Irish ref, Irish TMO, game in Ireland, nothing changes.

First topic message reminder :

This is a farce, I know I will get ripped apart for this, but it is becoming a joke, what I have just seen in this first half between Leinster and Cardiff is a joke. How is Isa Nacewa still on the field, then going down like he has just been shot to milk a pen on half time. FFS

Also, do not get me started with the scrum, the young Cardiff boy Kieron Assirati is doing a number on Cain Healy yet the ref is letting Cain Healy get away with murder.

2017, Pro14, nothing changes.

Anyway, onto the second half.

Oh, just to edit, I forgot to mention Kearnys shoulder tackle when Cardiff were breaking through that was left unpunished by both Brace and Fitzgibbon. Whate a joke.

marty2086 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:If only threads were like a room, and we could lock some of the posters inside...

Anyway, despite all the fighting, I actually do agree with LD and others that it was a textbook red card, but like I said the immediate reaction of both players was perhaps what swayed the colour of the card. Whether people agree that should play a part in the decision making is a different story.

How exactly is it textbook? When the textbook says otherwise?

Oh, the textbook says otherwise does it? Point out where that is, please.

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Every time I see that high tackle it just looks like a red, and how people can say otherwise is just mind boggling.

Scottrf wrote:Definitely a red IMO.

Except WR say differently but what do they know

Not their own laws apparently.

Really?

Because this is what they cite as a textbook yellow



Not too different to Nacewa, a tackle that starts low and rides high

And this is what they cite as a textbook red, which looks about the same area of contact that Nacewa made.:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Every time I see that high tackle it just looks like a red, and how people can say otherwise is just mind boggling.

Could you please do me a favour rugby fan, I do not know how to put these little snippets up, but can you get one for the late shoulder tackle on Lee-Lo by Kearney please ?

and Nacewa making sure the referee knows about his predicament by throwing his arms up in the air:

Nacewa did milk it alright but he was fouled. The Blues player changed his course to elbow Nacewa off the ball.

I though Kearney was luck to not get a yellow card.

Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

RugbyFan100 wrote:

And this is what they cite as a textbook red, which looks about the same area of contact that Nacewa made.:

It should have been a red alright but I think the ref only gave a yellow.

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

Thats a fair point. Fekitoa's was probably worse.

The Kearney one really wasn't clear cut - I'm not sure what else he could have done. There was an attempt to wrap the arms and he was already committed. Right call made on that one, in my opinion. But, if a penalty was awarded, I wouldn't have protested much as it could have gone either way.

We could use Sam Cane as an example too to say the penalty for Nacewa wasn't a penalty and the correct decision was made either way with Kearney

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The Kearney one really wasn't clear cut - I'm not sure what else he could have done. There was an attempt to wrap the arms and he was already committed. Right call made on that one, in my opinion. But, if a penalty was awarded, I wouldn't have protested much as it could have gone either way.

Kearney could have pulled out though, I think a yellow is harsh, but it should have been a penalty.

marty2086 wrote:We could use Sam Cane as an example too to say the penalty for Nacewa wasn't a penalty and the correct decision was made either way with Kearney

Not really. Because we're talking about examples given by World Rugby guidelines on issuing cards. And that isn't one of them.

And where does the textbook (law) say that Nacewa's tackle wasn't a red card? Be specific.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And where does the textbook (law) say that Nacewa's tackle wasn't a red card? Be specific.

I have Rory, I has posted the clip they use as a textbook yellow of Fritz Lee

LordDowlais wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The Kearney one really wasn't clear cut - I'm not sure what else he could have done. There was an attempt to wrap the arms and he was already committed. Right call made on that one, in my opinion. But, if a penalty was awarded, I wouldn't have protested much as it could have gone either way.

Kearney could have pulled out though, I think a yellow is harsh, but it should have been a penalty.

Oh, come on.

marty2086 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And where does the textbook (law) say that Nacewa's tackle wasn't a red card? Be specific.

I have Rory, I has posted the clip they use as a textbook yellow of Fritz Lee

They use video clips in the textbook? Technology really has advanced. Either way, here is Nigel Owens explaining the new high tackle directives and what counts as a red card as of 3 January 2017.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/nigel-owens-perfectly-explains-new-12545017

If it was Dylan Hartley does anyone think Marty would be arguing it's not a red?

