Steff Evans cleared to play in Pro12 Final

Evans has been great this season and was having a fantastic game and was unlucky with the circumstances but he has strangely been cleared and not banned because apparently Samson Lee was the one who made the tackle dangerous even though Evans was the one who took Ringroses legs above the horizontal. Yet another baffling and contradictory judgement handed down


The incident for anyone who didn't see it

If the next match was not a final he would have been banned

I think they have a point. At the time I said it's a red but the question is to who. Surely for consistency they now need to ban lee?

I see this in two, rather contradictory ways:

1. It's the wrong call by the law, and perhaps the right call in terms of logic and fairness. He didn't intend the player to land on his head, and arguably it was the contribution of Samson Lee that caused that to happen. Evans should be cleared, and Lee should be banned.

2. It's the wrong call, mostly because the law is wrong. We shouldn't decide sanction based on effect, but the player's actions. Evans knelt down and lifted the player, with no possible control over the outcome - that is reckless and he should be banned, regardless of whether the ball carrier lands on his head, shoulder or elsewhere.

One interesting side point was that the judgment referred directly to the appeal of Ross Ford and Jonny Gray in the 2015 World Cup, when both were (I think) cleared because neither had been reckless, but had contributed to each other's tackle on a player who landed dangerously. So my question: Is this the first instance of a 'common law' approach to disciplinary panels and citing commissions, where we can look at previous similar incidents and decide an outcome based on that precedent?

The only thing that is baffling is why other panels can't involve the use of a little common sense when making a decision about how something happened. The lift effect in this case was clearly caused by factors outside Evans control and if Ringrose had not tried to turn out of it to place the ball then he would most likely have landed differently.

2ndtimeround wrote:The only thing that is baffling is why other panels can't involve the use of a little common sense when making a decision about how something happened. The lift effect in this case was clearly caused by factors outside Evans control and if Ringrose had not tried to turn out of it to place the ball then he would most likely have landed differently.

The lifting of the legs was the problem which was all Evans, we are all top heavy so Ringrose had little control of his upper body hence why he went head first and wasn't able to get his hand down to protect himself

This was a tough call at the time, but I don't feel it warrented a ban. He was red carded and has had his punishment.

The tackle was dangerous, but he didn't make the tackle on his own.

IanBru wrote:I see this in two, rather contradictory ways:

1. It's the wrong call by the law, and perhaps the right call in terms of logic and fairness. He didn't intend the player to land on his head, and arguably it was the contribution of Samson Lee that caused that to happen. Evans should be cleared, and Lee should be banned.

2. It's the wrong call, mostly because the law is wrong. We shouldn't decide sanction based on effect, but the player's actions. Evans knelt down and lifted the player, with no possible control over the outcome - that is reckless and he should be banned, regardless of whether the ball carrier lands on his head, shoulder or elsewhere.

One interesting side point was that the judgment referred directly to the appeal of Ross Ford and Jonny Gray in the 2015 World Cup, when both were (I think) cleared because neither had been reckless, but had contributed to each other's tackle on a player who landed dangerously. So my question: Is this the first instance of a 'common law' approach to disciplinary panels and citing commissions, where we can look at previous similar incidents and decide an outcome based on that precedent?

I get what you mean by point one but surely fairness would mean him getting banned like pretty much everyone else that has been red carded for a tip tackle. I do agree with you on the law being all wrong, its the same with taking players out in the air, if you want to stop players doing it then you need punish the action and not the result

Without another player entering the tackle there was no lifting of the legs, I coach kids and they are taught to tackle cheek to cheek, Steffs head was positioned correctly and he wrapped his arms correctly, without Samson there his force would have pushed Ringrose sideways and down safely, with Samson coming in the other side physics make it impossible to go that way and result in momentum creating the lift.

