Potential citings for Quarterfinals

[smartcooky]

I would like to see a new sanction on the books... call it provocation.

I am reading here a lot of rhetoric about how SOB was "lucky" to get only one week, but IMO the luckiest player was Pape, who got no sanction - other that the one handed out by SOB - for provoking him with an off the ball act that is completely outside the spirit of the game, and a controvention of Law 10.4 (m)

[TEXTAREA](m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

IMO, the Citing Commissionser, when examining the circumstances surrounding the actions of a player he intends to cite, should also be allowed to cite the instigator if there is one. Instead of just punishing the retaliation, if WR can punish those players who provoke opponents with the kind of off-the-ball crap that has become prevant in the modern game, they will disincentivise players from provoking their opponents.

You may understand from this that I hate off-the-ball stuff. As a referee, I used to penalise it severely when I saw it. If a player committed an act of foul play, and his opponent smacked him for it, they both got to sit down for a few minutes.

 

[daluaine]

There appears to be no consideration on what are deliberate, isolated and "conscious" actions, and the accidental. If the Ford and Gray bans have both come from that single "clear-out" incident then it looks from my (admittedly extremely biased) view as though both players went in with the primary action of clearing the player out but in different directions. Their opposing actions created something that was unintentional and certainly could not have been co-ordinated between the pair of them. Lets face it, why dump an opposing player back on top of the ball your scrum-half is trying to play quickly. If you remove either Scottish player from this situation a tip tackle wouldn't have arisen. Yes, the player lands on his neck and it looks bad, but was it intentional? If you accept that it could have been a freak accident then can there be any ban? This is rugby being played at a ferocious speed and intensity; accidents are going to happen. Now compare that to some of the other citing being discussed in this thread?

... although in the clip, Gray does seem to be initiating a lift on the legs. But Ford appears simply to be knocked off balance by Gray's actions. Can this really be why Ford gets five weeks (down-graded to 3)?

 

[Mcfadden]

For those who talk about 1 week ban, I would like to remind everybody why the french are thinking these bans have always been heavier for their players : Pape had a 10 weeks ban for what he has done to Heaslip, just as a reminder.

I'm ready to believe that Pape behaviour was maybe a bit nastier (though he has insisted after that he has not made it on purpose with french media..I do not really believe it but still...) because coming in the back of heaslip... but 1 to 10 weeks ????

It is like we know already that the sanction will be softer for an irish man, it is already a given, we are used to it as frenchies.

Yeah, no ****. It's because you Frenchies are one of the few teams that get that grubby when the pressure goes on.

It's like trying to teach a naughty child not to bite. We have to be hard to make you learn, because it's been an ongoing theme with you guys since Adam was a cowboy.

Having said that, and I must admit I haven't read over what the lower to mid point range is for a punch, but I do think 1 week for the Irishman is rubbish. I read an interesting exchange that noted he didn't put his body into it. Punches can be delivered from all sorts of angles. Imagine if a player was laying on top of someone or in a ruck and snuck in a punch; he wouldn't necessarily be heaving his weight into the punch, but it'd still be bloody awful in my book. No idea what the sanctions are, but I was thinking more like 2 to 3 weeks. Would have gone longer, but his good record is obviously a factor.

People were screaming when McCaw tripped an Argentinian player that it should have been a red. Complete nonsense. Totally cynical, and worthy of punishment, but definitely not red. Hell, he didn't set out to hurt or end someone's tournament through injury. But now we're having outright punches and people are negotiating their logic down to a single game. I've never read such inconsistent and obviously bias rubbish in all my life. I think some people need to take a few minutes to reflect on some of their views, because both sides have been talking a fair bit of crap and trying to play innocent.

 

[Amiga500]

I would like to see a new sanction on the books... call it provocation.

IMO, the Citing Commissionser, when examining the circumstances surrounding the actions of a player he intends to cite, should also be allowed to cite the instigator if there is one. Instead of just punishing the retaliation, if WR can punish those players who provoke opponents with the kind of off-the-ball crap that has become prevant in the modern game, they will disincentivise players from provoking their opponents.

Amen to that.

In fact I'd be more inclined to punish the instigator and let the retaliation go.

