• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.

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

...tells me you know you are wrong, and you have no answers.

Fine by me if you wish to remain in the dark...
blockears.gif



...see my signature

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Just answer a couple of questions for me. Yes or No answers only please,

1. Do you think Ashton should have been sent off for what he did?

2. Do you think Francis should have been sent off for what he did?

3. Do you think the suspensions they received were fair and equitable?
 
Last edited:
...tells me you know you are wrong, and you have no answers.

Fine by me if you wish to remain in the dark...
blockears.gif



...see my signature

- - - Updated - - -



Just answer a couple of questions for me. Yes or No answers only please,

1. Do you think Ashton should have been sent off for what he did?

2. Do you think Francis should have been sent off for what he did?

3. Do you think the suspensions they received were fair and equitable?

My answer to all 3 of those questions are yes yes and yes . I firmly believe Franks was at the very minimum reckless and should have had some time out . Minimum 6 weeks imo . If he'd have grabbed the face then realised and taken his hand away I'd have been more forgiving but he changes his grip on the face at least 3 times ...... Douglas got rightly yellow carded for foul play which was more stupid and petulant than dangerous but on the same field on the same night Franks got away with making contact with the eyes . I won't say gouging because I really don't believe he did it maliciously.

I've seen a lot of dangerous acts go unpunished in SANZAAR controlled games and I'm starting to wonder if player welfare is the priority with them ......
 
Last edited:
Just answer a couple of questions for me. Yes or No answers only please,

1. Do you think Ashton should have been sent off for what he did?

2. Do you think Francis should have been sent off for what he did?

3. Do you think the suspensions they received were fair and equitable?

1. Yes, possibly yellow.

2. Yes

3. No, Francis one was a deliberate attempt to rake his fingers across Coles face, Ashton was reckless. Ashton gets the more severe punishment.
 
OK, I was hoping you would say that, and here's why

You both agree with the officials' decisions in the Ashton and Francis cases (which is every bit the Argument from Authority that you accuse me of making), but disagree with the officials' decisions in the Franks case.

I, on the other hand, I disagree with the officials' decisions in the Ashton and Francis cases, but agree with the officials' decisions in the Franks case.

The only comment I can make is subjectivity can be a real bitch!

So, for the record, I would NOT have red carded any of the three players based in the video I have seen so far, and of course, as Citing Officer, I would not have cited any of them either. The reason for that is that none of the three players did anything that met my red card threshold, which as I have explained earlier, is "Intent to Injure".

NOTE: Tip tackles, Punches and Playing the Opponent in the air are subject to written Directives from WR, so my red card threshold for them is different. Until WR issue a written directive to the effect that hands in the eye areas must be a red card, I will not be changing my threshold for that.
 
Last edited:
OK, I was hoping you would say that, and here's why

You both agree with the officials' decisions in the Ashton and Francis cases (which is every bit the Argument from Authority that you accuse me of making), but disagree with the officials' decisions in the Franks case.

I, on the other hand, I disagree with the officials' decisions in the Ashton and Francis cases, but agree with the officials' decisions in the Franks case.

The only comment I can make is subjectivity can be a real bitch!

So, for the record, I would NOT have red carded any of the three players based in the video I have seen so far, and of course, as Citing Officer, I would not have cited any of them either. The reason for that is that none of the three players did anything that met my red card threshold, which as I have explained earlier, is "Intent to Injure".

NOTE: Tip tackles, Punches and Playing the Opponent in the air are subject to written Directives from WR, so my red card threshold for them is different. Until WR issue a written directive to the effect that hands in the eye areas must be a red card, I will not be changing my threshold for that.

You don't know what an arugment from authority is do you? Firstly no, I do not entirely agree with their decisions apart from in the broader sense that what they both did should have been punished. Secondly, at no point did I try to use their decisions as justification for how I'm right, unlike you. I'm merely pointing out that, for the sake of consistency, you cannot have 2 people being harshly punished for something that had not previously punished like that only to then have someone else not be punished at all for something identical. It's the fact that you have gone on and on about how the officials supported your view point and yet completely ignore the fact that in the past they DIDN'T agree with you. What is it? Are you trying to tell me *le gasp* officials can get it wrong?