Reckless tackle at speed and with force, almost immediate head contact. Potential for injury large, control minimal and entirely predictable (Cuthbert didn't change his height).

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The Kearney one really wasn't clear cut - I'm not sure what else he could have done. There was an attempt to wrap the arms and he was already committed. Right call made on that one, in my opinion. But, if a penalty was awarded, I wouldn't have protested much as it could have gone either way.

Kearney could have pulled out though, I think a yellow is harsh, but it should have been a penalty.

Oh, come on.

Watch the clip, there is a lot he could have done. But it was reckless, a penalty all day long. Especially if we are going to compare it to the Navidi incident.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And where does the textbook (law) say that Nacewa's tackle wasn't a red card? Be specific.

I have Rory, I has posted the clip they use as a textbook yellow of Fritz Lee

They use video clips in the textbook? Technology really has advanced. Either way, here is Nigel Owens explaining the new high tackle directives and what counts as a red card as of 3 January 2017.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/nigel-owens-perfectly-explains-new-12545017

Well the video is from WRs website as of today

As Owens clearly says there are varying degrees of foul play, he says the minimum can be a penalty WR say the minimum is a yellow

Minimum for accidental is penalty, minimum for reckless is a yellow.

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

That makes absolutely no difference. From world rugby website, which you have even previously linked to today:

Reckless and accidental tackles
November 2016
Reckless Tackle

A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

If I were you, I would not use that image to defend your point of view, because it contradicts what you are saying. You would have a better chance with the video clip, although I would not hold much hope for you on that account either.

marty2086 wrote:We could use Sam Cane as an example too to say the penalty for Nacewa wasn't a penalty and the correct decision was made either way with Kearney

You couldnt really though because any other team would have got penalised for the Same Cane incident. It was reckless and dangerous.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

If I were you, I would not use that image to defend your point of view, because it contradicts what you are saying. You would have a better chance with the video clip, although I would not hold much hope for you on that account either.

No, its pretty spot n as to everything I said

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

That makes absolutely no difference. From world rugby website, which you have even previously linked to today:

Reckless and accidental tackles
November 2016
Reckless Tackle

A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

Im sure you thought there was a point to that

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

If I were you, I would not use that image to defend your point of view, because it contradicts what you are saying. You would have a better chance with the video clip, although I would not hold much hope for you on that account either.

No, its pretty spot n as to everything I said

The hand isn't the only contact point...

Collapse2005 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:We could use Sam Cane as an example too to say the penalty for Nacewa wasn't a penalty and the correct decision was made either way with Kearney

You couldnt really though because any other team would have got penalised for the Same Cane incident. It was reckless and dangerous.

Im merely pointing out that there are contradictory examples going either way

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

If I were you, I would not use that image to defend your point of view, because it contradicts what you are saying. You would have a better chance with the video clip, although I would not hold much hope for you on that account either.

No, its pretty spot n as to everything I said

The hand isn't the only contact point...

It was the initial contact point though

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

If I were you, I would not use that image to defend your point of view, because it contradicts what you are saying. You would have a better chance with the video clip, although I would not hold much hope for you on that account either.

No, its pretty spot n as to everything I said

Nothing you have posted points to the possibility of Nacewa's tackle not being a red card.
Plenty of info on world rugby's website suggest it could easily have been a red card.

That it wasn't a red card or hasn't been cited points to Nacewa being very, very lucky.

marty2086 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:We could use Sam Cane as an example too to say the penalty for Nacewa wasn't a penalty and the correct decision was made either way with Kearney

You couldnt really though because any other team would have got penalised for the Same Cane incident. It was reckless and dangerous.

Im merely pointing out that there are contradictory examples going either way

Yes I got that Marty.

Good grief marty, you must be a hoot in the club. Your like that "only me" character that Harry Enfield used to do.

Look, sometimes you are wrong, you have been proved wrong on this account again, by multiple members of this forum, time to let it go now.

Scottrf wrote:Minimum for accidental is penalty, minimum for reckless is a yellow.

And Nacewa's tackle absolutely falls under the category of reckless.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Fekitoa takes the head, Nacawa tackled the ball and it rode up

If I were you, I would not use that image to defend your point of view, because it contradicts what you are saying. You would have a better chance with the video clip, although I would not hold much hope for you on that account either.

No, its pretty spot n as to everything I said

Nothing you have posted points to the possibility of Nacewa's tackle not being a red card.
Plenty of info on world rugby's website suggest it could easily have been a red card.

