Potential citings for Quarterfinals

[g6mcg]

Only just seen the Ross Ford/R Grey incident and to get a 3 weeks ban for that is an absolute joke.

What is happening to this game?

Gray I can understand given the focus on tip tackles. I know this wasn't a tackle but involved lifting legs and Lam landing on head/neck. Severity of ban might not compare with other incidents, but given the use of different judicial officers + little/no focus on consistency it's unsurprising. We can hope for a better system in future, but can't expect consistency atm.

I don't understand Ford's ban, nor why the citing officer picked this incident up, but not Wilson's stamp.

 

[celticc]

So to summarise what happened in this incident, never mind all the other arguments around lack of consistency, bias and many other gripes:

The referee decided it wasn't an issue at the time, and hasn't changed his mind after review
The Touch Judges didn't think it was an issue
The TMO didn't think it was an issue
The Samoans didn't think it was an issue
Lam didn't think it was an issue and actually supported Ford and Gray (and well done to him)

But,

The Australian citing officer and an English QC decided that they know better than all that rugby knowledge and that it deserved a 5 week ban for both players, reduced by 2.

Let's keep reminding everyone of this, at every opportunity, until World Rugby does the right thing. Eventually it will have to, but it will be too late for this World Cup, too late for Jonny and much, much worse too late for Ross in his last World Cup.

A travesty indeed.

 

[smartcooky]

because the introducing point of your arguement is france is part of 2 nations used to act brutaly. Wich is insanely untrue. England has an history of vicious ********, Pape is a baby compared to those.But sadly yes that was probably the first thing coming to mind of the grandpas judging this case.
However , France is one of the cleanest nation in this WC and in past years.
If we start stupid stereotypes such as French do eyegouging, why not Neo zeds and sudaf uses steroids , etc, soem facts dont make a general truth. Concerning france, it does.
The simple fact that france and french players are attacked on their behaviour whne we speak of an irish punching someone is ridiculous. And i didnt come with that.
You have in your statement, france does more eyegouging than the rest of the world. The day you ll come with numbers, precisely, federations by federations, ref by ref we ll talk about ur science. That arrogance and pretention...
I hoped , briefly hoped that rugby players/fan wherever they are may be shocked by stereotypes, free violence, and bias.
This is shocking to see how debat was turned from obrien being violent to the french blabla.

FFS learn some English, and for starters, how about capitalisation and grammar?

I'm not just being a grammar Nazi here. Your posts are such a haphazard jumble of disjointed concepts, half-finished statements and concatenated sentences that I just cannot make any sense of what you are trying to say.

 

[RedruthRFC]

You mean "Confessions of a Rugby Mercenary" don't you.

I haven't read the book, but I did read an article in which the author (John Daniell) was interviewed. Even that was a very revealing expose of the dirty goings on in French rugby.

That's the one, yeah. In my defence, it must be close to ten years ago that I read it. From (hazy) memory, it's well worth reading and cheap enough on Kindle in particular. He's clearly a very intelligent guy and his accounts come across as being candid. Being slightly more divorced from the clubs and his colleagues than the majority of autobiography authors, he doesn't pull any punches.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Well, I think to get the standard correct and to get a baseline to work from, a precedent needs to be established. That is the only way to get the process fair.

This may be something that we'll have to agree to disagree on I think. I take your point, but there just isn't a sufficient volume of offences to establish precedent. Take a punch, there's a multitude of factors that will chance from incident to incident, off the top of my head:

- where it landed
- the target's status (aware / unaware, able to defend himself)
- the consequence of the punch
- the presence / absence of provocation
- the perpetrator's previous record and conduct regarding the incident / hearing

that it's unlikely that a comparable incident to any new incident can be found. As (presumably) recommended sanctions change over time, there is a limited timescale during which comparison is possible.

But, some countries have different opinions and views with regard to sanctions. Some go for the rehabilitation approach, others for a punishment approach, some use a combination and others are way too lenient on sanctions altogether. And that is why we sit with the problem that some citing commissioners hand out harsher punishments than others, and vice versa.

Establishing a precedent will make the process better from a collective standpoint. But then again I could be wrong.

This shouldn't be the case, the guidelines as to what sanctions are recommended for what offence effectively set a precedent and should ensure consistency as long as they are followed properly. By and large, I think this works well, the only source of confusion is when bans are reduced or increased based on a player's previous record, but the sanction itself can be determined by looking at the report of the hearing. The only real grey area for me is determining where on the scale (LE / MR / TE) a particular offence sits. AFAIK the guidelines (assuming they exist) as to how to determine this are not a matter of public record.

 

[RedruthRFC]

The Australian citing officer and an English QC decided that they know better than all that rugby knowledge and that it deserved a 5 week ban for both players, reduced by 2.