Some seem to be posting what they think should be rather than what is

Evans lifted his legs above the horizontal and he landed on his head - straight red.
It doesn't matter what the intent was, it doesn't matter another player formed part of the tackle and made it worse.
As the original tackler you have a duty of care

As the referee said I have no choice, he was clearly reluctant.
Now by all means disagree with the law but as directed the referee was correct

Red card and sending off was enough of a punishment, correct call by the ref, and the correct call by the citing panel, now lets just move on and not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

The kid was starring down a potential ban and could have missed out on getting capped for his country, I am glad common sense has prevailed on this one.

Didn't they say cite the Scottish case from when it was overturned (AIs?) as one of the reasons why he was cleared, and the red card recinded? If there is a precident to go by then if anything that mean this was not a case of the citing commision being hit and miss, but actually showing some consistence?

Also personal opinion, I think it was a red cards. And going on past record etc, I thought it could have been reduced to possibly on week which would have run out Friday night, leaving him play anyway. Would that have appeased those who wanted to see a ban?

I thought it was accidental at the time too, and got attacked for saying so . As someone else recently said, a YC to each of Lee and Evans was probably the correct call seeing as they deemed this unworthy of a RC to Evans.

geoff999rugby wrote:Some seem to be posting what they think should be rather than what is

Evans lifted his legs above the horizontal and he landed on his head - straight red.
It doesn't matter what the intent was, it doesn't matter another player formed part of the tackle and made it worse.
As the original tackler you have a duty of care

As the referee said I have no choice, he was clearly reluctant.
Now by all means disagree with the law but as directed the referee was correct

It's not what I think it should be it's how I saw it happen, what I know is the initial execution of the tackle was text book and it only varied from that when other factors became involved, i.e. Samson joined the tackle and Ringrose prioritised ball retention over his own safety. Neither of these players are in the wrong in what they did but the combination of these things is what resulted in the unsafe landing.

2nd time, if it's any good the citing board agree with you. So that's the main thing.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:2nd time, if it's any good the citing board agree with you.  So that's the main thing.

I cannot fathom how bitter some, not all, fans still are over last Friday nights result.

2ndtimeround wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Some seem to be posting what they think should be rather than what is

Evans lifted his legs above the horizontal and he landed on his head - straight red.
It doesn't matter what the intent was, it doesn't matter another player formed part of the tackle and made it worse.
As the original tackler you have a duty of care

As the referee said I have no choice, he was clearly reluctant.
Now by all means disagree with the law but as directed the referee was correct

It's not what I think it should be it's how I saw it happen, what I know is the initial execution of the tackle was text book and it only varied from that when other factors became involved, i.e. Samson joined the tackle and Ringrose prioritised ball retention over his own safety. Neither of these players are in the wrong in what they did but the combination of these things is what resulted in the unsafe landing.

Evans was wrong as per the directive regarding player safety whether we agree with it or not.
A player should not have to comprise between his safety and ball retention it is the duty of the tackler not tip him above the horizontal in the first place.
If it is a combination of two players tackling correctly that results in a tackled player landing on their head the current directive states one or both should be given a red card.

You need to read the directive to referees

Aparantley not as it seems the professional review board agree with my interpretation hence the card was rescinded rather than simply not issueing a ban as would have been an option also.

I will freely admit I don't have the directives the professional officials work to that are aimed at shaping the way the professional game is played, all we mere mortals can do is interpret the standard published rules of the game as published on the IRB website. There is a little self teach exam on there also that most posters would find interesting, I know I did when I started doing my coaching badge with the juniors.

As I said in my first post no ban because it is a final coming up - it has happened before.
If it was not a final coming next I suspect it would have been a nominal 1 match ban.

I am delighted for the player but the directive is clear - lifted above the horizontal in a tackle and landing on the head = red card.

Should it really matter if it was a nice young kid that would have missed the final and that would be a real shame? If it was Dylan Hartley for instance the knives would have been out.

IMO he lifted the players legs above horizontal which resulted in him landing on his head - Lee was involved but it wouldn't have happened if Evans hadn't deliberately lifted the legs. As has been said once he'd lifted the legs he was no longer in control of how Ringrose landed.

Lee did absolutely nothing wrong - it's not his fault his teammate lifted the legs of the player he was trying to tackle.

