[June Tests 2018: 2nd Test] New Zealand vs. France (16/06/2018)

Discussion in 'International Test Matches' started by TRF_heineken, Jun 11, 2018.

  1. smartcooky

    smartcooky Referee Coach and Advisor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,730
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Tasman

    Yes, folks, what Jabby just said is true...

    http://www.allblacks.com/News/32583/benjamin-fall-red-card-hearing-outcome


    "The Independent Judicial Committee found:
    “As demonstrated in the video footage, the Player, at all times, had his eyes on the ball whilst it was in the air, which showed, in our opinion, a clear intention, on the part of the Player, that he intended to contest it. From the moment the ball leaves France #10’s boot the Player is observed running a line at pace to a position which he believes will put him in the best possible position to catch it. The line that the Player is running is then altered by his collision with NZ #13. This collision then causes the Player to lose his balance, stumble and be propelled or pushed towards the path of NZ #10. By reason of those matters the Player’s attempt to contest the ball was compromised. In our opinion, the direct and proximate cause for that outcome was the result of the Player’s collision with NZ #13. As a result of his collision with NZ #13 the Player was denied the time (less than 1 second) and the space to put himself in a position to avoid a collision with NZ #10 or to contest the ball as he had initially planned.


    “Whilst it is unfortunate that NZ #10 sustained a concussion after landing on his head, was removed from the match and is unlikely to be available for the third Test match we did not consider that the Player’s actions, in the circumstances of this case, were deliberate or reckless. In our opinion, as supported by all the video footage, the Player’s actions were accidental as they were brought about by his collision with NZ #13, the effect of which changed his initial running line thereby pushing him towards NZ #10. We did not consider that the Player would have foreseen the events, which ultimately unfolded, and therefore could not have, in our opinion, given the speed of the events and the dynamics at play, taken any preventative steps to avoid the collision with NZ #10 or to have put himself in a position to contest the ball as he had initially planned.


    “Therefore, having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Judicial Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the referee’s decision to issue the red card was wrong. In reaching that conclusion, it is important to record, that no criticism is made of the referee nor, in our opinion, would any be warranted. Unlike the referee we had the benefit of all the video footage, which showed various angles of the incident. Unlike the referee we had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident. In contrast, the referee was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes in the full gaze of the public and without the benefit of all the relevant material.


    “Accordingly, the red card is dismissed and the Player is free to resume playing rugby immediately. We direct World Rugby to expunge the Ordering Off (red card) from the Player’s disciplinary record.”


    The represents a MASSIVE backpedal. Take everything you have been told about these issues ..

    1. intent is not taken into account.

    2. that the player had his eyes on the ball is irrelevant

    3. the issue is to be judged on outcome

    ...and throw it out the window. None of this applies any more

    IMO, the judiciary has shown a whole shitload of commonsense here, much of it exactly what some of us critics of the Law have been saying ever since the Dan Biggar v Finn Russell incident. The burning question now is, will WR appeal?
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    I keep reading on here 'intent doesn't matter...intent doesn't matter', well it did then.

    Nice work by the judiciary.

    I use to see those incidents back in the day and the ref will just play on.
     
  4. MikeTheNative

    MikeTheNative First XV

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,016
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Wales

    You guys seem to be missing the point which cancels the red card, ALB knocks him a second before and Fall is unable to compete. Intent still doesn't matter, the fact that ALB knocks him does.
     
  5. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    Hmmm...that word 'intent' again.

    Would you say that ALB 'intended' on knocking Fall? let me quote your post again underneath
    Intent doesn't matter but it does...
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  6. TRF_Olyy

    TRF_Olyy English Arrogance

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    34,737
    Location:
    Lichfield(ish), UK
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Sale

    It's good to see the citing commission using some common sense, but i bet the French team, and fans, are spewing
     
  7. MikeTheNative

    MikeTheNative First XV

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,016
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Wales

    Whether ALB intended to impede Fall on purpose doesn't matter, the fact that he did and for that reason it put Fall in that position. I really don't get how you can't understand the ruling.
     
  8. MikeTheNative

    MikeTheNative First XV

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,016
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Wales

    It doesn't help how none of the replays show ALB impeding Fall, they were all just after. Although I do think Fall said it to the ref himself.
     
