Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Rugby World Cup 2023
[RWC2023] South Africa vs Scotland (10/09/2023)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="saulan" data-source="post: 1145103" data-attributes="member: 60236"><p>I realize I haven't actually given my opinion on this, I've skirted around it. But I guess I'll give my perspective, but I think it's similar to [USER=73592]@Quel Carreleur[/USER] . I'll explain it through the framework:</p><p></p><p>Was there a high tackle: Yes</p><p>Was there head contact: Yes</p><p>Was there a high degree of danger: debatable - given the whiplash was more from the tackle of first contact on the ball and the head contact was more glancing then a head smashing that we saw in Curry's situation. But let's just say yes and so red</p><p>Do any of the mitigating factors apply: Yes, the last point on the list - contact was initially on the chest/ball with most of the force taking place there, with subsequent riding up and head contact, mitigating from red to yellow.</p><p></p><p>Did the TMO get it right? No, I don't think so. It was at least a penalty and a yellow. Do I think it's a ridiculous outcome that he wasn't cited? No, I think they followed a similar logic to my points above getting to a yellow and since citings only happen for red card offenses, it's not a surprise.</p><p></p><p>Is there something else I think should be done differently? Yes. Communicate World Rugby! Explain in Game after Bunker decisions are made very clearly why decisions were made not to penalize something, and then in situations where things are controversial and the world is watching, clearly explain why you decided it shouldn't be a citing, even if it means saying your TMO made a mistake in not giving a penalty/yellow card.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="saulan, post: 1145103, member: 60236"] I realize I haven’t actually given my opinion on this, I’ve skirted around it. But I guess I’ll give my perspective, but I think it’s similar to [USER=73592]@Quel Carreleur[/USER] . I’ll explain it through the framework: Was there a high tackle: Yes Was there head contact: Yes Was there a high degree of danger: debatable - given the whiplash was more from the tackle of first contact on the ball and the head contact was more glancing then a head smashing that we saw in Curry’s situation. But let’s just say yes and so red Do any of the mitigating factors apply: Yes, the last point on the list - contact was initially on the chest/ball with most of the force taking place there, with subsequent riding up and head contact, mitigating from red to yellow. Did the TMO get it right? No, I don’t think so. It was at least a penalty and a yellow. Do I think it’s a ridiculous outcome that he wasn’t cited? No, I think they followed a similar logic to my points above getting to a yellow and since citings only happen for red card offenses, it’s not a surprise. Is there something else I think should be done differently? Yes. Communicate World Rugby! Explain in Game after Bunker decisions are made very clearly why decisions were made not to penalize something, and then in situations where things are controversial and the world is watching, clearly explain why you decided it shouldn’t be a citing, even if it means saying your TMO made a mistake in not giving a penalty/yellow card. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Rugby World Cup 2023
[RWC2023] South Africa vs Scotland (10/09/2023)
Top