I think most refs go into a game with some level of bias of what they are looking for from certain team at least with Barnes it's usually the right call (he had a really poor game Saturday).
Getting wildly off topic here, but I have a feeling that this sort of behaviour is actively encouraged. I remember reading an interview with a then up and coming Luke Pearce, he said that part of his preparation for a match was to watch videos of previous matches featuring sides he would be taking control of in order to know who and what to look out for. Shortly afterwards, I watched him give a straight card in a National 1 derby game after the sort of scuffle that at the time I felt warranted a talking to for both captains. I thought that part of the reason for the decision was a mindset to not bottle anything in what was for him at the time a big game, but I was left to wonder if the decision would have been different if it hadn't involved a player with a reputation for foul play. FWIW, the decision left my team playing 14 men for most of the game, so I don't have an axe to grind.
I hate this idea that referees need predetermination and the implication that they're not capable of making the correct decision based purely on what's in front of them.In certain legal realms, they'd be struck off for using this kind of decision process!
In international rugby, given the access that coaches have to referees, it's an area that needs to be watched carefully.
- - - Updated - - -
Some serious fallout possible if France are found guilty of manufacturing Antonio's 'injury'. The obvious precedent of coach + doctor + player clearly deceiving the officials would be 'bloodgate', which resulted in some hefty bans for all concerned. There was more premeditation involved there (the buying of blood capsules well in advance of the game etc.). The HIA is there to safeguard the players, if it's been used solely as a way of making a tactical substitution then that puts doubt in the whole process, and undermines player safety moving forwards.
My gut feeling is that this was the case. Nothing looked right about the process:
- no obvious collision for Antonio to suffer a head knock.
- member of French coaching staff illegally speaks to the doctor.
- Slimani warming up on the touchline well before Antonio coming off.
- Antonio answering Barnes that he was fine after first appearing a little unwilling to answer.
- Doctor initially a little cagey in answering Barnes' questions.
- No HIA carried out on the pitch, which is protocol.
- Antonio trudging off down the tunnel alone, where was the doctor now?
- Antonio appearing to hold his stomach.
- Noves unable to give an answer as to what was wrong with Antonio in post match.
This could prove costly for anyone involved from the French management (Noves must have known?), the doctor and Antonio himself.
Altogether a right farce.
Great post. All your points are relevant, a couple more I would add:
Was the other French prop warming up at the same time as Slimani? You could make a case that it's prudent to have them both ready if required (assuming he didn't go off injured), but this is shot down if not. Also, how long do you have to perform an HIA? If they went over time, then the French medical team need to demonstrate that he did indeed fail the test.
Here's a post I made about handling this on another forum:
Since the event, I've been pondering how this should be investigated. The best that I can come up with is that the French medical team should be asked to explain why they thought that Antonio had received a head injury. The cynic in me suspects that if this approach is taken, the medical team will cite something spotted by one of their eagle eyed staff which was inexplicably missed by the TV cameras. Hopefully he appears on one camera or another so the validity of this response can be tested.
I've been back and watched from the scrum around 76 minutes onward. Obviously Antonio isn't in shot all the time, but the ball is. During that time, by my count, he doesn't touch the ball or make a tackle. He is involved (by my count on one viewing) in one maul and five rucks. By the time he arrives at all six breakdowns, the ball is static, he makes little impact and there is no evidence of head trauma. In pseudo-legal terms, I would assert that either there was no reasonable cause to suspect head injury during this period or that the head injury occurred before this time period. If the latter is the case, there should be a case to answer as to why he was allowed to play on for so long before ordering an assessment. Going back further into the game could make the medics look more remiss, but given iPlayer and a smartphone, as my resources, it's all I was going to do.
