Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.

[smartcooky]

Stop using the argument from authority. Senior officials make wrong decisions all the time so stop using the fact they didn't think it was as an actual argument, it isn't. You keep saying it doesn't pass your red card test yet have not explained just what the threshold is, despite being asked numerous times. Until you are willing to define the threshold, stop saying it doesn't pass it.

I'm not using a "Argument from Authority", I am simply saying that I agree with the officials who made the decision!!! Whether they were actually right or wrong is not for me to say (and it not for you to say either), but it is my opinion that they were right.

De jure there may not be but de facto there really is...

De Jure is everything
De Facto is nothing

So for the umpteenth time, what IS serious enough? If repeatedly pushing your hands into a players eye area isn't sufficient then what is? So we need thumbs in eye sockets trying to burst the eyeballs or something?

Seems to me that you are looking for a black and white, "one size fits all" written explanation of the line between a red card and no red card. If so, then you are going to be bitterly disappointed because no such line exists and no referee in the world is going to be able to give it to you. Decisions like that are far too subjective to be able to give a clear definition.

From my own perspective, (and in the absence of a written directive from World Rugby or my own adjudicating body) when I see an act of dangerous play I often try to determine if there is either negligence, recklessness or intent to injure involved.

If there is just negligence, then I would tend towards penalty only
If there is recklessness, I would tend towards yellow
If there is intent to injure, then red is the most likely outcome

Now, while this my standard, and I am sticking to it., its only a rule of thumb, not hard and fast. There would be occasions where negligent might still draw a card because the act was serious enough.

In recent times, WR has issued directives that intent is not to be considered a factor in certain situations... they are punching, tip tackles and playing the opponent in the air (that last one I personally disagree with, but would carry it out as instructed)

Ask any referee to tell you where they draw the red card line and they will give an answer resembling "I'll know it when I see it"

In the case of Franks' actions, I see negligence, and some recklessness but absolutely no intent to injure, so I would likely be pulling out the yellow card, and definitely not the red card.

One of those still frames was taken by me from the video so way to try to dismiss something by claiming author bias rather than the image itself.

Well, I think you have an agenda here, so I stand I by what I said

It is clear you are going to deny deny deny until it is put right in your face as much as Franks fingers so I'm going to just compile a series of key images from the video and see how you dismiss them.

I'm not denying, I'm just telling you how I see it because you asked.

And for the record, I would not have red carded Ashton or Francis. Ashton I would have penalised plus a verbal warning to watch where he puts his hands, and if the video I saw of Francis earlier on is all he did, well, that wasn't even a penalty in my book.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Hold on Cooky, while I get your point of view here, and I understand what you are saying and that it is your perspective and how you would penalise a player, we have to address the topic of intent.

Throughout this whole year, nearly every debate regarding penalties, yellow and red cards, the subject of intent was used. But on every occasion, you mentioned that intent is not a principle that is looked at when issuing the cards or penalty. For example, the Leolin Zas red card incident, where he slipped and connected the Waratahs player (think it was Folau) in the air, and got a straight red card. There was no intent, yet the threshold of a red card offence was there and he got punished.

Intent is a de jure principle, and not a de facto principle, yet it isn't used correctly.

 

[smartcooky]

Hold on Cooky, while I get your point of view here, and I understand what you are saying and that it is your perspective and how you would penalise a player, we have to address the topic of intent.

Throughout this whole year, nearly every debate regarding penalties, yellow and red cards, the subject of intent was used. But on every occasion, you mentioned that intent is not a principle that is looked at when issuing the cards or penalty. For example, the Leolin Zas red card incident, where he slipped and connected the Waratahs player (think it was Folau) in the air, and got a straight red card. There was no intent, yet the threshold of a red card offence was there and he got punished.

Intent is a de jure principle, and not a de facto principle, yet it isn't used correctly.

Heineken, you must have missed seeing this bit in my post...

In recent times, WR has issued directives that intent is not to be considered a factor in certain situations... they are punching, tip tackles and playing the opponent in the air (that last one I personally disagree with, but would carry it out as instructed)

These three specific acts of dangerous play are subject to directives from WR regarding how they are to be managed. Part of those directives are that intent is not to be considered, and they are the only acts of dangerous play that are subject to such restrictions. For all other acts of foul play, such as high tackles, late and early tackles, playing an opponent without the ball, hands in the eye area, dangerous charging etc, intent is allowed to be considered.

There is also a distinct difference between intent to commit an infringement and intent to injure an opponent. For example, bag snatching or biting an opponent is always intent to injure.

 

[Shaggy]

First, the thing was, in practice, that is how it already worked. Written or not, we all knew hands near the eye area = citation and ban for a couple of weeks. Why did we know this? Because
1) The rules hinted it
2) The ref, citing commissioners, Sanzaar, WR, the lot, applied it that way.

