Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.

[smartcooky]

smartcooky, if you don't mind, how do you reconcile what you've posted here (and in the Aus vs NZ thread) with this?
To keep it clean, i'll repost the relevant part here. Bolds and underlines are mine.




I'm no expert, but it looks as if things were crystal clear to you when it was an Argentine placing his hand over a New Zealander's eye area. It does seem now you are going to extreme lengths to justify what, just a year ago, was a no brainer and deserved little or no debate.
I can't help but wondering, what has changed?

That is perfectly reconcilable, and I still believe that. That is the risk you take, and if you do, you only have yourself to blame.

If Franks was cited and banned, the same applies. If he keeps his hands away from Douglas' opponents eyes,. that can't happen.

That doesn't mean I think it would have been right, I'm merely stating the facts of what will happen if you take the risk.

Put it thus way, if you climb a mountain and fall to your injury or death, you only have yourself to blame. That does not mean that climbing mountains is wrong

- - - Updated - - -

The video clearly shows Franks moving his hand from a legal position to the eye area on TWO seperate occasions! That alone is deemed dangerous enough based on what happened to Ashton and Francis. The first his fingers are all over the eye area and the second he makes a clear attempt to move his hand from the chest area and stuff it in the face of the Aussie. You say it's accidental, what the hell was his hand even doing there TWICE? It clearly didn't slip as both times he made a clear effort to remove his hand from where it already was legally and redirected it to the face. Let me reiterate, it happened TWICE. This was not a once off, he made TWO attempts and both times he went straight to the eye area. How on Earth can that be justified as unintentional? Even if we are being lenient, there is no way that he should have got away unpunished. What more do you need to count as a gouge? Do you literally need players ramming their fingers in like the Mountain before it is deemed a gouge?

And CLEARLY moved his hand/fingers/thumbs AWAY the moment he realised he was in contact with the players eye socket... I mean for fuck's sake what else do you want?

 

[smartcooky]

So I have two questions:

1. What is this "red card" threshold which SANZAR says needs to be passed in order for there to be a citing when a player makes a "reckless" at best contact with the eye area and this is what Franks at minimum does? Is it making contact with the eye area and putting pressure on it?

2. Why does world rugby's sanctions for foul play mention "contact with eye(s) or the eye area" and not specifically eye gouging or pressing or tearing the eye using the fingers?

If Garlarza did not eye gouge, then neither did Tom Francis http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35796218, but he was banned for 8 weeks for "appearing to make contact with the eye/eye area". Joubert penalises Francis for being reckless "for having his fingers close to or in the [Dan Cole's] eyes". So the Six Nations disciplinary committee then concluded that Francis's offence met this "red card" threshold?

You will have to direct those questions to WR or a Citing Commissioner.

From my perspective, I would not red card a player who made momentary contact with a players "eye-area" (as Franks did) so that is below my red card threshold, and from what I remember of the Ashton incident, I would not have red carded him either. (I haven't seen the Francis incident, or if I have I don't remember it). If, however, Franks had kept his thumb there and kept working the eye area then that would likely cause me to red card him. It would be a case of "I'll know it when I see it"!

If I were to take the view, as seems to be the predominant one here, that any and all contact with the eye area MUST be a red card or a citing, then to maintain the consistency you are demanding of the referees, I MUST red card any player who fends an opponent to the face, and any that I missed MUST be cited by the Citing Commissioner. This is what happens when you demand consistency wuthout understanding that these judgement are subjective.

If you don't believe its subjective, just look at this example...multiple people looking at exactly the same video footage and coming to polar opposite conclusions and opinions about it

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

So I have two questions:

1. What is this "red card" threshold which SANZAR says needs to be passed in order for there to be a citing when a player makes a "reckless" at best contact with the eye area and this is what Franks at minimum does? Is it making contact with the eye area and putting pressure on it?

2. Why does world rugby's sanctions for foul play mention "contact with eye(s) or the eye area" and not specifically eye gouging or pressing or tearing the eye using the fingers?

If Garlarza did not eye gouge, then neither did Tom Francis http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35796218, but he was banned for 8 weeks for "appearing to make contact with the eye/eye area". Joubert penalises Francis for being reckless "for having his fingers close to or in the [Dan Cole's] eyes". So the Six Nations disciplinary committee then concluded that Francis's offence met this "red card" threshold?

trust me, i was just at the World Rugby Level 2 officiating class and one of the key talking points was what does World Rugby want us do

we went through a hole bunch of incidences and three or four of them were the same but the punishment varied based off of who was the citing commissioner for that game

just a reminder that and correct me if I'm wrong @smartcoocky, that all disciplinarian officers also have to be lawyers: and they all like to have their own little spin on things

 

[Bada-Bing!]