This is the crux of the confusion / frustration for me. Who polices the police? If we accept that the judicial officers are the highest authority in the game, then based on the number of differences of opinion, it appears that referees and their support staff are totally incompetent. The question is, what qualifies the judicial officers to do their jobs?

 

[ZeroTwo]

This is the crux of the confusion / frustration for me. Who polices the police? If we accept that the judicial officers are the highest authority in the game, then based on the number of differences of opinion, it appears that referees and their support staff are totally incompetent. The question is, what qualifies the judicial officers to do their jobs?

 

[smartcooky]

So to summarise what happened in this incident, never mind all the other arguments around lack of consistency, bias and many other gripes:

The referee decided it wasn't an issue at the time, and hasn't changed his mind after review
The Touch Judges didn't think it was an issue
The TMO didn't think it was an issue
The Samoans didn't think it was an issue
Lam didn't think it was an issue and actually supported Ford and Gray (and well done to him)

But,

The Australian citing officer and an English QC decided that they know better than all that rugby knowledge and that it deserved a 5 week ban for both players, reduced by 2.

...and that, gentlemen, is the sad state of affairs that we find our judicial system in at this time. Two groups of decision makers absolutely poles apart in the conclusions they draw from looking AT THE SAME PIECE OF VIDEO!!!

I am as anti the tip-tackle as any referee. That is why I took the time and effort to write an article on the dynamics of tip tackles back in 2011 after the Sam Warburton incident. However, for mine, I side with Jaco Peyper. I do not see how that incident warranted a five week ban for both players.

Its time for WR to stop making it up as they go along, and REALLY address the core issue at the heart of tip tackles..... grasping an opponent below the hips AND lifting them off their feet. If they were to make this act a penalty in itself, then the tip tackle would all but disappear.

#1. grasping an opponent below the hips AND lifting them off their feet = penalty kick
#2. doing #1. then taking them to ground = Yellow Card
#3. doing #2 in such a way that their head or shoulders strike the ground first = Red Card

If a tackler wants to put the ball carrier on his back then they need to do it properly by grasping him above the hips and driving him to ground. If the would-be tackler is not strong enough or skilled enough to do this properly, then they should not even try it!!!

If a player is strong enough to lift a player when grasping him above the hips and then still turn him beyond horizontal, that should still be a Yellow Card or a Red Card (depending on circumstances) if the ball carrier lands on his head or shoulders, but the determining factor for rotation beyond the horizontal should exclude the legs. I have heard elite referees say that the player's "legs were in the air so he has been tipped/taken beyond the horizontal". This is wrong. It is possible (even likely) that the legs can be pointing upwards even when the shoulders are still above the hips.

 

[Mcfadden]

This may be something that we'll have to agree to disagree on I think. I take your point, but there just isn't a sufficient volume of offences to establish precedent. Take a punch, there's a multitude of factors that will chance from incident to incident, off the top of my head:

- where it landed
- the target's status (aware / unaware, able to defend himself)
- the consequence of the punch
- the presence / absence of provocation
- the perpetrator's previous record and conduct regarding the incident / hearing

that it's unlikely that a comparable incident to any new incident can be found. As (presumably) recommended sanctions change over time, there is a limited timescale during which comparison is possible.



This shouldn't be the case, the guidelines as to what sanctions are recommended for what offence effectively set a precedent and should ensure consistency as long as they are followed properly. By and large, I think this works well, the only source of confusion is when bans are reduced or increased based on a player's previous record, but the sanction itself can be determined by looking at the report of the hearing. The only real grey area for me is determining where on the scale (LE / MR / TE) a particular offence sits. AFAIK the guidelines (assuming they exist) as to how to determine this are not a matter of public record.

Excellent post.

I really don't like the idea of a panel of judiciary officers arbitrarily saying "well this exact thing happened in 2009, therefore this is the precedent." I know in law not every case is fact for fact similar either, but the differences in a highly physical, fast paced sport are huge. Chances are they are not the same at all. The aggravating factors will likely be different. Was it a cheap shot or was it a tussle and essentially an attempt at self defence? Where did the punch land? So many circumstances come into it with regards to how you acted, whereas in regular law for society I'm sure it's a little more clear cut. Your guidelines should ideally be the rule book and our interpretation of it. Not trying to cobble together an incident of a vaguely similar nature and trying to make out as though it's the same. Most of the time it won't be IMO.

Different countries will always have different religious beliefs, moral beliefs, views on violence and aggression, etc. Unfortunately for them the guidelines and principles that count come from World Rugby who have been in the business a lot longer than some of them and have the resources to hire QCs, scrutinise laws through health and safety guidelines, and probably have influence and council from people who have played the game successfully at the highest level for years.