Second, if what you say is the case, then the question becomes why are you (not you, but a lot of your countrymen) talking about it now, that if could have potentially affected a NZ player, and not when it affected players wearing non-new zealand jerseys. It looks just a tad too convenient.
If you are to question the rules, doing so when it just happens to conveniently favour you, makes you look biased, even hypocritical.

When the Galarza incident occurred, the overwhelming majority of nzers here (bar austingtir) just said something along the lines of "rules are rules, end of". Now that if could have affected them we're seeing a disproportionate amount of them finding excuses under the rocks.
I am looking for consistency and i sincerely cannot find it.

Nope, foul play and reckless play are just that, regardless of what colour jersey the player is wearing.

I have repeatedly stated this over the years on here, as it's an area of the game that needs to be taken out of our game.

I think I've been pretty clear that I think Franks should have been cited, and the process should have been gone through, even if he was ultimately found to be not guilty.

As for consistency, this also frustrates me, which is why I am in favour of the "thou must do" written rules, when it comes to officiating on incidents, and the "you will have this penalty applied" if you are found guilty.

Unwritten rules leave to much room for inconsistency IMO

I am also against trial by media, as I don't find slow motion shots accompanied by sinister music conducive to a fair outcome.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Heineken, you must have missed seeing this bit in my post...




These three specific acts of dangerous play are subject to directives from WR regarding how they are to be managed. Part of those directives are that intent is not to be considered, and they are the only acts of dangerous play that are subject to such restrictions. For all other acts of foul play, such as high tackles, late and early tackles, playing an opponent without the ball, hands in the eye area, dangerous charging etc, intent is allowed to be considered.

There is also a distinct difference between intent to commit an infringement and intent to injure an opponent. For example, bag snatching or biting an opponent is always intent to injure.

Yeah sorry, I missed that part.

But nonetheless, It's pretty convenient that intent is used only on certain matters. When other incidents should have the intent principle included. And here we can use the example of making contact with the face. When a player hands-off his opponent and touches his face, the intent was there to prevent the opponent from making a tackle, and not to injure the face, eyes or mouth. But then you get matters where a player uses his elbow and want to intentionally injure the player in the face. As for Franks' incident, I agree with you, it didn't seem to me like he wanted to intentionally touch the opponent's eyes, and also intentionally gouge the opponent.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah sorry, I missed that part.

But nonetheless, It's pretty convenient that intent is used only on certain matters. When other incidents should have the intent principle included. And here we can use the example of making contact with the face.

I have no problem in general with the idea of dismissing intent as a consideration for certain types of infringement, for example tip-tackles, where the player may not intend tip the opponent upside down, but nonetheless, puts the opponent in a very dangerous position resulting in the tip happening. However, I strenuously object to the same logic being applied to playing the opponent in the air. I felt real sorry for that Scots player who was involved in the incident when Dan Biggar got tipped over. The Scots player was almost stationary under a ball coming down when Biggar, who IMO acted with reckless disregard for the safety of everyone around him by sprinting in, jumping from a distance, arrived feet first and clattered the Scots player.. and the Scot got red carded for not getting out of his way.

The reason why I see them as different is a that in a tip tackle the player, in knowingly putting his opponent into a dangerous position, is taking the premeditated action of lifting that he knows can result in danger to the opponent. However, in the "playing the opponent in the air" situation, either a split second misjudgement or a decision to do nothing can result in a player being red carded. Grossly unfair IMO, when in most cases, it is the opponent who has taken the premeditated action and put himself in danger.

When a player hands-off his opponent and touches his face, the intent was there to prevent the opponent from making a tackle, and not to injure the face, eyes or mouth. But then you get matters where a player uses his elbow and want to intentionally injure the player in the face. As for Franks' incident, I agree with you, it didn't seem to me like he wanted to intentionally touch the opponent's eyes, and also intentionally gouge the opponent.

100%.

Its a pity that some can't see past their anti-kiwi bias and realise that.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Franks should have been cited and any real Kiwi would agree that what he did was wrong.
He's a champion player, he doesn't need to indulge that side of his nature and he's damn lucky to get off the hook.
Furthermore the face massage nonsense has no place in rugby and the sooner the law makers send the message to the referee the sooner they can send it to the players with a penalty a yellow card and a citing.
Player safety is key but more than that, the folks watching at home with their kids need to see that their offspring, who may be on the brink of a rugby career, will be protected by the referees and the laws of the game.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

100%.

Its a pity that some can't see past their anti-kiwi bias and realise that.

It's about CONSISTENCY not anti Kiwi bias. We would be be highlighting this regardless of which nation was involved. Whether it is the Huget stamping incident pre RWC which was not even cited or Horwill regaining his balance on AWJ's head in the last Lions series.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Its a pity that some can't see past their anti-kiwi bias and realise that.

