England vs Wales - 12/08/23

[BrokenWing]

The ref bottled it but didn't have to hold the game

As opposed to bottling it, I'm assuming this is how they're now meant to proceed.

He doesn't need to give a red and risk it being a mistake, the player's off the field anyway so there's no risk of them affecting the game when they shouldn't be on the pitch.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Appeal confirmed

World Rugby WILL appeal Owen Farrell's overturned red card

Farrell was sent off in England's World Cup warm-up clash with Wales at Twickenham for a high tackle on Taine Basham. He was initially shown a yellow carded before rugby's new bunker review system upgraded it to red.

www.dailymail.co.uk

" In our opinion, it would be placing an unreasonable burden on the player (Farrell) to expect him to anticipate, foresee or predict, in the limited time available to him, this late change in dynamics."

We've all seen red cards given for situations where the tackler has had far less time to adjust, has had a far greater adjustment to make and has made a far better attempt to do something about it than Farrell did. If there's an attempt to wrap and bend, some mitigation may be in order.

I have no idea what the panel were watching, but it certainly wasn't anything with a wrap and a bend in it. Neither of the above, direct shoulder to head, red card...

Right..?

 

[Crash Hamster]

Or are we now in the situation where it takes some time over a week to decide whether something* is a foul or not?


* A foul

 

[BiggusLaddus]

Or are we now in the situation where it takes some time over a week to decide whether something* is a foul or not?


* A foul

Seems that way.

What will they do if something actually contentious happens in the final, delay the result for a month?

 

[ncurd]

As opposed to bottling it, I'm assuming this is how they're now meant to proceed.

He doesn't need to give a red and risk it being a mistake, the player's off the field anyway so there's no risk of them affecting the game when they shouldn't be on the pitch.

I think Iahev mixed opinion, I think in this incident it was clear cut enough he didn't need the bunker. But I fully understand most refs will defer to the bunker. It'll get like run outs in Cricket.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Can someone help me get a grip on the dynamics here?

In some places WR is described as the game's governing body, which I'd always lazily assumed was right, but the language it uses on its own website is around a federation with a purpose to grow the game.

I assume the governing body must be more or less right, otherwise on what grounds would it be appealing?

The game was run by 6 Nations Rugby, but presumably it has to be played under WR's ultimate auspices in some way?

Who are WR appealing to? 6N rugby or direct to the independent panel?

And if WR is the governing body, why is it appealing at all? Surely it should be the ultimate arbiter with power to override.

Apparently it's only appealed a couple of times before with a 50% success rate.

Whatever the detail, this can only be the right thing to do.

 

[Which Tyler]

I don't remember anyone here saying it, but I have seen it elsewhere, that because OF's left arm might have been in a position to potentially wrap after the tackle, it wasn't a shoulder charge, and therefore mitigation does apply.

This video from WR disagrees with that, ironically using video footage of an OF special (though with the right shoulder softer than Basham received) to show that it's the contact arm that has to attempt the wrap

 

[Amiga500]

What I find shocking in Farrell is that he's a persistent offender and I'm struggling to think of another one in the professional era.

Bundee Aki would have a few on his record to be fair...

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yes from watching everyone including myself going apoplectic.

Long term in the sport its bad, we know a waft of concussion lawsuits are coming. Any prosecution lawyer is gonna point to this incident showing that not only did they never consider player welfare important they still don't. So the sport will get sued out of oblivion.

I think you mean sued into oblivion, being sued out of oblivion would be a good thing

 

[Jimbo]

I'd agree the bunker should be for borderline decisions not ones as clear cut as this, I've seen very few try and defend OF on this, I think the problem is he is capable of the dominant (legal hits) but only really on his terms where he's had a chance to get off the line early, you look at most of the contentious ones (Atkinson aside that was horrific but not of this ilk) it's when his team are on the back foot and potentially in dire need of a scramble when the majority of those take place, it's almost like he refuses to accept that under some circumstances just stopping the man has to suffice without dominating the collision which apparently majority of players are generally aware of an accept, but beyond him.

 

[Reiser99]

I'd agree the bunker should be for borderline decisions not ones as clear cut as this, I've seen very few try and defend OF on this, I think the problem is he is capable of the dominant (legal hits) but only really on his terms where he's had a chance to get off the line early, you look at most of the contentious ones (Atkinson aside that was horrific but not of this ilk) it's when his team are on the back foot and potentially in dire need of a scramble when the majority of those take place, it's almost like he refuses to accept that under some circumstances just stopping the man has to suffice without dominating the collision which apparently majority of players are generally aware of an accept, but beyond him.

Dunno, I thought the whole point was to speed up the game. As shown by the panel if you look enough you can find some mitigation. The bunker system stops the refs having to stand there for 10 minutes looking at all the different camera angles and especially on a big screen in the stadium that is hard. There has been foul play that might warrant a red, give a yellow and let the official who can look at it carefully decide if it's red.

