The refereeing of the 2010 Tri Nations

[smartcooky]

OKay , I think I am just about bored with this , May I change the subject ?

You may not. This thread is about "The refereeing of the 2010 Tri Nations" and this is what we are discussing

what all this we keep hearing abour Sonny Bill ?

There is already a thread about SBW. If you are bored with this topic, go there!


http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/...-Lose-Out-To-Sonny-Bill-Williams&goto=newpost

 

[TRF_Olyy]

OKay , I think I am just about bored with this , May I change the subject ? what all this we keep hearing abour Sonny Bill ? Is he really that good ? Will he be ready for the WC seeing that he is only making his debut next year ? He must be something special and I ant wait to see how he fits in. I mean u guys have Mccaw who legally or not legally is a awesome rugby player , probably the best we have seen in that position ever , def in the top 3 of all time , he is like Sean Fitz with his slyness , Josh Kronfeld with his hardness and Jerry Collins with his pilfering , is Sonny better than that ? I find it hard to believe and intrigued to witness. What position will he play ?

There's already a thread for SBW discussion active,
He's an inside centre, btw

 

[Sparty]

Gee whiz , sorry about spelling , its 01H30 here in CT , off to bed , can see I'm tired !

 

[Sparty]

You may not. This thread is about "The refereeing of the 2010 Tri Nations" and this is what we are discussing

There is already a thread about SBW. If you are bored with this topic, go there!


http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/...-Lose-Out-To-Sonny-Bill-Williams&goto=newpost

Me bad , jammer , can see why you called smartcooky , you know in Cape Flats Afrikaans (it different from what your would call Boer Afrikaans) your name can roughly translate slimdoos. LOL , ok just having a go at you. Nite all.

Footnote - No offense to my Afrikaaner comrades to the boer comment , was trying to show the diffs.

 

[*Axe*]

I dont remeber Jerry Collins being that good at pilfering but anyways...

I am really hoping the 'Boks can bring some heat on for the test, a good 13-12 scoreline (to the ABs of course) would be great. A real old fashioned arm-wrestle. That way no one will be talking about referees next week

 

[woodward]

Ok Nick my bad but it still fails logically
A.) penalties are given for infringments
B.) cards are given for repeat infringements
C.) there should be a similar card to penalty ratio for all teams
I'm sure you will agree this is not a valid argument

 

[woodward]

The general consensus, in my opinion, is that the referee's have been tougher on Aus and SA than they have on the All Blacks. Simple as that. Where we should have been carded (the incidents the refs did see) we were carded. Where the All Blacks should have been carded (Also professional fouls that were seen) they were not carded.

I think the general consensus is that there have been mistakes in the refereeing especially to do with cards which have gone both ways but the All Blacks have had a couple more go their way. Which isn't unusual the only thing that's changed is the All Blacks weren't favourites this year and have been winning extra convincingly as well as harsher refereeing. Deary me the team that's dominating hasn't received as many cards that cant be right

 

[woodward]

The issue is consistency with citings and cards given in the game. It's as clear as day there is a significant difference. Too many things don't add up. Woodcock's charge on Fianga was as cynical as they come. Yet nothing. It's ridiculous that Jean De Villiers' foul play/dangerous tackle was viewed more serious than Woodcocks cowardly off-the-ball shoulder charge.

Uh no, a headbutt, eye gouge or stomping someones testes is as cynical as they come. tackling someone on the wrong side of the ruck was silly at worst. Woodcock spotted him where he shouldn't have been so cleaned him out, he didn't do a Botha style aggressive dive/headbutt aimed at hurting the guy it was a tackle with probably 50% force at most he actually slowed down to a stop before tackling with arms. He was not cited and they had the same evidence as us, gee I wonder why
In fact watch it again, you will see it was nothing like a "charge" and was not malicious therefore not cowardly

 

[smartcooky]

Tony Woodcock wasn't cited because he couldn't be under IRB Regulation 17. Simples!! If you read and understand the regulations that apply to citings you will see why;


IRB REGULATION 17: ILLEGAL AND/OR FOUL PLAY AND MISCONDUCT

Citing Commissioner
17.6.2 When a Citing Commissioner is appointed, the following policy shall apply:

(a) Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to cite a player for any act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play which in the opinion of the Citing Commissioner warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off;

Understand this guys... in plain English... The Citing Commissioner can only cite a player if, in his opinion, the player concerned could have received a Red Card for the infringement concerned. He cannot cite if it is only a Yellow Card offence! If the Citing Commissioner didn't think Woodcock's action warranted a Red Card, he could not cite. End of Story!!!