Wow, just wow.

I generally read your posts avidly and have learned a few things from them. You've amicably helped me when i had a question and i don't forget that. I appreciated that and am still grateful.

It is precisely because of that that it saddens me to see how you are now not even aware of the level of bias, stubbornness and arrogance your posts carry lately. It's as if in your book whoever disagrees with you either has reading comprehension problems, is an idiot or is part some sort of anti new zealand masonic cult.

 

[smartcooky]

Wow, just wow.

I generally read your posts avidly and have learned a few things from them. You've amicably helped me when i had a question and i don't forget that. I appreciated that and am still grateful.

It is precisely because of that that it saddens me to see how you are now not even aware of the level of bias, stubbornness and arrogance your posts carry lately. It's as if in your book whoever disagrees with you either has reading comprehension problems, is an idiot or is part some sort of anti new zealand masonic cult.

There is no bias in what I am saying, I am just calling it how I see it.

It would not matter who did what Franks did and which country they came from, I would penalise them, or perhaps yellow card them but not red card them. I can't help that I think his actions did not meet my red card threshold, and in both the examples that have been pointed out as showing inconsistency (Ashton & Francis) I have made it very clear that I don't believe they should have been cited as neither of the players' actions met my red card threshold either.

As for the comprehension complaint, well its pretty obvious (to me at least) when I read certain peoples posts that they have not read or understood certain FACTS that I have posted.. for example, one poster had to be told several times that Citing Officers do not punish players, and that citing is not a punishment. This is not my opinion, it is a FACT. If, after stating this fact several times, posters still try to say that the Citing Commissioner should have punished Franks, I can only come to the conclusion that they (willfully or otherwise) are not comprehending what I wrote.

It's about CONSISTENCY not anti Kiwi bias. We would be be highlighting this regardless of which nation was involved. Whether it is the Huget stamping incident pre RWC which was not even cited or Horwill regaining his balance on AWJ's head in the last Lions series.

100% agree that consistency is the big issue here, it just that we disagree on where the consistency should lie.

IMO, the lack of consistency lies in the fact that Ashton and Francis were cited and banned when they should NOT have been, not that Franks was not cited when he should have been. Much as I dislike Ashton, I think he was hard done by and treated very harshly, and the Francis one was just a joke, there was no more than incidental/accidental contact. Someone must really have had a burr up his arse to cite him for that.

For mine consistency means always coming to the correct decision; it does NOT mean always doing to the next player what you did to the earlier player if what was done to the earlier player was wrong in the first place..... two wrongs and all that!

 

[Bada-Bing!]

100% agree that consistency is the big issue here, it just that we disagree on where the consistency should lie.

IMO, the lack of consistency lies in the fact that Ashton and Francis were cited and banned when they should NOT have been, not that Franks was not cited when he should have been. Much as I dislike Ashton, I think he was hard done by and treated very harshly, and the Francis one was just a joke, there was no more than incidental/accidental contact. Someone must really have had a burr up his arse to cite him for that.

For mine consistency means always coming to the correct decision; it does NOT mean always doing to the next player what you did to the earlier player if what was done to the earlier player was wrong in the first place..... two wrongs and all that!

Then this as we agree is World Rugby's issue by not issuing a directive and the red card threshold not clearly defined for a citing. But it is not an issue raised because of some Anti Kiwi bias, which you have alluded to in your posts. It just so happens this incident happened to an All Blacks player. IMO had he been French, Australian, English or Welsh player who grappled the face and made contact with the eye(s) and not been cited there would still be an issue raised regarding inconsistent application of not citing a player for contact with the eyes and finding out why.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Smartcooky to say you have no bias and just see it how it is whilst accusing everyone else of bias is laughable, get off your bloody high horse. Ever consider how you are seeing it might be wrong? Nope, instead you wail everyone is biased against the Kiwis, everyone is an idiot except you and you are the sole decider of what is or isn't wrong.

 

[TheOvalBall]

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.

Yes, no amount of hands should be anywhere near the face.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

There is no bias in what I am saying, I am just calling it how I see it.

So, when other people speak their mind, they are biased anti-kiwi conspirators, but when you speak yours, you are just calling it how it is and there is no bias whatsoever. Got it.

I stand correct. You are not only biased but it is simply mind boggling the lack of self awareness you've displayed on this thread.

 

[smartcooky]

Smartcooky to say you have no bias and just see it how it is whilst accusing everyone else of bias is laughable, get off your bloody high horse. Ever consider how you are seeing it might be wrong? Nope, instead you wail everyone is biased against the Kiwis, everyone is an idiot except you and you are the sole decider of what is or isn't wrong.