You will have to direct those questions to WR or a Citing Commissioner.

From my perspective, I would not red card a player who made momentary contact with a players "eye-area" (as Franks did) so that is below my red card threshold, and from what I remember of the Ashton incident, I would not have red carded him either. (I haven't seen the Francis incident, or if I have I don't remember it). If, however, Franks had kept his thumb there and kept working the eye area then that would likely cause me to red card him. It would be a case of "I'll know it when I see it"!

If I were to take the view, as seems to be the predominant one here, that any and all contact with the eye area MUST be a red card or a citing, then to maintain the consistency you are demanding of the referees, I MUST red card any player who fends an opponent to the face, and any that I missed MUST be cited by the Citing Commissioner. This is what happens when you demand consistency wuthout understanding that these judgement are subjective.

If you don't believe its subjective, just look at this example...multiple people looking at exactly the same video footage and coming to polar opposite conclusions and opinions about it

https://youtu.be/RsrHRuyvhkM?t=3m46s




The above is link to the Francis incident (at approximately 3 mins 46 secs and onwards). It was in the BBC video link, but access to the videos maybe restricted outside of the UK. Francis had his eyes closed when he made contact with Cole's face/eyes and brushed Cole's eye area. Yet the Six Nations discipline committee deemed this to meet the red card threshold, yet SANZAR or the CC officer didn't think Franks did?

And yes, going by your logic if a player fends another player off and makes contact with the face and also the eye (s), then in accordance with the law (foul play - contact with the eye/eye area) and the head/eye area being sacrosanct. If not, then rewrite the guidance to be more specific and say "eye gouging" or "pressing/tearing the eyes using fingers", which would take the fending to the face and accidentally making contact with the eyes out of the equation. But by WR mentioning in their recommended sanctions "contact with the eye/eye area" and a Lower end of 12 weeks ban, which can be lowered by mitigating factors, suggests WR is trying to give a broader deterrence that the game does not tolerate any contact with the eye area.

 

[smartcooky]

just a reminder that and correct me if I'm wrong @smartcoocky, that all disciplinarian officers also have to be lawyers: and they all like to have their own little spin on things

yes, Judicial Officers are all lawyers and QCs such a Nigel Hampton QC (England) and Jannie Lubbe (South Africa)

However, Citing Commissioners are all former top level referees such as Dick Byers (Australia), Freek Burger (South Africa)

@The_Blindside

Francis was cited and banned for that!!? Ridiculous! Even in slow motion, its was a fleeting touch at best, and he could not possibly have known exactly where his hands were.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

yes, Judicial Officers are all lawyers and QCs such a Nigel Hampton QC (England) and Jannie Lubbe (South Africa)

However, Citing Commissioners are all former top level referees such as Dick Byers (Australia), Freek Burger (South Africa)

@The_Blindside

Francis was cited and banned for that!!? Ridiculous! Even in slow motion, its was a fleeting touch at best, and he could not possibly have known exactly where his hands were.

Thanks

 

[The Jones Boy]

As a true blue born and bred Kiwi who loves his All Blacks my take on it is this...

Franks SHOULD have been cited.
Anyone going for the face should be cited.
Leave the face/head alone.
Players can scrag the collar or pin an arm and drag it away but keep ALL players away from the face and head.
It's not a streetfight it's rugby and there's no need for that kind of filth.
If it needs a new law give it one and lay it down like a blanket across every level of rugby.
I love watching hard tackles and seeing bodies hitting the ruck, but this face massage nonsense has no place in rugby.
The Argie boy got what he deserved in the RWC and Franks didn't in the RC.
It's not right.
Sure his opponent is fine and the media has moved on but it shows there is a need to clean up this area of the game with a more accurate ruling.

If you're messing about with an opponents face like Franks was, then you should give up a penalty, get a yellow card and a citing, game moves on and the players know where they stand.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

And CLEARLY moved his hand/fingers/thumbs AWAY the moment he realised he was in contact with the players eye socket... I mean for fuck's sake what else do you want?

