[2016 Rugby Championship] New Zealand v Australia (27/08/2016)

[TRF_heineken]

Ok, I wasn't going to post on this issue again, but considering this very point came up on another forum, I thought it would be good to address your comment.

There is a tendency among fans to consider that a hand around or near the eye area must be an automatic red card or citing, but unlike a punch, there is NO WR directive to referees/citing officials that makes contact with the eye area either an automatic red card or citing (perhaps there should be, but currently there isn't). Neither is there a directive outlining a protocol that starts a red and works down as there is for a spear tackle or a tackle in the air. Contact with the eye-area is treated like any other foul play infringement such as a dangerous tackle i.e. it is left to the judgement of the referee, and later, the citing officer. It is up to them to judge whether what they have seen passes the "red card test".

In this case, the referee had the best angle (certainly better than either of the two camera angles I have seen). From his position, he could see Kane Douglas' face. Obviously he decided that it did not meet the criteria for a yellow card, let alone a red card, and decided that warning Franks off was sufficient. Now, we can complain about that all we like, but in the end, within the 80 minutes, it was HIS decision to make, and his alone.

The checks and balances on the referees decisions as regards temporary suspensions and sending-offs is in the purview of the Citing Commissioner, who has unfettered access to ALL camera angles. Guess what? He came to the same conclusions as the referee.... that Franks' actions did not pass the "red card test". Not only that, he didn't think it passed the "yellow card test" either, otherwise he would have issued a Citing Commissioner Warning. Once again, we can jump up and down all we like, but in the end, within the citing period after the match, it was HIS decision to make, and his alone.

Now none of this means that I think what Franks did was OK. IMO, he should probably have been cited. I am simply trying to make a reasonable stab at understanding why he wasn't.

And it makes sense as players usually do hand-offs which normally touches the opponent's face, and a hand-off is not a foul or offence unless you do it like Liam Messam or Bismarck Du Plessis - With the elbow.

 

[ncurd]

This is not how it is treated by RFU. http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...RFURegulation19Appendix22016-2017_English.pdf

Law 10.4 (m) I.e. It specifically states that contact with the eye/eye area is a citeable offence. No mention of eye gouging, which presumably would be the top end. Maybe this is where the uneven application of the laws comes from.

It took me a while to find I but contact with the eye area is under "10.4(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure." according to World Rugby as well.

Page 271
http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resour...ok/EN/pubData/source/files/Regulation17_1.pdf

 

[smartcooky]

This is not how it is treated by RFU. http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...RFURegulation19Appendix22016-2017_English.pdf

Law 10.4 (m) I.e. It specifically states that contact with the eye/eye area is a citeable offence. No mention of eye gouging, which presumably would be the top end. Maybe this is where the uneven application of the laws comes from.

FFS, do I really have to hold your hand and walk you though this in baby steps?

You are misreading the document you posted. That document is the RFU's version of WR Regulation 17 Appendix 1. It is nothing more than a list of sanctions to be applied when a player has infringed, and that infringement was judged by the Referee or the CC as having been serious enough to passed the red card test.... IT IS NOT, REPEAT NOT A LIST OF INFRINGEMENTS THAT MUST BE CITED! Nowhere in that document does it say that "contact with the eye/eye area" must be red carded or cited. The words cite, and citing don't even appear anywhere. What it does is give is a range of sanctions if a player is cited for one of these infringements. You can see this for yourself by looking though the remaining items in the list, for example

10.4 (e) A dangerous tackle is a citable infringement if it passes the red card test, but is every dangerous tackle red carded or cited?

10.4 (f) Dangerous charging is a citable infringement if it passes the red card test, but is every dangerous charge red carded or cited?

etc etc

As I said earlier, there are only three foul play infringements for which special directives have been issued, punching, spear tacking and tackling in the air. Making contact with the eye area is NOT, repeat NOT an automatic citing. Like any other infringement, it is only red carded/cited if it is deemed to meet the red card test.

I can't make this any simpler for you!

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Calm the **** down Smart Cookey. You need to take a chill pill. It is not clear to the casual fan ok. We don't need your patronising tone on something you're trying to defend which is clearly indefensible. Citeable or not there is a reason why the guidelines state no contact round the eye area. It is a no go area.

And what is this red card threshold? Again not clear. So Francis, Ashton and Galarzo met this but Franks doesn't. All because Wallabies don't complain enough; although Chieka clearly did straight after the game. And Poite and CC deemed it did not meet this threshold because they had a better view and more camera angles? It's frankly ******. And you trying to defend this system and try and get people on here to understand it is not really helping and we are just going round in circles.

 

[Peat]

People, please discuss this without being personal.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Utter bollocks, as we have come to expect from you!

Are you incapable of being civil? You are so hypersensitive to your precious ABs being criticised. This is a case of consistency and it seems you are firmly opposed to the ABs receiving the same punishment for committing the same offenses! Hell it seems you oppose the idea of any punishment as long as the referee decides he is going to pretend an infringement didn't happen because the player stopped after being told 3 times to stop! Franks fingers were all over the Aussies eyes and the law doesn't require them to actually be thrust into the eyes themselves for it to be classed as gouging. Neither Ashton nor Francis made contact with the eyes or attempted to gouge yet they got long punishments. Why do you defend inconsistent refereeing? It's OK to thrust your hands in someones eyes as long as the referee gives you numerous chances to stop? If other similar incidents hadn't been punished then you would have a defense but lesser incidents have received very harsh punishments so your argument is completely invalid.

 

[smartcooky]

Calm the **** down Smart Cookey. You need to take a chill pill. It is not clear to the casual fan ok. We don't need your patronising tone on something you're trying to defend which is clearly indefensible. Citeable or not there is a reason why the guidelines state no contact round the eye area. It is a no go area.

I have clearly explained this three times now, getting simpler each time, and yet you still insist (incorrectly) that hands near eyes is some kind of automatic citing

Well frankly I have had enough of wasting my time with people who cannot grasp the simplest of concepts. Sometimes dealing with you lot is like dealing with retarded kindergarten children... the lights are on, but there is nobody home

I give up.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I have clearly explained this three times now, getting simpler each time, and yet you still insist (incorrectly) that hands near eyes is some kind of automatic citing

Well frankly I have had enough of wasting my time with people who cannot grasp the simplest of concepts. Sometimes dealing with you lot is like dealing with retarded kindergarten children... the lights are on, but there is nobody home

I give up.

So you get on your high horse but fail to explain what this red card threshold is to get an automatic citing for going anywhere near the eye area?

I think your posting in this thread has reflected worse on you and your inability to be civil.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I have clearly explained this three times now, getting simpler each time, and yet you still insist (incorrectly) that hands near eyes is some kind of automatic citing

Well frankly I have had enough of wasting my time with people who cannot grasp the simplest of concepts. Sometimes dealing with you lot is like dealing with retarded kindergarten children... the lights are on, but there is nobody home

I give up.

you are right smartcocky, hands to the face is not a de jure citation or suspension but it certainly has been treated as a de facto citation by certain governing bodies

 

[Peat]

Nothing good is coming of this so thread locked.