Evans cleared to play, Nigel Owens reffing his own club, Joey Barton has got his Paddy Power account fired up

Common sense prevails and it's not often you can say that.

Red card by the letter of the law, but have seen far worse given yellow or even just penalties.

So IMO the panels decision is the right one.

Glad to see he can feature in the final, I just think he and Liam on the other wing will now light up the final. If they fire on all cylinders and get some quick ball I think they could expose the Munster defence.

Glad he's still on track fir his first cap.

By the way, if you think there's been bad blood from some because Lienster lost, just wait till the Scarlets win. (And that's from an Osprey fan).

marty2086 wrote:Evans cleared to play, Nigel Owens reffing his own club, Joey Barton has got his Paddy Power account fired up

Suggestion that Nigel Owens is biased is unbelievable. He is probably the most unbiased ref there is. I honestly didn't think he'd show bias if he were to referee Wales v All Blacks in a World Cup final. It makes a pleasant change from having Irish referees in charge when Welsh regions play Irish ones... Now there is some bias...

geoff999rugby wrote:As I said in my first post no ban because it is a final coming up - it has happened before.
If it was not a final coming next I suspect it would have been a nominal 1 match ban.

I am delighted for the player but the directive is clear - lifted above the horizontal in a tackle and landing on the head = red card.

Then I would suggest the panel also believe the Steff did not actually lift the player but rather the lift was created through the momentum created with 3 players coming together from different angles. But maybe Physics is different over there!
For a tackling player to have LIFTED a ball carrier they would have to have exerted upward force in the tackle, at no time does Steff appear to be LIFTING Ringrose himself. Simply been in contact with the thigh does not necessarily mean he is lifting anything. Clearly the panel understand this though as they could of just said the card stands but no ban is needed due to 1st offence and clearly no intent. Instead they have overturned the card which clearly states they do not believe he actually lifted the player.

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:The only thing that is baffling is why other panels can't involve the use of a little common sense when making a decision about how something happened. The lift effect in this case was clearly caused by factors outside Evans control and if Ringrose had not tried to turn out of it to place the ball then he would most likely have landed differently.

The lifting of the legs was the problem which was all Evans, we are all top heavy so Ringrose had little control of his upper body hence why he went head first and wasn't able to get his hand down to protect himself

If you look at the incident around the 20 min mark I believe, where Bierne is clearly lifted by 2 Leinster players, then it shows it is Extremely possible for the tackled player to avoid landing on their head if they consciously try to keep their upper body up.

Incidentally in Ringrose's case 1 hand did come down 1st, the other one was holding on to the ball to try to recycle. I don't believe the hand counts as to what contacts the ground 1st though and it is only assessed against the head after either arm, shoulder or back.

2ndtimeround wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:As I said in my first post no ban because it is a final coming up - it has happened before.
If it was not a final coming next I suspect it would have been a nominal 1 match ban.

I am delighted for the player but the directive is clear - lifted above the horizontal in a tackle and landing on the head = red card.

Then I would suggest the panel also believe the Steff did not actually lift the player but rather the lift was created through the momentum created with 3 players coming together from different angles. But maybe Physics is different over there!
For a tackling player to have LIFTED a ball carrier they would have to have exerted upward force in the tackle, at no time does Steff appear to be LIFTING Ringrose himself. Simply been in contact with the thigh does not necessarily mean he is lifting anything. Clearly the panel understand this though as they could of just said the card stands but no ban is needed due to 1st offence and clearly no intent. Instead they have overturned the card which clearly states they do not believe he actually lifted the player.

If you look at the view from behind there is an initial hit them there is a deliberate leg lift.

1:06 onwards on the video above - you see his arms deliberately lifting the legs then he drops his shoulder down. The leg lift goes against momentum so is deliberate!

No9 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Evans cleared to play, Nigel Owens reffing his own club, Joey Barton has got his Paddy Power account fired up

Suggestion that Nigel Owens is biased is unbelievable. He is probably the most unbiased ref there is. I honestly didn't think he'd show bias if he were to referee Wales v All Blacks in a World Cup final. It makes a pleasant change from having Irish referees in charge when Welsh regions play Irish ones... Now there is some bias...