And then clearly jammed then straight back in afterwards! What do I want? For him to have not intentionally put his figners right over another players eyes. Hell he was looking where he was putting his fingers the second time and KEPT THEM THERE! He only took the away because the ref was shouting at him to do so. I think the actual question is "for ****s sake" what will it take for YOU to admit it was a citeable offense? Are we looking at needing mountainesque full on thrusting the thumbs right into the eyeballs before you deem it a citeable offense? I've had someone who lightly slapped the side of my head and his finger went round and hit my eye, it was watering so hard after that I couldn't see out of it for the next 5 minutes.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

And then clearly jammed then straight back in afterwards! What do I want? For him to have not intentionally put his figners right over another players eyes. Hell he was looking where he was putting his fingers the second time and KEPT THEM THERE! He only took the away because the ref was shouting at him to do so. I think the actual question is "for ****s sake" what will it take for YOU to admit it was a citeable offense? Are we looking at needing mountainesque full on thrusting the thumbs right into the eyeballs before you deem it a citeable offense? I've had someone who lightly slapped the side of my head and his finger went round and hit my eye, it was watering so hard after that I couldn't see out of it for the next 5 minutes.

should it be cite-able? yes.
is it an automatic citation under current world rugby regulations? no. in fact it is not even explicitly forbidden

 

[Peat]

And CLEARLY moved his hand/fingers/thumbs AWAY the moment he realised he was in contact with the players eye socket... I mean for fuck's sake what else do you want?

Never make contact to begin with. The consistent sanction in recent years for what he's done has been a ban.

 

[Kempistry]

The mentality seems to be to heavily penalize and go strictly by the letter of the law when it comes to players from certain countries. With other countries they seem to consider extenuating circumstances, mitigating factors, the player being a "good guy", impact on future games etc. So yes the rules are being applied with great inconsistency. I don't think you need lawyers or high level referees to be consistent, you need will power. The difference is absolutely massive! One player gets 9 games. 9 Games!!! The other gets nothing. For what was essentially the same infraction.

I also hate to say this, but the refereeing has been horribly biased in favour of the All Blacks recently, the last game being an egregious example. I don't think it is a conspiracy or anything, I think the refs have just internalized the feeling that "oh it's the all blacks, must be legal or a good play" and have taken the opposite approach to their opposition. It isn't even in the All Blacks favour for this to be the case as they will go from universally beloved to derided.

 

[Brigantine]

I also hate to say this, but the refereeing has been horribly biased in favour of the All Blacks recently

Yeah, You could see that in the Wales tour. Barnes letting the ABs get away with umpteen forward passes, even though what he gets remembered for is *one* instance where he wrongly ruled a pass forward after even the TMO said it was legal.

 

[ncurd]

So we have laws, those laws don't have a clear definition of what level although as pointed out in the other thread contact to the eye area is a citable offence.

However much like real life laws precedenice has been set of what the punishment is for these for offences through the Ashton and the Francis incidents. Franks incident is clear on or part or worse than those. So by the precedent set in enforcement of those laws Franks should of been cited.

Just because nothing has been had down by world rugby does not mean it is open for interpretation as the precedence has already been set. In turn it's exactly because nothing has been handed down to contradict the original interpretations that Franks should of been cited.

Anything else is an excuse to let Poite and the citing commissioner get away with inconsistent application of the laws as they had previously been interpreted.

 

[smartcooky]

And then clearly jammed then straight back in afterwards!

Oh dear, I despair! You really haven't looked at the video very carefully have you? Note that Franks starts with his arm OVER Douglas' shoulder and then moves to position his arm UNDER Douglas' shoulder.

The head-on view where you see Franks immediately removing his thumb from Douglas' eye area is AFTER he went back, not before. Your statement that he "jammed them straight back in afterwards" is at best an error, and at worst, a lie (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are just in error.... at the moment)

Yes, it should have been a penalty
Yes, it might have even been a yellow card infringement... I think players should not be playing opponent's heads at all.
But the Citing Commissioner will have seen the whole footage from the front on view (which by the way, is very close to the view that Poite had).

BOTH officials have determine that Franks' actions did not meet the red card threshold.... and I agree with that determination.

 

[Larksea]

I think Franks was stupid to have his hand there but it wasn't a gouge. As Ive said in the end the fact that the ref saw it happen, told franks to stop and he stopped. Plus the fact that the Aussies didn't log a complaint about it probably saved him though he should consider himself lucky.

On the Galarza incident which this is being compared to. While I think the sentence was a bit harsh I think this was worse than Franks. He did kinda fishhook the eye socket and gave a quick pull back which is obviously more than what Franks did and I think had more potential to actually do harm. While the fingers were across the eye rather than in the eye and that was what prevented it from being serious, it was still worse than what franks did though still mostly stupid than dangerous.