 

[TRF_heineken]

How WR chooses to interpret the English language is hardly relevant to what I said. They don't get to define words. Of the three types of factor listed in the Regulations (not Laws), only one can be considered as a properly defined aggravating factor. Factor (a) is to a large extent within the control of the player, while (c) is very vague and (b) is simply an expression of desire. If I have my wish come true and one day see the fat cats who have sold my sport to commercial interests dragged into civil court, I fully expect that they will have their sorry arses handed to them. Meanwhile, I like to keep reminding them that it's our sport, not theirs.

fair enough, but the fact is that World Rugby, the governing body of rugby has their regulations and laws just like any other sport. And in that, they set out their definitions and applied them to the situation.

It doesn't help to now go and use a different definition for aggravating factors found in a criminal law book or where ever else and try to use it as the fundamental defintion of aggravated factors which should have been applied here. I bet that if we would have to compare a couple of countries and their laws and the definition of aggravated factors would differ.

Now whether the factors are to your liking or not is irrelevant, they are implemented and the citing commisioners take them into consideration. It does seem to me however that some members are taking this citing thing a bit too personal and is getting emotionally involved.

I for a change am sitting back and watching everyone complain about every damn incident and why are some penalised too harshly and some not penalised enough, etc. I'm just glad that so far South Africa have managed to keep their record rather clean and haven't had a run in with the citing commisioners. But overall I think the panel has been rather good and taken every incident in it's own situation and merits and handed down sentences accordingly.

 

[barthelemy]

I would like to see a new sanction on the books... call it provocation.

I am reading here a lot of rhetoric about how SOB was "lucky" to get only one week, but IMO the luckiest player was Pape, who got no sanction - other that the one handed out by SOB - for provoking him with an off the ball act that is completely outside the spirit of the game, and a controvention of Law 10.4 (m)

[TEXTAREA](m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

IMO, the Citing Commissionser, when examining the circumstances surrounding the actions of a player he intends to cite, should also be allowed to cite the instigator if there is one. Instead of just punishing the retaliation, if WR can punish those players who provoke opponents with the kind of off-the-ball crap that has become prevant in the modern game, they will disincentivise players from provoking their opponents.

You may understand from this that I hate off-the-ball stuff. As a referee, I used to penalise it severely when I saw it. If a player committed an act of foul play, and his opponent smacked him for it, they both got to sit down for a few minutes.

And how do you deal with insults ? It is a provocation as much as anything else...It will be word against word. How do you punish all the helding back always hapening in a ruck ?

No seriously this is impossible what you are asking.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, no ****. It's because you Frenchies are one of the few teams that get that grubby when the pressure goes on.

It's like trying to teach a naughty child not to bite. We have to be hard to make you learn, because it's been an ongoing theme with you guys since Adam was a cowboy.

You see this is exactly the issue. And this is the same thing with the surrendering thing. You are always playing it as a banter but in fact this is not, this is deeply seeded (hammered if I may say) in the mind of all not very educated brit/irish and their descendance (prisonners or others sort of).

French are violent and surrendering monkeys.

When we come to a brit/irish (or prisonner descendance of these) commissionner or a referee, the result (the consequences of this hammering) is simple : the frenchie always take more in his face and if we can avoid to show some videos or replays during the match, this is not a big deal, he is only a french.

This is all this Brit (or cousins or descendance. same pot) arrogance that is at work here and rugby is hugely impacted by this sadly. As said, it has improved a bit nowadays as rugby became more international but still, old habits stays.

And this is a french that is living in brit land since loooong years that is saying this.

 

[WaterboySA]

I would like to see a new sanction on the books... call it provocation.

I am reading here a lot of rhetoric about how SOB was "lucky" to get only one week, but IMO the luckiest player was Pape, who got no sanction - other that the one handed out by SOB - for provoking him with an off the ball act that is completely outside the spirit of the game, and a controvention of Law 10.4 (m)

[TEXTAREA](m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

IMO, the Citing Commissionser, when examining the circumstances surrounding the actions of a player he intends to cite, should also be allowed to cite the instigator if there is one. Instead of just punishing the retaliation, if WR can punish those players who provoke opponents with the kind of off-the-ball crap that has become prevant in the modern game, they will disincentivise players from provoking their opponents.

You may understand from this that I hate off-the-ball stuff. As a referee, I used to penalise it severely when I saw it. If a player committed an act of foul play, and his opponent smacked him for it, they both got to sit down for a few minutes.