(b) Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play even where such act or acts may have been detected by the referee and/or touch judge and which may have been the subject of action taken by the referee and/or touch judge. A Citing Commissioner may not, however, cite a Player for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off;

In Woodcock's case, even though the referee saw what he did and acted upon it, it would be difficult to justify a citing given that the referee didn't even see fit to award a Yellow Card!!! A player who has already received a Red Card for an offence cannot also be cited for that offence, as a Red Card is effectively an automatic citing anyway.

(c) A Player may be cited by the Citing Commissioner if he has been Temporarily Suspended. Such citing may be made in respect of the incident or incidents for which the Player was Temporarily Suspended or otherwise;

If Woodcock had been awarded a Yellow Card the Citing Commissioner could have cited him, but again, only if he thought the offence might be worth a Red Card.

So lets have a look at the citings and offences in question

► In the cases of Quade Cooper, Jaque Fourie, Jean DeVilliers and Bakkies Botha, their offences were potential Red Card offences so they were cited.

► In the cases of Owen Franks, Drew Mitchell and Danie Rossouw, their offences were not Red Card, offences so they were not cited, even though they were Yellow Carded

► In the cases of Rene Ranger, Tony Woodcock and Zane Kirchner, their offences were not considered Red Card offences, so they were not cited.

When you examine these offences and citings in light of the Regulation concerned, it is easy to see that there have been NO inconsistencies. The only people who see any inconsistency are those who have no understanding of the Regulation. This includes a LOT of people in the media in all three countries who ought to know better.

PS: You can download the whole of Regulation 17 from here;
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/19/42319%5fpdf.pdf

or the entire book of regulations from here;
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/02/02/66/59/2026659_pdf.pdf

 

[woodward]

Exactly, if it was the horrific cowardly act intended to hurt or aim as Steve-O made it out to be then it would have been a red card offense and cited.

 

[nickdnz]

Ok Nick my bad but it still fails logically
A.) penalties are given for infringments
B.) cards are given for repeat infringements
C.) there should be a similar card to penalty ratio for all teams
I'm sure you will agree this is not a valid argument

Well, that argument is invalid because of the presentation, because the conclusion does not follow from the premisis, but that argument all falls on the choice of wording you used to present the argument - I took their argument as this.
A.) Yellow Cards are awarded for a large number of infringment.
B.) The All Blacks have infringed a large number of time.
C.) Therefore the All Blacks should be awarded yellow cards.

If their argument is based on referee bias however, comparing teams can be used as such to make the argument you just presented, valid -
A.) Referees enforce the rules of the game.
B.) The yellow card ratio should be consistant with the number of infringments amongst all teams.
C.) Inconsistant penalty to yellow card ratio, shows a bias.
D.) Referees have awarded the All Blacks less yellow cards than South Africa, despite their penalty ratio being higher.
E.) Therefore referees must be bias.

That makes the previous argument valid (the presentation of the argument is arguable better suited, but once again the argument is not sound, as the second and third presmis is wrong. Remember, valid does not mean their view is right, it only means that the conclusion logically follows from the premis. If the premis is wrong it does not make the argument invalid, it makes the argument unsound.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

 

[nickdnz]

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.

Which is why premise B and C are false and therefore it is unsound. Nice analogy.

 

[woodward]

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

 

[Sparty]

So lets have a look at the citings and offences in question

► In the cases of Quade Cooper, Jaque Fourie, Jean DeVilliers and Bakkies Botha, their offences were potential Red Card offences so they were cited.

► In the cases of Owen Franks, Drew Mitchell and Danie Rossouw, their offences were not Red Card, offences so they were not cited, even though they were Yellow Carded

► In the cases of Rene Ranger, Tony Woodcock and Zane Kirchner, their offences were not considered Red Card offences, so they were not cited.

When you examine these offences and citings in light of the Regulation concerned, it is easy to see that there have been NO inconsistencies. The only people who see any inconsistency are those who have no understanding of the Regulation. This includes a LOT of people in the media in all three countries who ought to know better.
[/URL]

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 that say Rene Ranger and Kirchner.