Owens has the nickname O'wens in Wales.

He has a 73% record of Irish wins in games between Irish and non-Irish teams:

http://www.cardiffrfcfans.co.uk/analysis/ref_by_nationality_of_teams.php?refereeID=31&countryID=3

His record of games between Ireland and New Zealand is interesting, too, if you're really that bothered.

PhilBB wrote:

No9 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Evans cleared to play, Nigel Owens reffing his own club, Joey Barton has got his Paddy Power account fired up

Suggestion that Nigel Owens is biased is unbelievable. He is probably the most unbiased ref there is. I honestly didn't think he'd show bias if he were to referee Wales v All Blacks in a World Cup final. It makes a pleasant change from having Irish referees in charge when Welsh regions play Irish ones... Now there is some bias...

Owens has the nickname O'wens in Wales.

He has a 73% record of Irish wins in games between Irish and non-Irish teams:

http://www.cardiffrfcfans.co.uk/analysis/ref_by_nationality_of_teams.php?refereeID=31&countryID=3

His record of games between Ireland and New Zealand is interesting, too, if you're really that bothered.

Given that Leinster and Munster are usually near the top of the league, Ulster there or there abouts and Connacht had a great season last year surely by that fact alone when he referees a game with an Irish team in it they are more likely to win anyway...? Ireland are a successful International team who are ranked 4th in the world - again any game Owens has reffereed for them chances are they would have been favourites anyway.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Given that Leinster and Munster are usually near the top of the league, Ulster there or there abouts and Connacht had a great season last year surely by that fact alone when he referees a game with an Irish team in it they are more likely to win anyway...? Ireland are a successful International team who are ranked 4th in the world - again any game Owens has reffereed for them chances are they would have been favourites anyway.

Yes, those are valid (if not self perpetuating) arguments.

My point with the New Zealand note was to have a look at the results.

I think it's fair to say that Irish teams have, traditionally, better suited their game to the style Owens likes.

Oh, and that's before we consider the French view of him, going right back to the comments about him having "an Irish cousin" etc.

No9 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Evans cleared to play, Nigel Owens reffing his own club, Joey Barton has got his Paddy Power account fired up

Suggestion that Nigel Owens is biased is unbelievable. He is probably the most unbiased ref there is. I honestly didn't think he'd show bias if he were to referee Wales v All Blacks in a World Cup final. It makes a pleasant change from having Irish referees in charge when Welsh regions play Irish ones... Now there is some bias...

Not only was that comment in jest but you are right because how else do you explain the Irish win percentage dropping dramatically with Irish refs in charge?

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:The only thing that is baffling is why other panels can't involve the use of a little common sense when making a decision about how something happened. The lift effect in this case was clearly caused by factors outside Evans control and if Ringrose had not tried to turn out of it to place the ball then he would most likely have landed differently.

The lifting of the legs was the problem which was all Evans, we are all top heavy so Ringrose had little control of his upper body hence why he went head first and wasn't able to get his hand down to protect himself

If you look at the incident around the 20 min mark I believe, where Bierne is clearly lifted by 2 Leinster players, then it shows it is Extremely possible for the tackled player to avoid landing on their head if they consciously try to keep their upper body up.

.

You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

Oh I get it alright, there was no lift from Steff, the lift was caused by the joint impact, simply put. Regardless of how some Irish posters want to cry foul, fortunately, the people who are employed to adjudicate on these things also get it and the Red card was RESCINDED.
I dare say it might have been a different outcome had there been an Irish panel adjudicating on the matter but fortunately it was a neutral one.

IanBru wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

I suppose you thought that the decision was wrong as well when a certain Scottish player had his red card rescinded during the AI's ?

2ndtimeround wrote:Oh I get it alright, there was no lift from Steff, the lift was caused by the joint impact, simply put. Regardless of how some Irish posters want to cry foul, fortunately, the people who are employed to adjudicate on these things also get it and the Red card was RESCINDED.
I dare say it might have been a different outcome had there been an Irish panel adjudicating on the matter but fortunately it was a neutral one.