Thank you SO much. I understand that you as a ref have to punish foul play. But these days it's part of game plans to try and get players to react, so they can be sent off. That should NOT be part of the game, and should be stamped out.

 

[valley commando]

Comparing SOB's 1 game to Ford and Grey x 3 games.
The way I see it striking an opponent is worse than a tackle that may have been poorly executed but was without intent intended to cause injury and so if Ford and Grey's clumsy tackles merit 3 games then SOB's punch would be worth 4 games, however my own opinion on the incidents are that all 3 should have received a yellow card, although I have said SOB's was worse than the Scots lads offences it wasn't twice as bad and therefore wasn't enough to receive a red, had he punched him in the face it would have merited a red.
I'd like to see a scale of punishment set out and adhered to, perhaps something along the following lines.
Punch to the head RED
Gouging RED
Biting RED
Falling over like a big girl/Scottish fullback RED
Deliberate trip RED
Kicking an opponent RED
Spitting at an opponent RED
Punch to any other part of the body YELLOW
High Tackle YELLOW
Deliberate knock on YELLOW
Ist offence of killing the ball in your own 22 YELLOW
Spear tackle YELLOW
All other offences are dealt with okay in my opinion.

 

[MunsterMan]

Hysteria level rising, i thought it would have calmed by now!

People attacking Papé now, come on.

 

[RedruthRFC]

There appears to be no consideration on what are deliberate, isolated and "conscious" actions, and the accidental. If the Ford and Gray bans have both come from that single "clear-out" incident then it looks from my (admittedly extremely biased) view as though both players went in with the primary action of clearing the player out but in different directions. Their opposing actions created something that was unintentional and certainly could not have been co-ordinated between the pair of them. Lets face it, why dump an opposing player back on top of the ball your scrum-half is trying to play quickly. If you remove either Scottish player from this situation a tip tackle wouldn't have arisen. Yes, the player lands on his neck and it looks bad, but was it intentional? If you accept that it could have been a freak accident then can there be any ban? This is rugby being played at a ferocious speed and intensity; accidents are going to happen. Now compare that to some of the other citing being discussed in this thread?

Thanks for disagreeing rationally and intelligently. I'm far from an expert, although based on comments on this thread, my efforts to understand the process have been a lot more successful than most posters. It is my understanding that while perceived malicious intent can cause a player to be dealt with more harshly, a lack of intent is little / no defence. Harsh as it may be in this instance, in "rugby law" they are assessed on the basis of what their actions caused.

Rather than repeating the same tired rhetoric, could the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade point out the parts of the judgement in question that they disagree with and explain why the judicial officer got it wrong please? When I say wrong, I mean wrong according to the laws of the game and / or the disciplinary guidelines that they are working within.

Lastly, I would reiterate that comparing one ban to another is pointless. Each incident has its own set of circumstances, so is quite rightly assessed on its own merits.

 

[YoungScud]

fair enough, but the fact is that World Rugby, the governing body of rugby has their regulations and laws just like any other sport. And in that, they set out their definitions and applied them to the situation.

It doesn't help to now go and use a different definition for aggravating factors found in a criminal law book or where ever else and try to use it as the fundamental defintion of aggravated factors which should have been applied here. I bet that if we would have to compare a couple of countries and their laws and the definition of aggravated factors would differ.

Now whether the factors are to your liking or not is irrelevant, they are implemented and the citing commisioners take them into consideration. It does seem to me however that some members are taking this citing thing a bit too personal and is getting emotionally involved.

I for a change am sitting back and watching everyone complain about every damn incident and why are some penalised too harshly and some not penalised enough, etc. I'm just glad that so far South Africa have managed to keep their record rather clean and haven't had a run in with the citing commisioners. But overall I think the panel has been rather good and taken every incident in it's own situation and merits and handed down sentences accordingly.

I disagree and I'm not by any means alone. I think it's inherently wrong to have a system of punishment written out and then cherry pick your 'flavour of the month' offence, simply adding 'aggravating factors' as and when you please.

As to your acceptance of their absolute authority, it's worth remembering that we don't play as a privilege meted out at Their Majesties' Pleasure. World Rugby is, or at least is meant to be representative of its member unions. It seems to have acquired far too much autonomy, whereby the tail now wags the dog. Be glad that your team si far has managed to stay relatively clear of trouble. The likes of Pietersen have been incredibly lucky so far. It may last, in fact I suspect it will, but not because of angelic behaviour.