Here's the thing, we do think that hands near the eyes is reckless and punishable as such as the chance to cause injury is far higher. I think the Ashton and Francis incidents were harsh due to lack of precedence and directive stating explicitly it would be harshly punished but now that has happened, it needs to be applied equally. If nothing else the Franks incident needs to prompt the WR body to write a directive clarifying the matter and also reign in referees individual interpretation. If the difference between no punishment at all and a 10 week ban for the same offense boils down to personal opinion, it makes a mockery of the game.
 
What about these 3 images below:

ben_may_of_waikato_cops_a_finger_in_the_eye_from_p_504adde99b.jpg

australias-number-8-david-pocock-puts-his-finger-in-the-eye-of-wales-picture-id492145118

85808674-fijis-ratu-vucago-receives-a-finger-in-his-gettyimages.jpg


Now all 3 of them wasn't even cited. And to add to that, the image of David Pocock, was during the 2015 RWC match against Wales. Interestingly enough, Pocock was cited in that match, but not for eye-gouging.
 
I'm like smartcooky I'm pretty much against individual pictures of an incident as they show zero context. I usually like to watch most incidents in real-time as well. Stills and slow mo tend to skew perception. Timing is key in a lot of these incidents.

Please note I know these interpretations aren't the actual laws. Just my view you shouldn't really be contacting with the head.

Picture 1 - yes, the player is not fending off. Is a tackle is not allowed to be above head height theres zero reason for that guys hand to be there.

Picture 2 - Porbably but there very little context to make a fair judgement.

Picture 3 - The player has his back to the Fijian, I would need to see how his hand had got there. But as his thumb is in the eye socket it's hard to imagine a legitimate reason for it being there.
 
I'm like smartcooky I'm pretty much against individual pictures of an incident as they show zero context. I usually like to watch most incidents in real-time as well. Stills and slow mo tend to skew perception. Timing is key in a lot of these incidents.

Please note I know these interpretations aren't the actual laws. Just my view you shouldn't really be contacting with the head.

Picture 1 - yes, the player is not fending off. Is a tackle is not allowed to be above head height theres zero reason for that guys hand to be there.

Picture 2 - Porbably but there very little context to make a fair judgement.

Picture 3 - The player has his back to the Fijian, I would need to see how his hand had got there. But as his thumb is in the eye socket it's hard to imagine a legitimate reason for it being there.

I agree with you. And here in lies the issue that Smartcooky is desperately trying to get through. It's a matter of intent, and how the referee, citing commissioner and judicial officer see it.

Now perhaps what Ragerancher and Which Tyler is trying to say is that there might be a difference in how the matters are resolved between the NH and the SH. Which may be the real big issue here. But then again, aren't most of the laws in rugby currently being interpreted differently between the 2 hemispheres? It's not just on this matter but also the scrums, rucks, mauls, etc.

The thing is that while the laws, rules and directives are all on paper, the manner in which it is interpreted by the human is the defining factor. Some are more stricter than others, some are more sympathetic and so on. So while we like it or not, there will always be a disagreement on certain things, and perhaps the disagreement is due to a person's patriotism towards his own nation that leads to a bias view to certain cases.
 
I think it's the difference between the two interpretations that's the problem one players misses nearly 2 months of rugby another doesn't even leave the field in game he's playing. That's pretty bad.
 
I think it's the difference between the two interpretations that's the problem one players misses nearly 2 months of rugby another doesn't even leave the field in game he's playing. That's pretty bad.

It is, I agree, but that same argument can be used for nearly every facet in the game of rugby. How often have we seen members on this forum complain about how the referees interpret a rule/law? I am one of those people that have frequently complained about Mr. Poite, and his interpretations. Remember the whole Bismarck red card incident for a pretty decent tackle he made on Dan Carter a few years ago? Here he was the same referee where he overlooked an offence that is the view of many, that it was perhaps a red-card offence. For once I am glad, the Springboks weren't involved in the match. Or perhaps the issue is that Mr. Poite is more lenient towards the All Blacks. But then again, we all know that French referees have a tendency to favour the home teams. In both Du Plessis and Franks cases, the match was played in New Zealand where Poite was the referee.
 