 

[YoungScud]

...and that, gentlemen, is the sad state of affairs that we find our judicial system in at this time. Two groups of decision makers absolutely poles apart in the conclusions they draw from looking AT THE SAME PIECE OF VIDEO!!!

I am as anti the tip-tackle as any referee. That is why I took the time and effort to write an article on the dynamics of tip tackles back in 2011 after the Sam Warburton incident. However, for mine, I side with Jaco Peyper. I do not see how that incident warranted a five week ban for both players.

Its time for WR to stop making it up as they go along, and REALLY address the core issue at the heart of tip tackles..... grasping an opponent below the hips AND lifting them off their feet. If they were to make this act a penalty in itself, then the tip tackle would all but disappear.

#1. grasping an opponent below the hips AND lifting them off their feet = penalty kick
#2. doing #1. then taking them to ground = Yellow Card
#3. doing #2 in such a way that their head or shoulders strike the ground first = Red Card

If a tackler wants to put the ball carrier on his back then they need to do it properly by grasping him above the hips and driving him to ground. If the would-be tackler is not strong enough or skilled enough to do this properly, then they should not even try it!!!

If a player is strong enough to lift a player when grasping him above the hips and then still turn him beyond horizontal, that should still be a Yellow Card or a Red Card (depending on circumstances) if the ball carrier lands on his head or shoulders, but the determining factor for rotation beyond the horizontal should exclude the legs. I have heard elite referees say that the player's "legs were in the air so he has been tipped/taken beyond the horizontal". This is wrong. It is possible (even likely) that the legs can be pointing upwards even when the shoulders are still above the hips.

I think you'd need to clarify that somewhat. Bringing an opponent to ground needn't, and in fact traditionally didn't, involve grasping him above the hips. A tackle around the knees or ankles is and should be perfectly legal. However, I don't think that's what you were thinking of when you wrote this piece. Like you, I want to bring and end to moving goalposts (and for the record, I have absolutely no doubt that Ford, Gray and others are victims of just that) by giving clarity to players and match officials.

 

[BraidyBoy]

Sanity prevails as ban on Jonny Gray and Ross Ford is immediately suspended on appeal ! A triumph for common sense against unnecessary bureaucracy !

 

[daluaine]

Sanity prevails as ban on Jonny Gray and Ross Ford is immediately suspended on appeal ! A triumph for common sense against unnecessary bureaucracy !

Yes, but an effective ban because it was overturned too late for them to play tomorrow!! What a farce!!

 

[tobago22]

Why would that be the case? World Rugby have advised that the players should be available immediately. If the coach thinks they will strengthen the team then they go in. Personally I would definitely pick Gray. Not sure there is much between Ford and Brown

 

[celticc]

The problem is that the team will have been preparing under the assumption that they would not be available. A significant disadvantage that should not have been. Not to mention the psychological blow to their replacements who may now need to bench. A pathetic incident all round.

 

[YoungScud]

The team can be changed up to one hour before the game. Whatever happens, Stroker, I feel, will be out, along with Bryce. Whether either or both players bench or start is debatable. From what I understand, they have been training as usual pending the appeal.

 

[daluaine]

Yes, but an effective ban because it was overturned too late for them to play tomorrow!! What a farce!!

Yep, my mistake. I thought that once the team was announced that was it. But yes, it can be changed upto an hour before kick off.

 

[YoungScud]

I note that the appeal transcript for Gray and Ford has not yet been published. They're usually pretty sharp at this kind of thing. Also, despite promising to publish the entire referee review, all we got was what we already knew, that Joubert made a mistake, followed by, "Craiga has been and remains a world-class referee."

 

[WaterboySA]

That's not all you got.The following was also said: "It is important to clarify that, under the protocols, the referee could not refer to the television match official in this case and therefore had to rely on what he saw in real time."

Let's agree that he should've awarded a scrum to Australia. They would've scrummed the pooh out of you and gotten a penalty ANYWAYS.

"On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball. " - that is the part that I think Craig Joubert missed, and why he awarded a penalty.

 

[YoungScud]

That's not all you got.The following was also said: "It is important to clarify that, under the protocols, the referee could not refer to the television match official in this case and therefore had to rely on what he saw in real time."

Let's agree that he should've awarded a scrum to Australia. They would've scrummed the pooh out of you and gotten a penalty ANYWAYS.

"On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball. " - that is the part that I think Craig Joubert missed, and why he awarded a penalty.

Except that is demonstrably untrue. It was foul play and under their own protocols was referrable.

 

[ncurd]

No it wasn't YoungScud you've been told this 50 million times by other posters, an ex-ref and world rugby. Please accept it wasn't (like SRU have) and stopping beating a dead horse about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously carry it on and Scots will get the same reputation as the Welsh posters harping on about Warbuton red card.