 

[MunsterMan]

The potential for damage from a tip tackle is much higher than from a punch to the body. Comparing the two isn't entirely fair.

 

[celticc]

Peyper's view of the Gray/Ford incident as communicated to the review panel.

"I can confirm I indeed saw the incident live referred to in the citing complaint. Samoa number 7 found himself in position competing for the ball with his head below his hips already. The Scotland arriving players, Scotland 5 and 2 in an attempt to remove the threat to possession as per normal and in the dynamics lifted Samoa 7's legs and he tumble over, however the player supported on his hands through out.
After our internal performance review process I am satisfied that that I dealt with the incident appropriately."

The panel disregarded the last part of the statement as the ref is only allowed to relay "facts" and not an opinion. Hilarious.

 

[Tarasque]

And how do you deal with insults ? It is a provocation as much as anything else...It will be word against word. How do you punish all the helding back always hapening in a ruck ?

No seriously this is impossible what you are asking.

- - - Updated - - -



You see this is exactly the issue. And this is the same thing with the surrendering thing. You are always playing it as a banter but in fact this is not, this is deeply seeded (hammered if I may say) in the mind of all not very educated brit/irish and their descendance (prisonners or others sort of).

French are violent and surrendering monkeys.

When we come to a brit/irish (or prisonner descendance of these) commissionner or a referee, the result (the consequences of this hammering) is simple : the frenchie always take more in his face and if we can avoid to show some videos or replays during the match, this is not a big deal, he is only a french.

This is all this Brit (or cousins or descendance. same pot) arrogance that is at work here and rugby is hugely impacted by this sadly. As said, it has improved a bit nowadays as rugby became more international but still, old habits stays.

And this is a french that is living in brit land since loooong years that is saying this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px3-rschmNc

 

[RedruthRFC]

Comparing SOB's 1 game to Ford and Grey x 3 games.
The way I see it striking an opponent is worse than a tackle that may have been poorly executed but was without intent intended to cause injury and so if Ford and Grey's clumsy tackles merit 3 games then SOB's punch would be worth 4 games, however my own opinion on the incidents are that all 3 should have received a yellow card, although I have said SOB's was worse than the Scots lads offences it wasn't twice as bad and therefore wasn't enough to receive a red, had he punched him in the face it would have merited a red.
I'd like to see a scale of punishment set out and adhered to, perhaps something along the following lines.
Punch to the head RED
Gouging RED
Biting RED
Falling over like a big girl/Scottish fullback RED
Deliberate trip RED
Kicking an opponent RED
Spitting at an opponent RED
Punch to any other part of the body YELLOW
High Tackle YELLOW
Deliberate knock on YELLOW
Ist offence of killing the ball in your own 22 YELLOW
Spear tackle YELLOW
All other offences are dealt with okay in my opinion.

With all due respect, the way that you see it is an irrelevance here. The matter at hand is the way the referee / citing officer / judicial officer and whether they correctly applied the laws / disciplinary guidelines. Whether the sanctions for particular offences are set at the correct level is a whole different discussion for a whole different thread.

Your point about predetermined sanctions is an interesting one. There was one particularly laughable post in this thread (I think) yesterday suggesting that punching (I think) can't receive any stronger sanction that a PK because this is what the laws proscribe! Obviously as it stands, cards are discretionary, I can see the appeal of laying down clearer guidelines in the hope of more consistent decisions, although it's never going to be possible to legislate for everything, so some level of judgement would always be required. However, blindly following a set of rules like this would end up with some very harsh and some very lenient decisions, for example, a player who pulls off a heinous, intentional spear tackle breaking his opponent's neck and killing him on the spot getting the same sanction as a tackler who is unable to roll away in his 22!

 

[pat mcgroin]

o'brien is going to appeal today apparently, could be back for sunday.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I disagree and I'm not by any means alone. I think it's inherently wrong to have a system of punishment written out and then cherry pick your 'flavour of the month' offence, simply adding 'aggravating factors' as and when you please.

As to your acceptance of their absolute authority, it's worth remembering that we don't play as a privilege meted out at Their Majesties' Pleasure. World Rugby is, or at least is meant to be representative of its member unions. It seems to have acquired far too much autonomy, whereby the tail now wags the dog. Be glad that your team si far has managed to stay relatively clear of trouble. The likes of Pietersen have been incredibly lucky so far. It may last, in fact I suspect it will, but not because of angelic behaviour.