Oh please lets play the nationalist card.

I have said I am please for the player.
I merely pointed out players getting off before big matches/tournaments has history - look how many bans just happen to end a few days before the start of the 6N.

Not my fault you don't understand the directives to refs.
We have a problem with head injuries in rugby and we have a series of directives with respect to tackling in the air, high tackles and tip tackles that puts the onus of safety totally on the tackler.
Regardless of intent they are 100% culpable

Just because you like the decision doesn't mean it was the correct one, it would have been unlucky for him to get banned but by the laws of the game he should have been, Evans had a duty of care and failed at it

Stuart McCloskey got a 4 week ban a few years ago after being sent off against Edinburgh for a tip tackle on Hamish Watson, Watson was in the jackel position and Michael Allen tried to roll him out while McCloskey tried to take him legs off the ground, Watson basically ended up handstanding onto his back

The disciplinary panel said

The Committee added one week to reflect the need for a deterrent for this type of offence but reduced it by one week having noted the player’s previous unblemished record, among other mitigating factors.

Video of the offence is here
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/vine-ulsters-stuart-mccloskey-was-sent-off-for-this-dangerous-tackle-14407

LordDowlais wrote:

IanBru wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

I suppose you thought that the decision was wrong as well when a certain Scottish player had his red card rescinded during the AI's ?

What makes you think that? Which AIs are you referring to?

Marty good point many similarities - as I say one was just before a final the other wasn't.
The key difference

IanBru wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

IanBru wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

I suppose you thought that the decision was wrong as well when a certain Scottish player had his red card rescinded during the AI's ?

What makes you think that? Which AIs are you referring to?

Think LD is referring to Gray and Ford from the RWC, you have to excuse him he gets confused easily

IanBru wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

IanBru wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

I suppose you thought that the decision was wrong as well when a certain Scottish player had his red card rescinded during the AI's ?

What makes you think that? Which AIs are you referring to?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/scarlets-star-steff-evans-cleared-13084174

"The Panel having directed itself under reference to the decision of the Appeal Committee in Ross Ford and Jonny Gray (RWC 2015) decided, by a majority, that this meant that the red card should be rescinded.

"The player is therefore free to play."

I think the AIs mix up is my fault as I said AIs earlier in the thread. But the point is they followed a precident and didn't just decide on how they felt at that moment in time. People say they want consistency, and this time they have it and are moaning it is wrong.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

IanBru wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

IanBru wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

I suppose you thought that the decision was wrong as well when a certain Scottish player had his red card rescinded during the AI's ?

What makes you think that? Which AIs are you referring to?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/scarlets-star-steff-evans-cleared-13084174

"The Panel having directed itself under reference to the decision of the Appeal Committee in Ross Ford and Jonny Gray (RWC 2015) decided, by a majority, that this meant that the red card should be rescinded.

"The player is therefore free to play."

I think the AIs mix up is my fault as I said AIs earlier in the thread.  But the point is they followed a precident and didn't just decide on how they felt at that moment in time.  People say they want consistency, and this time they have it and are moaning it is wrong.

Its not consistent though, that decision was the exception to the rule

I don't think you can compare the incidents as that was a double ruck clearout with both players being unaware what the other was doing, whereas this was a tackle by one player, with another then contributing to it, that included a double leg lift by one of the players. It was also worth saying both the referee and the 'victim' both came to Ford and Gray's defence saying that they had done nothing wrong.

I'm an absolute neutral in this so have no bias for or against the player and, looking at the camera view from behind, I just can't understand how it can be concluded that he didn't deliberately lift the legs.  To me there is a clear and obvious leg lift that goes against momentum.