You don't know what an arugment from authority is do you? Firstly no, I do not entirely agree with their decisions apart from in the broader sense that what they both did should have been punished. Secondly, at no point did I try to use their decisions as justification for how I'm right, unlike you. I'm merely pointing out that, for the sake of consistency, you cannot have 2 people being harshly punished for something that had not previously punished like that only to then have someone else not be punished at all for something identical. It's the fact that you have gone on and on about how the officials supported your view point and yet completely ignore the fact that in the past they DIDN'T agree with you. What is it? Are you trying to tell me *le gasp* officials can get it wrong?

I'll let that pass, except to say that I regularly debate on a skeptics forum where we deal with some of the most "out there" conspiracy theorists you could imagine; everything from Moon Landing Hoax Believers, through 911 Truthers, Birthers, NWO/Illiminati/Masonic Death Cult believers, all the way to Flat Earth proponents, Hollow Earth proponents and YECs, a real smorgasbord of Crank Magnetism, so I am fully aware of what Logical Fallacies are.

Here's the thing, we do think that hands near the eyes is reckless and punishable as such as the chance to cause injury is far higher. I think the Ashton and Francis incidents were harsh due to lack of precedence and directive stating explicitly it would be harshly punished but now that has happened, it needs to be applied equally.

Even if was wrong? Even if they realise that they were too harsh?

Do you really believe that they should continue to compound the error for the sake of appearing consistent?
 
I agree with you. And here in lies the issue that Smartcooky is desperately trying to get through. It's a matter of intent, and how the referee, citing commissioner and judicial officer see it.

Now perhaps what Ragerancher and Which Tyler is trying to say is that there might be a difference in how the matters are resolved between the NH and the SH. Which may be the real big issue here. But then again, aren't most of the laws in rugby currently being interpreted differently between the 2 hemispheres? It's not just on this matter but also the scrums, rucks, mauls, etc.

The thing is that while the laws, rules and directives are all on paper, the manner in which it is interpreted by the human is the defining factor. Some are more stricter than others, some are more sympathetic and so on. So while we like it or not, there will always be a disagreement on certain things, and perhaps the disagreement is due to a person's patriotism towards his own nation that leads to a bias view to certain cases.

Yes, thank you - and it's not exactly news either; and not just between hemisphere; plenty of things are let go in French rugby that aren't in England, and vice versa; for example.
As for intent - it's a mitigation / aggravation, and should come into play for sentencing, not deciding guilt or otherwise.
 
As for intent - it's a mitigation / aggravation, and should come into play for sentencing, not deciding guilt or otherwise.

Well guess what? That's wrong too...

[TEXTAREA]REGULATION 17. DISCIPLINE - FOUL PLAY

Aggravating Factors

17.19.4 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall identify any relevant off-field aggravating factors and determine what additional period of suspension, if any, above the applicable entry point for the offence should apply to the case in question. Aggravating factors include:

(a) the Player's status generally as an offender of the Laws of the Game

(b) the need for a deterrent to combat a pattern of offending in the Game; and

(c) any other off-field aggravating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

Mitigating Factors
17.19.5 Thereafter, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify any relevant off-field mitigating factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of suspension and subject to Regulations 17.19.6 and 17.19.7 the extent, if at all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following:

(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of culpability/wrong-doing by the offending Player;

(b) the Player's disciplinary record and/or good character;

(c) the youth and inexperience of the Player;

(d) the Player's conduct prior to and at the hearing;

(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and

(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.[/TEXTAREA]

In fact, intent has nothing whatsoever to do with aggravating or mitigating factors.