Again people seem to be ignoring what I think is the major difference between the incidents. One happened in the world cup and the other didn't. Like it or not, personally I strongly disagree with this trend but things that happen in a world cups (least 2007 on), always seemed to be more carefully judged and result in harsher sentences, disregard the final where refs get completely whistle shy. But generally on field things that would be penalties become yellow cards and stuff that mite usually be a yellow card start becoming Red Cards and when something gets put to review it tends to get more attention and harsher sentencing. Its pretty clear that the IRB feel during a WC its more than just the rugby community watching its the major sporting event in the world behind the Olympics and football world cup and the whole world is watching, the spotlight is on Rugby. The teams get put on warning for discipline. The IRB want to see clean games and they throw the book at players that cross the line.

In general I think all the talk of the AB's getting special treatment is utter petty BS. Just like all teams some days we get the rub of the green and others we don't. In general they are a disciplined team. Aussie bought the ****le to this game and pretty much got away with all of it, you could say they were smart and pretty much played it to the limit. Where Coles got a yellow card for a basically nothing swinging arm and the spotlight this week has all been on franks rather than the Aussie players who turned the game into a handbag fest. I'm sure a lot of crap went down in this game unspotted which is a lot worse than anything we are ranting about.

Strictly from an All Black supporter perspective and armchair coach I hope the AB's learn from this game. Coles has come a long way he used to be super hot headed, over time his discipline has improved but he is still clearly susceptible to being riled up by opposition teams, and to a lesser extent Maybe Owen Franks is in the same category. Outside of the Scrums which were a complete and utter mess, which I believe was part of the Aussies gameplan. Franks had one of his best tests ever, he was all over the place and his defense was crunching. For the most part he did what he needed to and met the Aussie ****le and aggression with force on or over that advantage line in the form of crunching legal tackles. His indecent was unnecessary and I hope behind the scenes they discuss what went on and re-establish some boundaries. With the dominance the AB's have many teams are going start baiting the AB's into mistakes for yellow and red cards, I think as we have already seen this season and even looking back at the WC the only time many teams are able to score tries against the AB's is when they have a numbers advantage via the sin bin. So its obvious that in big games teams will bait the AB's into those situations like the Aussies did in this game, and you would have to say they were successful. AB's need to be better prepared for those situations, I think Read, Same Cane, Coles & Ben Smith, Aaron Smith could have done a lot better here. They are the leadership group, the guys that do the talking. Read the game and opposition tactics control the situation so the next teams that try it are not so successful with these tactics.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Oh dear, I despair! You really haven't looked at the video very carefully have you? Note that Franks starts with his arm OVER Douglas' shoulder and then moves to position his arm UNDER Douglas' shoulder.

The head-on view where you see Franks immediately removing his thumb from Douglas' eye area is AFTER he went back, not before. Your statement that he "jammed them straight back in afterwards" is at best an error, and at worst, a lie (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are just in error.... at the moment)

Yes, it should have been a penalty
Yes, it might have even been a yellow card infringement... I think players should not be playing opponent's heads at all.
But the Citing Commissioner will have seen the whole footage from the front on view (which by the way, is very close to the view that Poite had).

BOTH officials have determine that Franks' actions did not meet the red card threshold.... and I agree with that determination.

I despair, I have shown clearly that Franks on 2 distinct occassions takes his hands from a legal position and the moves them DIRECTLY to the eyes of the Aussie player. How can you defend this? It's not a one off mistake, he was being told to stop when he was doing it the first time whilst his arm was coming over the Aussies shoulder and yet when his had is under, we see him doing it again. Why do you keep saying "the citing commissioners say it's fine therefore it's fine"? It isn't fine, we have a very serious discrepency between how Franks is treated for putting his fingers directly in the eye area on 2 distinct occasions and how Ashton and Francis were treated. Quite frankly your defence of Franks is bording on ridiculous and I suspect you cannot see past your own bias.

 

[smartcooky]

In general I think all the talk of the AB's getting special treatment is utter petty BS

It certainly is BS... mostly conspiracy theory stuff generated by certain wankers in the British media... we all know who they are.

If the All Blacks are getting special treatment, the statistics certainly do not bear that out. In the last 12 matches going back 12 months to the beginning of the 2015 RWC, these are the stats for penalties & free kicks awarded / yellow cards given

v Australia 2nd test...16 - 14 / 0 - 1
v Australia 1st test.....9 - 10 / 1 - 0
v Wales 3rd test.........6 - 11 / 1 - 0
v Wales 2nd Test........6 - 12 / 0 - 0
v Wales 1st test.........7 - 11 / 0 - 0
v Australia RWC..........7 - 11 / 1 - 0
v South Africa RWC.....6 - 14 / 1 - 1
v France RWC............5 - 10 / 0 - 1
v Tonga RWC..............7 - 11 / 1 - 1
v Georgia RWC............14 - 9 / 0 - 0
v Namibia RWC. ......... 14 - 8 / 0 - 1
v Argentina RWC.........13 - 10 / 2 -0

All Blacks penalised 131 times (average 11)
Opponents penalised 110 times (average 9)

All Blacks yellow carded 7 times (so much for our alleged cloak of invisibility)
Opponents yellow carded 5 times

The stats actually show that, if anything, referees are overall slightly harder on NZ that on their opponents. Of course, such stats will be ignored and declared inapplicable or irrelevant by those with agendas.