I understand the directives fine thanks, they've been about since 2011, evidenced when Sam Warburton was sent of in the WQ semi final.
What the issue here is, is that there where 2 tacklers and as such Steff could not physically have controlled the result of the 3 way impact from 3 players coming together, therefore they must believe he did not lift Ringrose, or they would have upheld the card but not issued a ban, they could have even issued a 1 week ban had they deemed it necessary, had this been the case I would have agreed with you about convenient bans running out just in time for certain games, aka Hartley.
At the end of the day common sense has prevailed as you can not fairly be held responsible for something you can have no control over. Sometimes Poopie just happens.

There appears to be no similarity in that pic of the McClosky tackle whatsoever, the tackled player there is completely upside down and been dropped, Ringrose never went over anywhere near that far and was not dropped.
But hey why let simple facts get in the way.

You obviously don't get the directives or the laws because you just basically said the tackle was reckless as an inability to control the tackle makes it reckless which is the definition of what's in the laws

The laws are a problem but as they stand Evans had a duty of care and should have been banned but the committee have done an end run and tried to absolve him to free him up for the final, its unfair in the wider context of the game as many haven't been granted the same reprieve but fair for Evans because as I say the laws are the problem

The universal reaction at the time was that it was a red (Martyn Williams, Jonathan Davies, Wayne Pivac, in Martyn Williams' case even before the ref had called it).

So either the panel thought - well, he's a good boy really and didn't mean to hurt the player and it would be nice if he could play in the final, so we'll fudge it, or they analysed the incident in minute detail and decided that he wasn't actually responsible for the lift. I would have thought the latter is far more likely, even though it is not what I thought watching the incident in real time at the time.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to place the responsibility on the tackling player if he lifts to make sure that the tackled player doesn't come down on his head/neck and for it to be a red card offence if he or she fails to do that.

2ndtimeround wrote:There appears to be no similarity in that pic of the McClosky tackle whatsoever, the tackled player there is completely upside down and been dropped, Ringrose never went over anywhere near that far and was not dropped.
But hey why let simple facts get in the way.

The similarity is a second contributing player, no one said they were exactly the same

And you seem to be doing a find job of ignoring the simple fact that Ringrose was dropped on his head

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

IanBru wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

IanBru wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

I suppose you thought that the decision was wrong as well when a certain Scottish player had his red card rescinded during the AI's ?

What makes you think that? Which AIs are you referring to?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/scarlets-star-steff-evans-cleared-13084174

"The Panel having directed itself under reference to the decision of the Appeal Committee in Ross Ford and Jonny Gray (RWC 2015) decided, by a majority, that this meant that the red card should be rescinded.

"The player is therefore free to play."

I think the AIs mix up is my fault as I said AIs earlier in the thread.  But the point is they followed a precident and didn't just decide on how they felt at that moment in time.  People say they want consistency, and this time they have it and are moaning it is wrong.

Its not consistent though, that decision was the exception to the rule

So making a decision using a precident and quoting that precident is now inconsistant? Right there we are then, I guess your inconsistantly moaning on here too then

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

IanBru wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

IanBru wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You just don't seem to get it -- it is not the responsibility of the tackled player to determine how they land - it is the responsibility of the tackler

"May it please the court, the accused's defence relies on the contention that the complainant deliberately put his body in the way of the samurai sword that the accused was innocently swinging. Thus, anticipating that the sword would be swung, the complainant kept his neck in the path of the blade."

I suppose you thought that the decision was wrong as well when a certain Scottish player had his red card rescinded during the AI's ?

What makes you think that? Which AIs are you referring to?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/scarlets-star-steff-evans-cleared-13084174

"The Panel having directed itself under reference to the decision of the Appeal Committee in Ross Ford and Jonny Gray (RWC 2015) decided, by a majority, that this meant that the red card should be rescinded.

"The player is therefore free to play."

I think the AIs mix up is my fault as I said AIs earlier in the thread.  But the point is they followed a precident and didn't just decide on how they felt at that moment in time.  People say they want consistency, and this time they have it and are moaning it is wrong.

Its not consistent though, that decision was the exception to the rule

So making a decision using a precident and quoting that precident is now inconsistant?  Right there we are then, I guess your inconsistantly moaning on here too then

Its a precedent that does not align with all others or the actual laws hence why I said it was the exception