The refereeing of the 2010 Tri Nations

[squirrel]

remember when jerry collins was tearing out george smith's dreadlocks and after the game steve hansen said it was all part of rugby, but when the boks had a wager on who could collect one of his dreads everyone was calling the boks filthy thugs

 

[Sam Owen]

He tackled a guy without the ball while the man was on his knees with his back turned to him.

That was dirty, thats the first time Ive seen Woodcock do something like that. Im not justifying him though, what he did to Faingaa was pretty much your quote above.

 

[smartcooky]

I dont agree with the citing of Cooper , Fourie and Devilliers , I feel they were infairly cited and their actions warrent a YC in the game only. There is no way that De Villiers actions were any worse than say Rene Ranger and Kirchner.

Sorry mate, you are technically and legally incorrect.

Here is the text from the Dangerous Tackle memorandum issued by the IRB in June 2009

In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws Designated Members Ruling which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.

At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and work backwards.

Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.

Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the differences between the application of the red card test by referees and judicial personnel is highlighted.

In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with severely.

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:

◄ The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

◄ The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

◄ For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.

So effectively, tip tackles that turn the player beyond horizontal are an automatic Red Card unless the referee can find mitigating circumstances. ALL such tackles MUST be cited, period... no exceptions.

Essentially, it is the IRB's intention to keep penalising, yellow and red carding and suspending players who execute these types of tackles until they learn to stop doing it.

 

[Sparty]

Sorry mate, you are technically and legally incorrect.

Here is the text from the Dangerous Tackle memorandum issued by the IRB in June 2009

In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws Designated Members Ruling which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.

At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and work backwards.

Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.

Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the differences between the application of the red card test by referees and judicial personnel is highlighted.

In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with severely.

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:

◄ The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

◄ The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

◄ For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.

So effectively, tip tackles that turn the player beyond horizontal are an automatic Red Card unless the referee can find mitigating circumstances. ALL such tackles MUST be cited, period... no exceptions.

Essentially, it is the IRB's intention to keep penalising, yellow and red carding and suspending players who execute these types of tackles until they learn to stop doing it.

Ok then reading all of that would you say that Brad Thorn was lucky when he lifted John Smit and got away with it ? He did drop him to the ground.

 

[Jer1cho]

F*cking hell this is getting really old, really fast... Let's just see what happens this weekend?

 

[smartcooky]

Ok then reading all of that would you say that Brad Thorn was lucky when he lifted John Smit and got away with it ? He did drop him to the ground.

Bloody lucky I would say!

 

[User1245]

The whole argument that there ought to be a ratio of cards shown to penalties awarded is utterly ludicrous.

Its like arguing that "X" number of oranges = "Y" number of glasses of orange juice, without taking into account the sizes, types and condition of the oranges.

Totally flawed thinking.

Yeah nice analogy.

Mine is if a woodchuck would chuck wood, which he probably would (given the location where he utilize he upper limbs had a luminance reading of 10.6 to 13.4 per cd/m² and anatomically correct atmospheric pressure) would he chuck as much wood as he should. Yes he would. Which equals 43. The exact amount of penalties conceded by the AB's. Coincidence? I think not!

LOL over it.

 

[woodward]

I didn't bring up the ridiculous argument

 

[nickdnz]

The argument suggests a direct link between the number of penalties and the number of cards which is illogical. At some point they have drawn that conclusion and it fails logically.
Here;s my analogy, in cricket a bowler batting at 10 who has played 5 tests, got out once and accumulated 65 runs. Apparently this player would be opening for South Africa as soon as they realised his average was the highest in the team

I'VE EXPLAINED THIS! THE PRESENTATION OF ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS MAKE IT VALID BUT UNSOUND. ILLOGICAL WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT VALID, WHICH THEY ALL ARE, YOUR EXAMPLE HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY ANYONE.
Please read the examples I have given, as they are what the SA posters are arguing. The argument you are arguing is not what anyone else is. "The argument suggests a direct link between the number of penalties and the number of cards" Therefore you disagree with the premise of the argument, and as a result, you disagree with the outcome! I am ot going to further explain this!