 

[smartcooky]

I despair, I have shown clearly that Franks on 2 distinct occassions takes his hands from a legal position and the moves them DIRECTLY to the eyes of the Aussie player.

You have video evidence of these "2 distinct occasions", I mean the head on view not the side on views that we have seen, are unclear.

If you have this evidence, show it!!

How can you defend this?

You think I am defending Franks? You missed this bit then, didn't you...

Yes, it should have been a penalty
Yes, it might have even been a yellow card infringement... I think players should not be playing opponent's heads at all.

What I have tried drum into you, so far unsuccessfully, is that NOT EVERY ACT OF FOUL PLAY IS A CITING. Not only that, but WR Regulations do not work on a system of legal precedence the way the Law does, i.e. just because other players (Ashton et al) have been cited for an act that might, superficially, appear similar, it does not necessarily follow that this player must also be cited. Every citing assessment is unique, and is treated individually on its own merits. A player is cited (or not) based solely on what they actually did on the occasion in question. The Citing Commissioner does not consider anything that the player in question might even have done previously, let alone what another player might have done in another match at another time!!!!!

In this case, the Citing Commissioner has seen the ALL of the video evidence and has made his determination based ALL of the evidence available to him, and after seeing ALL of the video evidence, he has determined that what Franks did (while it was very likely to have been illegal foul play) DID NOT MEET HIS CRITERIA FOR A RED CARD

You, ragerancher, on the other hand, are making your determination base on a fraction of the evidence, i.e. you haven seen everything that the CC has seen!!!

I honestly don't know how I can make this easier for you to understand.

 

[ncurd]

What I have tried drum into you, so far unsuccessfully, is that NOT EVERY ACT OF FOUL PLAY IS A CITING. Not only that, but WR Regulations do not work on a system of legal precedence the way the Law does, i.e. just because other players (Ashton et al) have been cited for an act that might, superficially, appear similar, it does not necessarily follow that this player must also be cited. Every citing assessment is unique, and is treated individually on its own merits. A player is cited (or not) based solely on what they actually did on the occasion in question. The Citing Commissioner does not consider anything that the player in question might even have done previously, let alone what another player might have done in another match at another time!!!!!

In which case your defending a **** system that allows players to be inconsistently punished for similar offences. It's right the citing commissioner should not consider what the player has done previously. But what you are suggesting is he should willfully ignore how others have interpreted the law. How are we going to ever have some level of consistency in aplication if that's the case?

Your also conveniently forgetting in the original thread you said multiples times Franks should of been cited.

- - - Updated - - -

And Smartcooky you can keep saying the bit of citing commissioner has seen all the angles toy your blue in the face. But your ignoring the fact we understand that but disagree with it with the angles we have seen. And don't just take it on blind faith that he's right.

- - - Updated - - -

Also those stats don't show anything.....they show its about even on offences given. Nothing overhauling either way.

What has to be done is work out the amounts of times a team should of been penalised and were not. And the amount of a times a team was penalised and should not. Where on the field were those decushions made.and what for?

I don't think NZ do get away with it more than most teams (although seen a few bonkers decisions in those gamws) but let's try to post some semblance of proving it one way or another. People like to post stats here without and regard to actual analysis. Like Barnes loosing ones last year.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What I don't get is the focus of player safety and the manner in which certain incidents are placed under more scrutiny than other incidents.

For instance, we have seen how players got on-field red cards for taking out the player in the air, even though they slipped or whatever else the reason might have been. In most of those occasions there is a general consensus that the correct procedure was followed and that the correct outcome was reached, and that this is a way to promote player safety.

Now I'm no medical expert, but according to me, the face and the spine are 2 key areas that must be the focus of player safety. But at the moment it seems like the focus is more on Concussion and Spinal injuries. But surely a player's eyes should be another priority, without sight, how can you play rugby???

Now before cooky goes off on me, let me state that my query is purely on the focus of player safety, and nothing about whether Franks, Galarza, Schalk Burger or whoever else have been found guilty or innocent of eye gouging. Surely the focus from WR should be that players should stray away from other player's faces with specific focus of the eye area?? Whether there was deliberate contact with the eyes, or not at all, shouldn't the sanction have a guideline to follow?