally wrong in those opinions, Clive! 100%

Shall I fetch the Lock???

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:This is interesting;

It’s understood Ulster presented the Welsh disciplinary committee with footage of a number of similar and unpunished incidents ... in their defence of Henderson

http://www.the42.ie/iain-henderson-tommy-bowe-pro12-red-card-2103508-May2015/

I wonder if they used this one

Barnes would have pinned Healy for that one .