The conclusion DOES follow from the premise in all of the arguments I've presented. I've used direct quotes to show how this was their argument. YES it is wrong, because the premise in which the argument was based is false, so the argument is unsound, but it is valid. The word illogical infers that it is invalid.
This would make the argument invalid -
A.) Yellow Cards are given for serious infringments
B.) The All Blacks have infringed a lot.
C.) Therefore the All Blacks should have a lot of yellow cards.
This is invalid (and by extension also unsound), because the two premise to NOT lead to the conclusion, whether the premise is true of false is irrelevant in this example. Another example could be -
a.) Yellow Cards are punishment for infringments
b.) The Boks have had more yellow cards than the All Blacks
c.) The All Blacks have a larger infringment count
d.) Therefore referees favour the All Blacks.
This argument is invalid (illogical if you'd prefer", because the conclusion can not be drawn from the premise. However their arguments can be presented in ways which are totally valid, but still unsound. Do you now see?

 

[woodward]

present it how you like it is still illogical, they still had to reach the conclusion at some point that there should be a uniform ratio of cards to penalties.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Just had a word from a source ... a good one at that.

That Nigel Owens has just met Hansen, M'Caw and Carter regarding how he will ref certain areas (I do not agree with this personally). The source also said that the Springboks did not seek to see Nigel Owens also about how he will ref.

 

[Shaggy]

Just had a word from a source ... a good one at that.

That Nigel Owens has just met Hansen, M'Caw and Carter regarding how he will ref certain areas (I do not agree with this personally). The source also said that the Springboks did not seek to see Nigel Owens also about how he will ref.

I think all international teams should do this, but maybe there should only be one meeting where members from both teams attend

 

[squirrel]

what the hell is carter there for

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Could be vice-captain?
Or just there as representative for the backs?

 

[Sparty]

F*cking hell this is getting really old, really fast... Let's just see what happens this weekend?

I did try and change the subject but that was bad www etiquette and I got shot down rightfully !! LOL , This is what happens when the top 2 teams in the world dominate one another year in and out , last year and this year S14 it was us , now it seems the power has shifted to the ABS , next year WC is will be us again.......grin. You gotta love it , no inch given !!

Tomorrow will be epic , my heart says Boks by 7 but my brains is shouting ABS in my face. Dam , sentimental games never works out for us !!

 

[Sparty]

Just had a word from a source ... a good one at that.

That Nigel Owens has just met Hansen, M'Caw and Carter regarding how he will ref certain areas (I do not agree with this personally). The source also said that the Springboks did not seek to see Nigel Owens also about how he will ref.

Nothing overly wrong with that , its the trend nowadays , In SA before the S14 the teams normally spend a lot of time with our refs for advice. Why did the Boks not do the same ? If it was not afforded to them then yes its wrong but I cannot see that to be the case.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Nothing overly wrong with that , its the trend nowadays , In SA before the S14 the teams normally spend a lot of time with our refs for advice. Why did the Boks not do the same ? If it was not afforded to them then yes its wrong but I cannot see that to be the case.

South Africa decided against seeing Nigel ... take it as you want.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, I'm going to chop the legs out from under this ridiculous "Green And Gold" penalties to yellow cards ratio crap once and for all.

Here are the stats from the last Six Nations, after all matches completed. The figures are penalties conceded per yellow or red card awarded

England 51/0 - rate cannot be calculated. England never received a card
Scotland 45/0 - rate cannot be calculated. Scotland never received a card
Ireland 62/2 - rate 31
Wales 55/4 - rate 13.75
France 54/1 - rate 54
Italy 66/4 - rate 16.5

I expect that Italy and Wales will soon be filing their official complaints that the referees were biased towards England, Scotland and France.

So lets look at last year's Tri-Nations

New Zealand 69/2 - 34.5
South Africa 66/2 - 33
Australia 62/4 - 15.5

And this one beautifully demonstrates the folly of using tiny samples to draw statistical conclusions. It would only have taken THREE refereeing decisions over the entire nine match series to dramatically change the outcome of this analysis. If the referees had awarded one more yellow card (the minimum unitary statistical change) each to New Zealand and South Africa , and one less to Australia, the result would look like this.

New Zealand 69/3 - 23
South Africa 66/3 - 22
Australia 62/3 - 20.7

So much for referee bias then!!

 

[squirrel]

bloody well put cook

 

[nickdnz]

present it how you like it is still illogical, they still had to reach the conclusion at some point that there should be a uniform ratio of cards to penalties.

...Ok, I've explained this carefully and now I give up. How did your philosophy paper go incidentally?