I agree 100%. World Rugby have been clear from before the start of the World Cup that tip tackles are something that they were going to be hot on for this World Cup, but if that's the case, then surely the proper way to do this is to change the number of weeks recommended as a sanction rather than leaving judicial officers to effectively break the guidelines.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Lastly, I would reiterate that comparing one ban to another is pointless. Each incident has its own set of circumstances, so is quite rightly assessed on its own merits.

Disagree 100%. What you state as a fact i'm afraid i see as a no such thing. It is not only not pointless but an essential part of games's rules, not only rugby, but sports in general. The judicial principles at stake here are called equality before the law and accountability.

Of course each incident has its own set of circumstances and context, but you could argue the exact same thing about knock-ons, forward pases and off sides, yet the rules for that are pretty much applied across the board with a consistent (most of the times) penalty for infringement.

The problem with regarding it as pointless is that sounds like a cheap scapegoat for people who judge to avoid accountability.

I for one, would like to be explained how the panel suddenly develope mind reading abilities in order to assess Tuilagi's intention to raise his leg to hit the japanese player, while at the same time they completely disregard Pocock's knee to the body.
I'd like know why O'Brien's citing ended up with this statement at rugbyworldcup.com

The Judicial Officer took into account compelling mitigating factors including O’Brien’s conduct prior to and at the hearing, his remorse, good character and clean disciplinary record, and reduced the suspension to a period of one week.

and how on earth they reconcile that phrase with this video, which shows him punching another player before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1M0EeIgdg

Considering that decision could have very well resulted in a completely different game (14 vs 15 for pretty much the entire game), i would also like to know why the TMO of that game missed all the signals to check that. I'd also like to know what is being done for this not to happen again. I'd be furious if i were French (no pun intended )

People who have nothing to hide should have no problem in explaining themselves, particulary in positions of power.
If you can't or won't explain the rationale behind rulings and sanctions you lose fan support. Maybe not much, but it's not good for the sport. And to be honest, i don't think it's too much we're asking for. Common sense, that's all.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Peyper's view of the Gray/Ford incident as communicated to the review panel.

"I can confirm I indeed saw the incident live referred to in the citing complaint. Samoa number 7 found himself in position competing for the ball with his head below his hips already. The Scotland arriving players, Scotland 5 and 2 in an attempt to remove the threat to possession as per normal and in the dynamics lifted Samoa 7's legs and he tumble over, however the player supported on his hands through out.
After our internal performance review process I am satisfied that that I dealt with the incident appropriately."

The panel disregarded the last part of the statement as the ref is only allowed to relay "facts" and not an opinion. Hilarious.

If there is a scandal here, it is this. For the referee (and his support system) to disagree so starkly with the judicial officer is indeed hilarious. One party or the other has been utterly incompetent in their handling of this situation. If you accept that the judicial officer is the ultimate authority (the Crown Court of rugby), then this incident implies that refereeing at international level is woefully inadequate.

 

[OverGore]

Amen to that.

In fact I'd be more inclined to punish the instigator and let the retaliation go.

Are seriously insane? Provocation is SUBJECTIVE!!!!!! Anything depending on the persona can be considered a provocation!!! Hiting someone is OBJECTIVE .If someone insults you on the road, you will crash him cos he provoked you? WTF is that way of thinking?
Rugby became yesterday the first collective sport in wich hiting an oponent to hurt him out of any playin context is NORMAL and REWARDED.
This is pathetic, whoever it is, whatever nationality, this kind of behaviour is to get rid off in ALL SPORTS. Anyone thinking the opposite is a retard.
Even in tennis players provoke themselves, this is called mind game, and overcoming this is sign of intelligence.
The worse is if Pape was the one who hit obrien, there would be absolutely no debat on why he did it.
Being fairplay and honest are values that disapear at the speed of light in this sport.
Shoking reactions by those who defend Obrien.
There is no excuse for that. This kind of attitude on a field, is the worse rugby can offer to the world. And excusing it, is even worse.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1M0EeIgdg

Obviously this player shouldnt be able to play this sport. If you cant stand contact or to be held in rugby , just play darts. But he s clean lol, so keep going, nothing to see here.