Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.

[smartcooky]

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

The answer would be relatively simple. Make playing of the opponent above the line of the shoulder illegal AND ENFORCE IT!!

Currently, the Law doesn't specifically say that playing an opponents head is illegal unless its a tackle.

[TEXTAREA](e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.
A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A 'stiff-arm tackle' is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiffarm to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle or play an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

I would make a few changes

[TEXTAREA](e) Dangerous contact. A player must not tackle or play an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) or play (or try to play) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if first contact starts below the line of the shoulders.
A tackle around or contact with the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A 'stiff-arm tackle' is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiffarm
to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle or play an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]


I would apply this to hand-offs as well. Currently, in Junior rugby, we do not allow hand-offs to the face. All hand-offs must be below the neck, i.e, the chest or below or the top of the shoulders. I would extend this to rugby at all levels.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Correct, and IMO, they got it wrong in the case of Ashton and Francis, and got it right in the case of Franks.

 

[Shaggy]

The answer would be relatively simple. Make playing of the opponent above the line of the shoulder illegal AND ENFORCE IT!!

Currently, the Law doesn't specifically say that playing an opponents head is illegal unless its a tackle.

[TEXTAREA](e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.
A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A 'stiff-arm tackle' is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiffarm to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle or play an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

I would make a few changes

[TEXTAREA](e) Dangerous contact. A player must not tackle or play an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) or play (or try to play) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if first contact starts below the line of the shoulders.
A tackle around or contact with the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A 'stiff-arm tackle' is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiffarm
to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle or play an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

- - - Updated - - -




Correct, and IMO, they got it wrong in the case of Ashton and Francis, and got it right in the case of Franks.

Ding Ding!!! I believe this is post # 3,000 for me ... It's only taken just over 6 years to get here

... anyway, yes, I agree that it's a relatively easy fix, but I'm not sure we can afford to take the Rachel Hunter approach to it, ie, "it won't happen over night, but it will happen"

Urgency is always needed when it comes to rule changes that effect player safety

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

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.

Again with the argument from authority. Oh my anti-kiwi bias, well thanks for telling me I have that bias, I wouldn't have known otherwise. Or maybe this is the usual Smartcooky saying it how YOU see things with little regard for the opinions of others and if your views match reality or not? You're not exactly in a position to be talking about bias when it comes to the kiwis.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Bias or not, Smartcooky has always had the best intentions to educate us all on this forum and the laws of rugby, and as a retired referee, he knows a bit more than we do. We might not always agree with him, his views, his fanaticism towards the All Blacks, but I commend him for his passion to the game and to the laws of rugby and how it is impemented.

We will all agree on one thing, there is a problem, and it has to be addressed otherwise we will continue to disagree and never find solace.

I don't see the point in arguing over this topic anymore as there is nothing more we as fans can do regarding this incident of Franks. As Cooky mentioned, we can perhaps take the matter to Freek Burger (who does respond when you lodge a query on the website) and let the people who can actually do something to change the current laws and implementation thereof.

Let's all move on and call it a day.

 

[Immenso]

Is Franks under so much more scrutiny because he was closer the camera? Compared to Coleman's facial.
Or is there a lack of consistency ? (God, forbid)



http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/...pg&width=650&api_key=kq7wnrk4eun47vz9c5xuj3mc

 

[smartcooky]

Is Franks under so much more scrutiny because he was closer the camera? Compared to Coleman's facial.
Or is their a lack of consistency ? (God, forbid)



http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/...pg&width=650&api_key=kq7wnrk4eun47vz9c5xuj3mc

Hah! Thats funny; very funny indeed. Its bound to take the wind out of a few people's sails!!

Obviously, Coleman's actions did not meet the red card threshold either!

In the mean time...

Shag is waiting and listening for all the sanctimonious uproar over what Coleman did?

 

[Which Tyler]

Given that yo'ure outright wrong in your accusations of bias - it may just be that we haven't seen that footage.

If it does show what that one low-quality still photo appears to show, then he should have been cited, and probably banned as well. I'd need more evidence than a single still photo which doesn't look quite right (possibly relating to the highlighting) to condemn personally; but that should be pretty easy to find.

Watching through the video now - here's the vid at the right time stamp: https://youtu.be/rkuedXlKvck?t=23m38s

ETA:
Contact is incidental, briefer than with Franks, once only; and the angle doesn't allow us to judge how close to the eyes it is. I'd need more angles before condemning.
Worth a citing though, so that it can be looked at properly, and an explanation received.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Bias or not, Smartcooky has always had the best intentions to educate us all on this forum and the laws of rugby, and as a retired referee, he knows a bit more than we do. We might not always agree with him, his views, his fanaticism towards the All Blacks, but I commend him for his passion to the game and to the laws of rugby and how it is impemented.

We will all agree on one thing, there is a problem, and it has to be addressed otherwise we will continue to disagree and never find solace.

I don't see the point in arguing over this topic anymore as there is nothing more we as fans can do regarding this incident of Franks. As Cooky mentioned, we can perhaps take the matter to Freek Burger (who does respond when you lodge a query on the website) and let the people who can actually do something to change the current laws and implementation thereof.