Uh no, a headbutt, eye gouge or stomping someones testes is as cynical as they come. tackling someone on the wrong side of the ruck was silly at worst. Woodcock spotted him where he shouldn't have been so cleaned him out, he didn't do a Botha style aggressive dive/headbutt aimed at hurting the guy it was a tackle with probably 50% force at most he actually slowed down to a stop before tackling with arms. He was not cited and they had the same evidence as us, gee I wonder why
In fact watch it again, you will see it was nothing like a "charge" and was not malicious therefore not cowardly

Not Malicious ?? Are you kidding me ? Are we looking at the same tape ? He charged the man from behind into his back while the guy was on his knees. He probably slowed down to take better aim , common how can you say that was a nothing , seriously. Are you perhaps not the citing commisioner ? Yes the player in question was wrong and he actually transgressed a lot in the the game but that does not justify it , its like saying Bakkies was right for headbutting Cowan cos he pulled him back the move before. Please man , he charged the man in the back while the man was on his knees. There is just no sugar coating that , even your NZ commentators felt he was lucky.

Exactly, if it was the horrific cowardly act intended to hurt or aim as Steve-O made it out to be then it would have been a red card offense and cited.

Firstly it was a coward act , the guy was on his knees and with his back turned to Woodcock , if charging a man on his knees with his back turned is not a cowardly act then Bakkies Botha is a Saint. It should at least have been a YC and a sighting. Woodcock who is not a dirty player normally can consider himself lucky if Jean De Villiers 2 weeks is anything to go by as he too has an exemplary record.

 

[woodward]

he tackled him he didn't charge him, watch a highlight reel of Bakkies Botha then watch the Woodcock tackle and see if you still think it was a charge. He was practically stationary, used arms and hardly any force. He wouldn't have done it like that if it was malicious now would he? It wasn't cowardly because it wasn't malicious, as the commentators said it could have been a yellow because he was getting up out of the way and Woodcock tackled him back into the ruck, in other words an improper clear out that's all.

 

[ranger]

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 that say Rene Ranger and Kirchner.




Not Malicious ?? Are you kidding me ? Are we looking at the same tape ? He charged the man from behind into his back while the guy was on his knees. He probably slowed down to take better aim , common how can you say that was a nothing , seriously. Are you perhaps not the citing commisioner ? Yes the player in question was wrong and he actually transgressed a lot in the the game but that does not justify it , its like saying Bakkies was right for headbutting Cowan cos he pulled him back the move before. Please man , he charged the man in the back while the man was on his knees. There is just no sugar coating that , even your NZ commentators felt he was lucky.




Firstly it was a coward act , the guy was on his knees and with his back turned to Woodcock , if charging a man on his knees with his back turned is not a cowardly act then Bakkies Botha is a Saint. It should at least have been a YC and a sighting. Woodcock who is not a dirty player normally can consider himself lucky if Jean De Villiers 2 weeks is anything to go by as he too has an exemplary record.

No. You are wrong.

 

[Sam Owen]

i think im the only neutral here, and i conclude the ab's are filthy cheats but rugby is a game built on cheating

:lol::lol:

Do you want to be the neutral one squirrel?....ok you can be neutral haha

Nah sorry man I couldnt help it, look at your post hahaha....

 

[Sparty]

No. You are wrong.

Explain a little ? Why ? Cos the citing commissioner said so ?

 

[Sparty]

he tackled him he didn't charge him, watch a highlight reel of Bakkies Botha then watch the Woodcock tackle and see if you still think it was a charge. He was practically stationary, used arms and hardly any force. He wouldn't have done it like that if it was malicious now would he? It wasn't cowardly because it wasn't malicious, as the commentators said it could have been a yellow because he was getting up out of the way and Woodcock tackled him back into the ruck, in other words an improper clear out that's all.

If he did indeed "tackle" him then it does not change things does it ? He tackled a guy without the ball while the man was on his knees with his back turned to him. Still the same , maybe even more of a case for a Yellow tackling the man with the ball. As for practically stationary ?? Bakkies practically only brushed heads with Cowan yet many feel (me included) he should have gotten a red card and banned for 6 months.