That it wasn't a red card or hasn't been cited points to Nacewa being very, very lucky.

Except for the example they use to differentiate between red and yellow

LordDowlais wrote:Good grief marty, you must be a hoot in the club. Your like that "only me" character that Harry Enfield used to do.

Look, sometimes you are wrong, you have been proved wrong on this account again, by multiple members of this forum, time to let it go now.  

Except I haven't, right and wrong isn't decided by majority it just is or isn't

WR says those tackles range from yellow to red, the examples they cite support a yellow, the ref and TMO thought so, it seems the citing commissioner too but you've got ones on here saying you're opinion is right I wonder whose opinion holds greater weight

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Good grief marty, you must be a hoot in the club. Your like that "only me" character that Harry Enfield used to do.

Look, sometimes you are wrong, you have been proved wrong on this account again, by multiple members of this forum, time to let it go now.  

Except I haven't, right and wrong isn't decided by majority it just is or isn't

WR says those tackles range from yellow to red, the examples they cite support a yellow, the ref and TMO thought so, it seems the citing commissioner too but you've got ones on here saying you're opinion is right I wonder whose opinion holds greater weight  

I presume you are happy with the Sam Cane decision then.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Good grief marty, you must be a hoot in the club. Your like that "only me" character that Harry Enfield used to do.

Look, sometimes you are wrong, you have been proved wrong on this account again, by multiple members of this forum, time to let it go now.  

Except I haven't, right and wrong isn't decided by majority it just is or isn't

WR says those tackles range from yellow to red, the examples they cite support a yellow, the ref and TMO thought so, it seems the citing commissioner too but you've got ones on here saying you're opinion is right I wonder whose opinion holds greater weight  

I presume you are happy with the Sam Cane decision then.

No but I understand the decision even though WR used contradictory logic on the Cane and Fekitoa decisions

Well you can now see the point about dodgy refs, when the Navidi incident is penalised and the Kearney incident is not.

Also, there were numerous contentious decisions during that game that were mind blowing and reflected the outcome of the game on Friday night.

LordDowlais wrote:Well you can now see the point about dodgy refs, when the Navidi incident is penalised and the Kearney incident is not.

Also, there were numerous contentious decisions during that game that were mind blowing and reflected the outcome of the game on Friday night.

Cardiff came out after the game and said the better team won. The deficit just flattered Leinster is all

Navidi was done for blocking Nacewa, Kearney made a tackle. Nor comparable at all

LordDowlais wrote:
Also, there were numerous contentious decisions during that game that were mind blowing and reflected the outcome of the game on Friday night.

I particularly liked the "taking players out beyond the ruck" call, just as Cardiff were about to score a try to level the game. Completely correct call of course, but it was not called once in the rest of the game - and barely all weekend in any other rugby match despite it happening at many, many rucks.

marty2086 wrote:Cardiff came out after the game and said the better team won. The deficit just flattered Leinster is all

Leinster were the better team, no doubt about it. But the decisions the refs made did not help and I am not just talking about the three incidents we have been banging on about on here all morning.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:
Also, there were numerous contentious decisions during that game that were mind blowing and reflected the outcome of the game on Friday night.

I particularly liked the "taking players out beyond the ruck" call, just as Cardiff were about to score a try to level the game. Completely correct call of course, but it was not called once in the rest of the game - and barely all weekend in any other rugby match despite it happening at many, many rucks.

Also, the hands in the ruck before Cronin's run in. As soon as I saw it I was waiting for the whistle but it did not come.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Cardiff came out after the game and said the better team won. The deficit just flattered Leinster is all

Leinster were the better team, no doubt about it. But the decisions the refs made did not help and I am not just talking about the three incidents we have been banging on about on here all morning.

Always the refs fault

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:
Also, there were numerous contentious decisions during that game that were mind blowing and reflected the outcome of the game on Friday night.

I particularly liked the "taking players out beyond the ruck" call, just as Cardiff were about to score a try to level the game. Completely correct call of course, but it was not called once in the rest of the game - and barely all weekend in any other rugby match despite it happening at many, many rucks.

Now you know how we feel in Ireland when Barnes refs every single Ireland v Wales games.

Anyway, back to the original point- what happenned to this???