 

[General Melchett]

I also think that part of the reason for the off field review is prevent games being 'ruined' by an incorrect red, particularly if the incident happens early in the game resulting in 15 v 14.

I will miss refs pulling out a red card for blatantly serious foul play but it does make sense to start with a yellow, let the game continue and leave the bunker to check the angles and look for any mitigation.

I'd be curious to know if the Aussie panel received any pre hearing 'guidance' from WR. Guess we'll never know but there does seem to be a bit of a trend of players' bans expiring just before the RWC.

 

[TommiG88]

I also think that part of the reason for the off field review is prevent games being 'ruined' by an incorrect red, particularly if the incident happens early in the game resulting in 15 v 14.

I will miss refs pulling out a red card for blatantly serious foul play but it does make sense to start with a yellow, let the game continue and leave the bunker to check the angles and look for any mitigation.

I'd be curious to know if the Aussie panel received any pre hearing 'guidance' from WR. Guess we'll never know but there does seem to be a bit of a trend of players' bans expiring just before the RWC.

WR have appealed so I suspect there was no guidance

 

[Which Tyler]

I will miss refs pulling out a red card for blatantly serious foul play but it does make sense to start with a yellow, let the game continue and leave the bunker to check the angles and look for any mitigation.

Maybe the right tinkering would be to allow the bunker to upgrade yellows and to downgrade red.
Give the ref a couple of angles, and make a decision; bunker can change it with "clear and obvious" evidence that s/he was wrong.

Similar to how the ref now makes a decision on tries, and the TMO has to find a "clear and obvious" reason to change it.

 

[saulan]

I also think that part of the reason for the off field review is prevent games being 'ruined' by an incorrect red, particularly if the incident happens early in the game resulting in 15 v 14.

I will miss refs pulling out a red card for blatantly serious foul play but it does make sense to start with a yellow, let the game continue and leave the bunker to check the angles and look for any mitigation.

I'd be curious to know if the Aussie panel received any pre hearing 'guidance' from WR. Guess we'll never know but there does seem to be a bit of a trend of players' bans expiring just before the RWC.

I fully agree that this is the best move forward in terms of making the game flow better. It just makes complete sense. I'm not looking forward to the new anxiety of watching the game for 5-7 minutes waiting to here if one of our players has been upgraded to a red, but I'm generally a bit of anxious wreck whenever we play anyway, so no difference. (And again to be clear, this is not a complaint - the bunker is a great system)

 

[ncurd]

Maybe the right tinkering would be to allow the bunker to upgrade yellows and to downgrade red.
Give the ref a couple of angles, and make a decision; bunker can change it with "clear and obvious" evidence that s/he was wrong.

Similar to how the ref now makes a decision on tries, and the TMO has to find a "clear and obvious" reason to change it.

I'm unsure how the bunker works currently but I'd rather a system where the ref just hands it over if they have any doubt on colour.

What I don't want to see is an incidents like stamping, biting, gouging or punching go to the bunker if its clear they happened.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

World Rugby's appeal will be on Tuesday.

Date set for Farrell red card appeal hearing

An appeal against the decision to overturn the red card given to England captain Owen Farrell against Wales is to be heard next week.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Derpus]

I think Iahev mixed opinion, I think in this incident it was clear cut enough he didn't need the bunker. But I fully understand most refs will defer to the bunker. It'll get like run outs in Cricket.

I think they have just adopted the Super Rugby model. In SR this year even obvious reds were a yellow first. The whole point is so the ref can just get them off the field and get on with the game so that the TMO can decide the punishment. Its a really good system. No 10 minute breaks for some CSI style on field forensic analysis.

A straight red is really just for striking, biting etc.

 

[Smurfy]

I think they have just adopted the Super Rugby model. In SR this year even obvious reds were a yellow first. The whole point is so the ref can just get them off the field and get on with the game so that the TMO can decide the punishment. Its a really good system. No 10 minute breaks for some CSI style on field forensic analysis.

A straight red is really just for striking, biting etc.

I agree. Anything that keeps the game moving and takes the crowd out of the decision is a good thing, and I don't think it in any way erodes the refs position. The game carries on and the incident can be viewed dispassionately without outside player or crowd interference.

 

[Crash Hamster]

I agree. Anything that keeps the game moving and takes the crowd out of the decision is a good thing, and I don't think it in any way erodes the refs position. The game carries on and the incident can be viewed dispassionately without outside player or crowd interference.

And then overturned.

And then quite possibly overturned again.

10 days, give or take...

It's a great idea, it's going to be in the World Cup, but it's not acceptable that decisions can be overruled or reinstated 10 days later.