Intent goes to consideration of the seriousness of the foul play involved

[TEXTAREA]Assessment of seriousness of the Foul Play
17.19.2 Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an assessment of the seriousness of the Player's conduct that constitutes the
offending and categorise that conduct as being at the lower end, mid range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the
appropriate entry point for consideration of a particular incident(s) of Foul Play where such incident(s) is expressly covered in Appendix 1. The
assessment of the seriousness of the Player's conduct shall be determined by reference to the following features:

(a) whether the offending was intentional or deliberate;
(b) whether the offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act of
Foul Play;
(c) the gravity of the Player's actions in relation to the offending;
(d) the nature of the actions, the manner in which the offence was committed including part of body used (for example, fist, elbow, knee or boot);
(e) the existence of provocation;
(f) whether the Player acted in retaliation and the timing of such;
(g) whether the Player acted in self-defence (that is whether he used a reasonable degree of force in defending himself);
(h) the effect of the Player's actions on the victim (for example, extent of injury, removal of victim Player from the game);
(i) the effect of the Player's actions on the Match;
(j) the vulnerability of the victim Player including part of victim's body involved/affected, position of the victim Player, ability to defend himself;
(k) the level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;
(l) whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or amounted to an attempt; and
(m) any other feature of the Player's conduct in relation to or connected with the offending.

Based on the assessment of the offence(s) under consideration against the above features of offending, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall categorise the act of Foul Play as being at the lower end, mid range or top end of the scale of seriousness of offending and identify the applicable entry point as set out in Appendix 1.[/TEXTAREA]

But you go right ahead and keep making things up out of whole cloth and as you go. Its entertaining to watch if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Note the use of the word "should" - and you have the temerity to accuse others of not reading or understanding what they've read.
 
Note the use of the word "should" - and you have the temerity to accuse others of not reading or understanding what they've read.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda!!!

Intent does not in any way form part of any consideration for mitigation or aggravation. Nor should it!

Unless instructed otherwise for specific instances, intent is part of how the referee comes to his sanctions decisions as regards foul play... what do you think distinguishes an accidental knock-on from a deliberate knock-on; a swinging arm from a reaction high tackle?
 
I am fully aware of what Logical Fallacies are.

Then please stop appealing to the fact some officials have supported your position whilst ignoring those that haven't. You can say officials agreed with you, I can say officials agreed with me. What's the point?

Even if was wrong? Even if they realise that they were too harsh?

Do you really believe that they should continue to compound the error for the sake of appearing consistent?

To a degree, yes. Anything but the current situation of having vastly different interpretations. Different interpretations are acceptable to a degree but when the difference is between no punishment at all and a 10 week ban, that's simply not a position that can be maintained. You obviously approach this from the direction that following the strict letter of the law none of those offenses were punishable and therefore the Franks result is correct and the Francis/Ashton one is wrong whilst I approach from the position that this is a dangerous thing that should be punished, there is a precedent of it being done and that the Franks situation is wrong.

Ultimately the only thing that we can agree on is that clarification is needed to very clearly state what the position is on hands in the face/eyes and to ensure that there is something in place to prevent serious discrepancies in punishment for similar offenses. There also needs to be something in place to show that the punishment being handed down in consistent with something recommended in the laws of the game. I'm in favour of punishment for hands in the face but not to the extent Ashton and Francis were punished. I'd then like more severe punishment when it is deemed a player has intentionally moved his hand or fingers over the eyes. Eg in the Ashton incident he was stupid going for the head but it's more his hands ended up over the eyes as part of the whole movement. With Francis and Franks both consciously moved their hands from positions that were legal and re positioned them over the eye area (in Franks case, twice). That is less accident and more malice or recklessness as there was absolutely no reason for their hands to have specifically moved from where they were to the eye area.
 
Well, I fail,to see why players are punished for tackling above the line of the shoulders, yet playing an opponent's head in the ruck/maul situation seems to be accepted (I've never see it penalised unless it was a neck roll or a choke hold).

See my post #81 - http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...ank-s-incident?p=815407&viewfull=1#post815407

IMO intentionally playing the opponent's head at all ought to be a PK infringement in any circumstances!
 
Even if was wrong? Even if they realise that they were too harsh?

Do you really believe that they should continue to compound the error for the sake of appearing consistent?
This is so intellectually dishonest it's embarrassing to read.
 
Are you blokes still blathering on about this?
For heavens sake lads, there's rugby on the day after tomorrow, pack it in.
 

Latest posts

Top