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-introduce-neutral-television-11789218

I can see the same age old problems are still coming up, it will imporove as the season goes on, as Greg Garner was appointed as Elite Referee Manage

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/40362.php#.WbaBFa2ZNBw

"The specific role of the Elite Referee Manager will be to manage all PRO14 match official appointments. Garner will also oversee a structured and objective performance review process while liaising with all Unions across the PRO14 to identify and promote future match official talent.

Appointments will always be merit-based and neutral, wherever possible, to ensure the best fit for each Championship fixture. With his wealth of experience, Garner will continue to ensure that the pool of officials available within the PRO14 will be able to answer the needs of both neutrality and excellent capability with the ultimate aim of establishing a stable of full-time officials."

"We currently have some of the best referees in world rugby but our aim is to establish a High Performance talent pool across the participating Unions to appoint neutral match officials to all games, bringing through consistent talent and continually raising standards."

Meaning that the Pro 14 will try to appoint neutral ref's but can only attempt to currently until the talent pool of refs is high enough to allow for this.
So its either Neutral refs where possible, or neutral refs not at the required level. I think the Pro 14 are doing this right and hopefully Greg Garner can get the talent pool up high enough for this to become a reality.

No mention if the 4th official will be neutral, but hopefully this can be arranged if the talent pool allows it. To answer an earlier question, the 4th official would have to be at the ground as they are the one to take over if the ref gets injured, pulls a muscle etc.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Anyway, back to the original point- what happenned to this???

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-introduce-neutral-television-11789218

I'd like to know the answer to this one too.

A professional league leaving itself open to disrepute because it still doesn't have all neutral officials is ridiculous.

Never mind if the call is right or not, the fact that a situation can exist where the official's country of origin can play a part in a call is shambolic.

Kingshu wrote:I can see the same age old problems are still coming up, it will imporove as the season goes on, as Greg Garner was appointed as Elite Referee Manage

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/40362.php#.WbaBFa2ZNBw

"The specific role of the Elite Referee Manager will be to manage all PRO14 match official appointments. Garner will also oversee a structured and objective performance review process while liaising with all Unions across the PRO14 to identify and promote future match official talent.

Appointments will always be merit-based and neutral, wherever possible, to ensure the best fit for each Championship fixture. With his wealth of experience, Garner will continue to ensure that the pool of officials available within the PRO14 will be able to answer the needs of both neutrality and excellent capability with the ultimate aim of establishing a stable of full-time officials."

"We currently have some of the best referees in world rugby but our aim is to establish a High Performance talent pool across the participating Unions to appoint neutral match officials to all games, bringing through consistent talent and continually raising standards."

Meaning that the Pro 14 will try to appoint neutral ref's but can only attempt to currently until the talent pool of refs is high enough to allow for this.
So its either Neutral refs where possible, or neutral refs not at the required level. I think the Pro 14 are doing this right and hopefully Greg Garner can get the talent pool up high enough for this to become a reality.

No mention if the 4th official will be neutral, but hopefully this can be arranged if the talent pool allows it. To answer an earlier question, the 4th official would have to be at the ground as they are the one to take over if the ref gets injured, pulls a muscle etc.

That will be Clancy and Lacey looking for new careers then !

RugbyFan100 wrote:Anyway, back to the original point- what happenned to this???

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-introduce-neutral-television-11789218

The most pertinent question on this subject.

Neutral AR and Neutral TMO at every match was the stated objective. Whilst more refs were developed over 3 years.

What changed this season? There's an extra game each Round. And some SA officials joined the available pool of PRO14 officials. But are they being used for away games?

Anyone like to work out what's the minimum number of officials from each country that's required to ensure neutrality? Even just for Neutral AR and TMO.

munkian wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Anyway, back to the original point- what happenned to this???

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-introduce-neutral-television-11789218

I'd like to know the answer to this one too.

A professional league leaving itself open to disrepute because it still doesn't have all neutral officials is ridiculous.

Never mind if the call is right or not, the fact that a situation can exist where the official's country of origin can play a part in a call is shambolic.

How bad can these non neutral referees be? I think given the performances of Wilkinson and Brace over the weekend, I'd rather take a chance on these "non neutral referees not at the required level". Because clearly Wilkinson and Brace aren't at the required level either. The fact they are considered elite" referees by Pro 14 is quite frightening.

munkian wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Anyway, back to the original point- what happenned to this???