Well if I'm wrong then so is everyone else who agrees with me, including the referee and the citing commissioner. The difference is that their opinions count, yours and mine and everyone else's don't so if you have an issue with that, I suggest you address it to them. You can contact Freek Burger at SAReferees.com. I suggest you ask a question of the Duty Ref - link here

http://www.sareferees.com/news/duty-ref/

As for anti kiwi bias, your record on that count is well known to other Kiwi posters.

 

[smartcooky]

So, when other people speak their mind, they are biased anti-kiwi conspirators

No, only a small number of posters - they know who they are

but when you speak yours, you are just calling it how it is

No, I am calling it how I SEE IT, which is not necessarily how it is, I could be wrong

there is no bias whatsoever.

Not at my end, no.

I stand correct. You are not only biased but it is simply mind boggling the lack of self awareness you've displayed on this thread.

That might be your take. If so, you then you have sadly misjudged me

I am simply telling you what I see and how I see it, but it seems, I am not allowed an opinion if it doesn't coincide with the majority... if that is the case, then so be it. I don't give a rats backside to be honest.

I call things how I see them.
I have ALWAYS called things how I have seen them.
I will CONTINUE calling things how I see them.

If that rubs people up the wrong way, that is their problem

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane".
Marcus Aurelius

 

[Larksea]

I think that the sanctions should be reviewed. correct me if I'm wrong but if someone gets pulled up for contact around the face/eyes its a minimum 10-12 weeks?

what franks did was silly but not malicious or dangerous, if there was a lower grade or more flexibility in sentences that would give them more power to hand out more realistic bans. Players shouldn't be playing the head and face of opposition players but maybe there needs to be more flexibility so they can deal with incidents like this?

I look at the Argentinian case and think while it was worse than what franks did 10-12 weeks/games or what ever he got was harsh. 5-6 more like it. And with franks 10+weeks is crazy, if they had an option to give him 3-4 weeks then that would maybe fit the crime.

that may have been the thinking for him not being sighted. You would think/hope that at least behind the scenes franks is told if he is picked up doing anything like that in future it will get sited.

 

[Shaggy]

I think that the sanctions should be reviewed. correct me if I'm wrong but if someone gets pulled up for contact around the face/eyes its a minimum 10-12 weeks?

what franks did was silly but not malicious or dangerous, if there was a lower grade or more flexibility in sentences that would give them more power to hand out more realistic bans. Players shouldn't be playing the head and face of opposition players but maybe there needs to be more flexibility so they can deal with incidents like this?

I look at the Argentinian case and think while it was worse than what franks did 10-12 weeks/games or what ever he got was harsh. 5-6 more like it. And with franks 10+weeks is crazy, if they had an option to give him 3-4 weeks then that would maybe fit the crime.

that may have been the thinking for him not being sighted. You would think/hope that at least behind the scenes franks is told if he is picked up doing anything like that in future it will get sited.

To be honest, I'm a fan of the big stick approach ... if someone's eye is permanently damaged, it doesn't really matter if it was malicious, intentional, reckless, or accidental. The only way I can see this being prevented is to have a consistent penalty applied, so that players are discouraged to go for the head, and they get this aspect trained out of their game.

The only exception should be if a player puts their head/eyes in the other players fingers

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

If so, you then you have sadly misjudged me

This is perfect example. You are always right. Whoever disagrees with you is wrong, by (your) definition. They are wrong, they misjudge you, they misinterpret you, they misread you, the don't understand you and/or they-just-don't-get-it.
Where do i get a copy to the gospel of smarkcooky?
It's never "i might have not expressed myself eloquently enough" or "maybe i could have phrased things differently", "i disagree but i see your point" or, god forbid "i was wrong". With you, it is, consistently "i am right and all you lot are all wrong".
I can't help but wondering what are you doing discussing things with us mere mortals down on planet earth.

I call things how I see them.
I have ALWAYS called things how I have seen them.

You don't get it.
Let me as clear as i can be: maybe, your sight might ain't as good as you think and your logic not as sound as you believe it is. Just maybe.

I will CONTINUE calling things how I see them.

So will i, among many. The difference is i won't start calling out conspiracy theories on anyone and everyone who disagrees.

I get why Peat closed the other thread.
All of you lot, my bad, apologies.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Well if I'm wrong then so is everyone else who agrees with me, including the referee and the citing commissioner. The difference is that their opinions count, yours and mine and everyone else's don't so if you have an issue with that, I suggest you address it to them. You can contact Freek Burger at SAReferees.com. I suggest you ask a question of the Duty Ref - link here

http://www.sareferees.com/news/duty-ref/

As for anti kiwi bias, your record on that count is well known to other Kiwi posters.

isn't the point of discussion forums is to have this conversation about whether those in power got the situation right

we can't just go through life without challenging the positions and choices of those with power

in many cases it is that the referee and citing officers have gotten wrong and they will continue to get it wrong unless their is feedback telling them they are doing a **** job