Let's all move on and call it a day.

Nothing wrong with educating, a lot wrong with acting like the officials thinking something is correct makes it correct, accusing all who disagree of bias and never once conceding anything may be wrong even when it blatantly is. That's not educating, that's pontificating.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Hah! Thats funny; very funny indeed. Its bound to take the wind out of a few people's sails!!

Obviously, Coleman's actions did not meet the red card threshold either!

?

No, not really, it will only reinforce the perception that NZ and Australia have a different red card threshold to everyone else considering 2001 Lions tour when Nathan Grey's flying elbow,which knocked out Richard Hill was considered as no case to answer; Umaga and Mealamu's spear tackling BOD and James Horwill regaining his balance on AWJ's head were also deemed not to meet the red card threshold.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Nothing wrong with educating, a lot wrong with acting like the officials thinking something is correct makes it correct, accusing all who disagree of bias and never once conceding anything may be wrong even when it blatantly is. That's not educating, that's pontificating.

He didn't accuse everybody who disagreed with him as being biased. Only certain members. And yes, there were some bias by both sides.

He has provided his point of view, and if he doesn't want to concede when he's wrong, then that's his prerogative. This isn't a school or a court where you have to admit your guilt. Some men are just more stubborn than others and will stick to their story, no matter how much you antagonise them.

But education was still achieved here, at least I learned something new.

 

[smartcooky]

ETA:
Contact is incidental, briefer than with Franks, once only; and the angle doesn't allow us to judge how close to the eyes it is. I'd need more angles before condemning.
Worth a citing though, so that it can be looked at properly, and an explanation received.

This is very frustrating. After all the explanations I have posted about citings, you still don't get it.

When a Citing Commissioner cites a player, he is in effect saying one of two things...

1. "In my opinion, the player ought to have been red carded, and the referee was wrong not to have done so", or
2. "The referee an/or other match official have missed seeing this player commit an infringement for which he ought to have received a red card"

This is not just my opinion, or me saying how I see it...these are facts!

[TEXTAREA]WR Regulation 17.8 CITING
17.8.1 A citing arises where the duly appointed Citing Commissioner cites a Player for an act(s) of Foul Play in accordance with Regulation 17.9.1.

17.9.1 Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to cite a Player for any act(s) of Foul Play which in the opinion of the Citing Commissioner warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off.[/TEXTAREA]

A player is not, repeat not cited merely for the purpose of having a butchers or sending some video to the Judiciary for a look-see. If you did that with every suspicious piece of play, the Judiciary would be in session 24/7/365 looking at video.

 

[Which Tyler]

Still? It's my first post on the matter.

All we get from your repeated use of facts; bolded and underlined or not, is that you disagree with other people.
Fingers in the eye area does warrant a sending off - so citing someone for fingers in the eye area warrants citing - these are also facts; whether you like them, or approve of them or not.


Oh, and btw "warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off" =/= red card - yellow cards also involve the Player concerned being ordered off. There have been many, many citings for things that may not be worth red carsd at the time - again; these are also facts. Furthermore, citation =/= guilt, it's a citation for a higher authority to look at something.
The citing officer does not decide guilt; but he does decide innocence, and in both of these cases he's is clearly wrong IMO.

 

[nickdnz]

Still? It's my first post on the matter.

All we get from your repeated use of facts; bolded and underlined or not, is that you disagree with other people.
Fingers in the eye area does warrant a sending off - so citing someone for fingers in the eye area warrants citing - these are also facts; whether you like them, or approve of them or not.


Oh, and btw "warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off" =/= red card - yellow cards also involve the Player concerned being ordered off. There have been many, many citings for things that may not be worth red carsd at the time - again; these are also facts. Furthermore, citation =/= guilt, it's a citation for a higher authority to look at something.
The citing officer does not decide guilt; but he does decide innocence, and in both of these cases he's is clearly wrong IMO.

Pretty clearly you have ignored any information in the above posts - and just reasserted your own views regardless of contradictions.

 

[Which Tyler]

Pretty clearly you have ignored any information in the above posts - and just reasserted your own views regardless of contradictions.

Right back at ya.

Pray tell - what information have I ignored?

 

[nickdnz]

Right back at ya.

Pray tell - what information have I ignored?

That fingers making contact with the eye is not an automatic sending off for a start...

 

[Peat]

That fingers making contact with the eye is not an automatic sending off for a start...

Its been the very next thing to it when spotted since Burger helped fix Fitzgerald's contacts in 2009. The rules may say otherwise but going on application of the rules, at least in this part of the world, WT is correct.

 

[Which Tyler]

That fingers making contact with the eye is not an automatic sending off for a start...

A] Who said anything about automatic?
B] Actually, in the NH, it's as close to an automatic red as anything in the game (yes, including spear tackling or taking a man out in the air)
C] If the fact I'm ignoring is that contact with the eye area is not a cardable offence; then the fact is wrong

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

He didn't accuse everybody who disagreed with him as being biased. Only certain members. And yes, there were some bias by both sides.