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-introduce-neutral-television-11789218

I'd like to know the answer to this one too.

A professional league leaving itself open to disrepute because it still doesn't have all neutral officials is ridiculous.

Never mind if the call is right or not, the fact that a situation can exist where the official's country of origin can play a part in a call is shambolic.

In the Leinster/Cardiff game, the ref's country of origin is Wales.

Pot Hale wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Anyway, back to the original point- what happenned to this???

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-introduce-neutral-television-11789218

The most pertinent question on this subject.

Neutral AR and Neutral TMO at every match was the stated objective.  Whilst more refs were developed over 3 years.

What changed this season?  There's an extra game each Round.  And some SA officials joined the available pool of PRO14 officials.  But are they being used for away games?

Anyone like to work out what's the minimum number of officials from each country that's required to ensure neutrality?  Even just for Neutral AR and TMO.  

I get there is an extra game or 2 this season, but when you can swap one set of officials for another set in another game, making it all neutral officials, yet decide not to do that - it warrants an explanation.

It's almost as if all those officials that officiated in Dublin were kept there due to cost / logistical reasons. Nice for them to have to not stray too far away from home I guess.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Anyway, back to the original point- what happenned to this???

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-introduce-neutral-television-11789218

Totally agree...

as I said earlier..

No9 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Yes you are, deliberately changing what people say to fit your argument

Firstly, I am not arguing with anyone, it's seems that it is you who is intent on causing an argument.

Secondly, I have not changed anything, I have quoted you word for word.

Bless, you really are that slow

I meant you were putting forward an argument, as in your version

I also never said me, as previously stated you changed what billy said to fit your own argument little fairytale

Nap time I think for you LD

You see Marty, you keep dishing out these insults, instead of debating like an adult. I do not think it's me who needs a nap.

The high tackle was high, and very dangerous, and Nacewa was not in control. He should have seen red. I would suggest that it was only for Cuthbert getting straight back up instead of rolling around like Nacewa did when he came back on and milked a penalty just before half time, that saved him from seeing a red card.

But lets not forget, both the ref and TMO looked at it, and decided it was a yellow, which for me is more of a worry.

If it was the other way around you can bet your mortgage that the crowd would have been baying for blood, and Isa Nacewa would have been lying on the floor as if he had been shot.

Also, have you had a chance to look at that other incident yet ?

Debate like an adult?

You editorialise and make up that Nacewa left his feet to make the tackles that's not true, you changed billys words to make out that he agreed with you so please don't try lecturing me on debating like an adult since I have challenged your points already

Its not a worry the ref and TMO decided was a yellow especially when WR cite the below tackle by Fritz Lee as a textbook yellow card so like a proper adult let me add, suck on that!!


I've no doubt the RDS crowd would have called for a red if it was reversed but that doesn't mean they are right

I've no idea what the other incident is

Think both of you need to grow up and stop bickering like children....

On point though.. Marty, you say that its not true that Nacewa left his feet to make the tackler... Suggest you recheck that, if he didn't leave his feet, this is one hell of an optical illusion...



He definitely left his feet.. He knew he'd done wrong, he expected a card.. That was all obvious during the game. Cuthbert got straight up, and acknowledged it wasn't deliberate dirty play, again easily seen on the video. If Nacewa has seen red, no one could have disagreed. HOWEVER, I do think the yellow was a fair call. This is rugby not football... Its done, now lets move on.

However, I do think more should be done to try and get neutral officials in these games. I appreciate there's a big gap between refereeing standards between the unions involved. But I think the TMO should be neutral, and after all, in today's technical age, they done even have to be at the ground. So there is no reason why they cant make sure they have a neutral TMO. Some bad TMO calls this week, and some of the Italian TMO calls last season against Italian opposition was just so blatantly biased.

and as for the extra expense as stated in the article

WalesOnline wrote:
Guinness Pro12 chiefs have moved to appease teams and their fans by introducing neutral television match officials for next season.

They took the decision, which will cost them about £150,000 a year to fund in extra travel and hotel bills, following a spate of controversies.

that's total rubbish, as I mentioned, with today's technology they don't have to be at the ground to be the TMO, they just need full access to the broadcasters video streams, which can be done through technology, they don't have to be sitting in an OB van. Same with radio link to ref, this can be done through mobile comms, they don't have to be sitting in the ground using old walkie talkie technology.