  9. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    I didn't know the ruling had anything to do with ALB to be honest. I never read the article on the ruling. Like I said - Im happy with the outcome.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  10. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    None of the replays show it because it probably didn't happen lol. You sound like you were on the field playing with all your suggestions.

    Look I'll try and work with you here. Point out on the video where its clear cut all that you're saying. You say ALB knocked Fall a second before the contact. This knock - was it with the shoulders? and you believe this knock was strong enough to send Fall crashing into Barrett?
     
  11. MikeTheNative

    MikeTheNative First XV

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,016
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Wales

    it does look pretty innocuous, it's about 5 secs in. It's hard to judge from that angle, I assume the citing commission had more angles. Also lol at arguing about the the decision to rescind the card without even reading the reason. :p
     
  12. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    :pThat does bring a grin to my face. For what its worth, this is my post underneath on the matter immediately after it happened as I was on here (the forum) during the game on Saturday night. My comment was psoted before the ref Gardner even pulled out the red card. ALB didn't even come into it at that time, even after the replays.
    Yeah the must have. Im just happy the saw it the way I was seeing it. Unfortunately, as someone mentioned earlier, the French wont be happy. No-one to blame though as the ref was just doing his job.
     
  13. MikeTheNative

    MikeTheNative First XV

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,016
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Wales

    To be fair just going by that wide angle I wouldn't have rescinded the card, there must be a close up of the alleged impediment which shows how much to the left he was knocked. If there isn't that i think it's the wrong decision to remove the red card.
     
  14. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    After reading the article, they go into some detail so they must've had some other angles as you say.

    You know I think it would've been a closer game had he not gone off. I was talking with a few mates about it today and one of them mentioned that the 14 men French side may have distracted our focus in that we became complacent. Its an interesting thought. This shapes up well for the 3rd test.
     
  15. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    Disagree. They are basically changing the rules on the spot. This is a disaster.
    Was it a one off? Does this set precedent? Who the **** knows now?

    Disciplinary hearings are not to discuss whether the law is good/bad. They are about whether a law has been broken or not.

    I find the current laws ridiculous, even batshit crazy in some cases, but if you want to change them, this is not how you do it.

    Rules haven't changed for this for a while and red cards have been handed out left and right.

    This is a huge "**** you" not only to everyone who's received a red card for something similar (since WR didnt intervene) but also to Gardner. He saw the play, he knew the law and he applied it correctly.

    It's as if WR couldn't organize a **** up at a brewery.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    I know where your coming from but it will not change my mind on the matter. You raise some fair points. Whats Angus Gardner to do next time it happens?

    So much grey areas in this game.
     
  17. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    Precisely. The idea is for WR to reduce the grey ares, not to enlarge them, which is what they've done.

    Who the **** knows? Ref's are ****** either way now.
    That's is, precisely, the problem. We shouldn't have to wait till this happens again to see what happens.

    I can understand controversy about a call when we cannot agree on what happens or when two laws could apply. This is what differentiates good refs from bad refs.
    This was not the case here. What happened was crystal clear, and so are the rules.

    What WR has done is, literally, changed a rule without changing the laws of the game. Sugar coat it the way you want, but that's pretty much it.
    And precisely because they haven't changed the laws, it is impossible to know how that will be

    And, as if ref's job wasn't hard enough already, they must already add "interpretation of players' intention" to their job description.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    Just in: a friend of mine whose knowledge of the sport barely covers that rugby is 15 against 15 argued with another friend of mine who's a ref in lower divisions. Ref argued it was unquestionably a RC.
    He is now recieving a text saying "WR says i was right and you were wrong". No joke.

    Thank you WR.
     
  19. All Black

    All Black Bench Player

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    Yeah its crazy the game and its forever changing rules. Tell your friend it can be a 14 vs 15 man game too lol.
     
  20. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    Not sure you understand the issue here.
    The point is WR's actions end up vindicating ignorant drunktards who just scream at the tele whenever a call doesn't favour their team and punishing people who played the game and actually took the time to read the rule book.
     
  21. MikeTheNative

    MikeTheNative First XV

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,016
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Wales

    If they are ignorant they probably wouldn't read the commission's thoughts on the matter and why they had it rescinded. When i first saw it, I thought 100% red card, and seeing the footage available to me I still would think it's a red card, however the commission have all TV angles and ones the public have not seen so I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I would like them to release the angles that swayed their decision to let us make up our minds though.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page