He has provided his point of view, and if he doesn't want to concede when he's wrong, then that's his prerogative. This isn't a school or a court where you have to admit your guilt. Some men are just more stubborn than others and will stick to their story, no matter how much you antagonise them.

But education was still achieved here, at least I learned something new.

His answers have consisted of throwing exact defitions and the rulebook around when this argument goes beyond strict following of what the law does or doesn't say and is looking at the disparity in the treatment of players for similar offenses. Whether Franks incident is red cardable or not isn't the primary issue, the issue is he was certainly more reckless with regards to having his fingers all over the Aussie's eye area than Francis or Ashton and yet got nothing. Even then it wouldn't have been an issue if Francis and Ashton had just received small penalties, it's the fact they received huge penalties for something Smartcooky is arguing isn't even a red card offense. I know he has stated that he doesn't think Ashton or Francis should have been cited but then it's a case of, if he can use the opinion of the citing officials this time as support, why can't we use their opinions from previous occassions and the precedent that has been set as support? Cooky is completely ignoring the fact that it's not just our opinion he is arguing with, it's the opinion of the referees and citing officials from previous incidents as well and those officials have deemed that any silly business in the eye area is a serious offense worthy of a ban. You cannot try to claim you are supported by authority figures and then dismiss it when those same authority figures came up with a completely different conclusion.

The only thing there is going to be any agreement on is that the rules need to be much clearer about what constitutes an offense and the punishment. Then of course we get into the whole taking the player in the air problem but that's another issue.

 

[smartcooky]

Still? It's my first post on the matter.

It is incumbent upon you to read the earlier posts in a thread before jumping in and posting your own unfounded assertions.

All we get from your repeated use of facts; bolded and underlined or not, is that you disagree with other people.

Its not disagreement. Its that you are wrong, and I am and telling you what the facts are. I even quoted the relevant Regulation so that you would see that I am not making it up or merely expressing an opinion.

If you think my facts are incorrect post evidence to back up your claim, not just opinion.

Fingers in the eye area does warrant a sending off - so citing someone for fingers in the eye area warrants citing - these are also facts; whether you like them, or approve of them or not.

Show me where the Laws of the Game or any WR Regulation or any WR Directive says that fingers in the eye area ALWAYS warrants a sending off (I know you didn't actually say "always", but its clearly what you were implying). How about if it is accidental or incidental contact? How about during a fend to the face? Do they warrant a sending off?

Oh, and btw "warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off" =/= red card

Well, actually yes it does

"Ordered off" or "Sent off" = red card.
"Temporarily Suspended" = yellow card

It is defined as such in the LotG...

[TEXTAREA]Law 10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned
and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes' playing time, or sent-off.

(b) A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who then commits a second
cautionable offence within the Foul Play Law must be sent-off.

10.6 YELLOW AND RED CARDS
(a) When a player has been cautioned and temporarily suspended in an International match
the referee will show that player a yellow card.

(b) When a player has been sent off in an International match, the referee will show that player
a red card.

(c) For other matches the Match Organiser or Union having jurisdiction over the match may
decide upon the use of yellow and red cards.

10.7 PLAYER SENT OFF
A player who is sent-off takes no further part in the match.[/TEXTAREA]

- yellow cards also involve the Player concerned being ordered off.

No, they absolutely do not. "Ordered off" or "Sent off" always involves a red card and never involves a yellow card unless it is a second yellow card for the same player in the same match...See the above Law quote

NOTE: The two terms "Ordered off" and "Sent off" are used interchangeably in both the LotG and the Regulations.

There have been many, many citings for things that may not be worth red card at the time - again; these are also facts.

You are ignoring what is stated in Regulation 17 and substituting your own unfounded and incorrect assertion. It may appear that way to the uninitiated, but what happened in every one of those cases is that the Citing Commissioner has been overruled by the Judiciary. That is not the same as your assertion that the Citing Commissioner has cited so the the Judiciary can "have a proper look". That is not how the system works, and it never happens that way.

Furthermore, citation =/= guilt, it's a citation for a higher authority to look at something.

No, it is emphatically NOT that at all. Did you actually read the quote from Regulation 17?

The citing officer does not decide guilt; but he does decide innocence, and in both of these cases he's is clearly wrong IMO.

All players who get a red card for an act of foul play go to the judiciary for a hearing
All players who are cited have been in effect red carded after the match

The Citing Officer decides guilt in the same way that a referee decides guilt when he gives a red card. The Judiciary then decides whether the referee and/or citing officer were right or wrong and if they decide he was right, they apply the appropriate punishment as they see fit and i.a.w. Regulation 17.

I suggest you download two documents from the WR website

1. The Laws of the Game (read Law 10)
2. The World Rugby Handbook (read of Regulations 17 and 18)

Then, when you get into a discussion about sanctions and citings, and the procedures surrounding them with someone who has been a referee, a referee advisor and coach and a referee assessor for over 40 years, you will at least have some chance of knowing what you are talking about.

 

[Which Tyler]

OK, so hypocrisy and trolling it is. Won't bother engaging.