All Blacks vs Wallabies, August 7th 2010, Fifth Tri Nations Test

[redeye]

Actually I did think Franks card was also crap. Why would you doubt I thought that?

And you obviously agree saying "both were soft".

He only had to be consistent once he started being soft. If he hadn't given the first...

Although I'd argue Franks was a tad worse and even the 'Laws Guru' thought he would have only given a penalty if Joubert had seen it.

Either way no one was punched, kicked, head highed, speared or stomped.

 

[nickdnz]

redeye. There is a very simple rule for how you can and can't tackle. Referees shouldn't be picking and choosing to what extend one tackle is punished, to another. If you don't use your arms in a tackle, it's a yellow card. Simple. Drew Mitchell, as much as I like him as a player, was a total idiot, and deserved a red card for throwing the ball away, after constant warnings from the ref, while he had already ben hit with a yellow. Stop crying and get over it.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

I :lol: at all the *****ing thats going on in here!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Olyy, I doubt that a player would be suspended for getting a red card that was as a result of a second yellow on a "technical" infringement. Suspensions are almost always for dangerous play such as eye-poking, punching, stamping, head-butting etc... the really serious ****.

I think i'm still thinking in football terms from the world cup, where you miss the next match is you get a red (don't know why, i don't even watch/like football apart from the WC )

 

[redeye]

redeye. Stop crying and get over it.

Apologies. I was of the impression forums like this were for expressing different ideas?.

 

[nickdnz]

I :lol: at all the *****ing thats going on in here!

Haha, just wait till the WUM's come out during the EOYT, then you'll face the full power of the whiners!

On a different note, I don't think I've ever seen so much *****ing sorrounding the Tri Nations...A lot seems to come from people with less than 20 posts, so that may explain it.

 

[Sam Owen]

Apologies. I was of the impression forums like this were for expressing different ideas?.

It's all good and your right to express your views on things rugby, everone else does and your no different. You're alright mate keep postin gives me something to read.

 

[smartcooky]

That's being a bit of a pendant don't you think? Same or very similar process.

Not at all. There is no such thing as a review committee. There is simply a Citing Commissioner. He has the sole say on whether a player is cited. However, because Mitchell received a red card, he cannot be cited (IRB Regulation 17.6.2)

When a Citing Commissioner is appointed, the following policy shall apply:
(b) Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play even where such act or acts may have been detected by the referee and/or touch judge and which may have been the subject of action taken by the referee and/or touch judge. A Citing Commissioner may not, however, cite a Player for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off;

Effectively, the referee has cited the player by the act of giving him a red card. (I promise you that the amount paperwork the referee needs to do when he issues a red card is huge; much more that just a yellow.)

Regardless of all this, the Citing Commissioner may step in an decide that a red carded player does not need to front the judiciary. This has always been the case when the player's red card was NOT a result of an act of foul play, but of receiving a second yellow card for a technical infringement.

So you're saying on one hand he had to give it to be consistent, and on the other he wouldn't have if he had seen it. Can't have it both ways.

Not trying to have it both ways at all. Perhaps I can break it down for you

1. He yellow carded Franks for "no arms in the tackle"
2. Kaplan reported Mitchell for "no arms in the tackle". Joubert didn't see it, but equity demands that he also issues a yellow card for that, based on what Kaplan told him.

However, IMO, had Joubert actually seen it for himself, he may not have thought it was worth a yellow, so he may have given just a penalty.

 

[Jake Heke]

Ow all of you shet ep, anyways... AB's by 18

 

[Sam Owen]

Ow all of you shet ep, anyways... AB's by 18

LOL..hey jakey you know theirs a thread on domestic violence on our forum?

You should right something on there...hehe.

Yep Im backing the blacks too brother.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Haha, just wait till the WUM's come out during the EOYT, then you'll face the full power of the whiners!

On a different note, I don't think I've ever seen so much *****ing sorrounding the Tri Nations...A lot seems to come from people with less than 20 posts, so that may explain it.

EOYT? :S

Still I love the moaners ... they get a pasting by NZ and think its the end of the world. Considering things Wales did ok against NZ. Some people posted how crap Wales were and its like watching the same.

The only problem I seem to have with NZ and the mo is when they know the game is won they take the foot off the pedal, if they did not would be very scary how many points they would / could score.

 

[smartcooky]

EOYT = End Of Year Tour

 

[Darwin]

Based on training, there could be a few changes in the Aussie backline, with Faingaa training at 12, AAC at 13, with Beale at 15. That would certainly give the Aussies a much more physical midfield.

 

[squirrel]

problem with the wallabies is that they try and reinvent the wheel with there rugby instead of sticking to the basics

 

[smartcooky]

Based on training, there could be a few changes in the Aussie backline, with Faingaa training at 12, AAC at 13, with Beale at 15. That would certainly give the Aussies a much more physical midfield.

The word I have heard from the "Village of the Damned" is that Cameron Shepherd has been training at fullback. Could that be as a backstop because of a possible injury, perhaps to Beale?

EDIT

Just checked my recording of the Reunion program last night. Apparently there is a nasty flu bug running through the team at the moment.

Here is what the Reunion team think the probable Wallabies starting line-up will be.



Note also Rob Simmons in to replace Dean Mumm.

 

[redeye]

Not at all. There is no such thing as a review committee. There is simply a Citing Commissioner. He has the sole say on whether a player is cited. However, because Mitchell received a red card, he cannot be cited (IRB Regulation 17.6.2)

Effectively, the referee has cited the player by the act of giving him a red card. (I promise you that the amount paperwork the referee needs to do when he issues a red card is huge; much more that just a yellow.)

Regardless of all this, the Citing Commissioner may step in an decide that a red carded player does not need to front the judiciary. This has always been the case when the player's red card was NOT a result of an act of foul play, but of receiving a second yellow card for a technical infringement.

If I was to continue with this debate you'd have cause to call me a pedant

From where I sit the original poster was more interested in Mitchell being further suspended rather than if it was a citing commissioner, review committee, or the high court. So to that end, an official, or group of officials still had to decide of Mitchell could play this week and I think that was the point he made.

Not trying to have it both ways at all. Perhaps I can break it down for you

1. He yellow carded Franks for "no arms in the tackle"
2. Kaplan reported Mitchell for "no arms in the tackle". Joubert didn't see it, but equity demands that he also issues a yellow card for that, based on what Kaplan told him.

However, IMO, had Joubert actually seen it for himself, he may not have thought it was worth a yellow, so he may have given just a penalty.

So in summary, it was a bloody soft yellow.

 

[smartcooky]

So in summary, it was a bloody soft yellow.

Yep, and I would say that the South African referee's website agrees with you on that.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2565340.htm

Actually I thought is was Kaplan who made the call, but I never actually saw him, only heard him talking to Joubert (all Saffa accents sound the same to me!)

 

[redeye]

Cheers for the link. I thought it was Kaplan as well. I might send him an apologetic email for all the abuse I've thrown his way.

 

[Sam Owen]

Cheers for the link. I thought it was Kaplan as well. I might send him an apologetic email for all the abuse I've thrown his way.

Dont bother they're reffs, when they signed up for the job it said on their contract 'expect hatred and abuse'. Poor guys lucky they're abuse tough.

 

[nickdnz]

Cheers for the link. I thought it was Kaplan as well. I might send him an apologetic email for all the abuse I've thrown his way.

Don't worry. He deserves plenty of abuse for every Hurricanes game he has ever officiated :lol: