Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by barbarian, Mar 20, 2012.
Every year I hear complaints about NRL decisions, I don't follow the game so can't comment much. Just lets say I hear a lot of complaints on radio and TV every year about how biased the NRL judiciary is, so don't see it any better.
I'm not that familiar with it, but it seems to work alright for NRL because the comp revolves around 2 states. The SuperXV is over 3 countries so gathering everyone who was reported in a conferences room every week (like NRL) is pretty much out of the question.
We could probably take some stuff on board from them. Maybe having a panel of judges in the conference call instead of one (if that will result in different decisions being made)?
Anyway, I don't mind the current system and think this hysteria is over the top. But as we've seen SANZAR wont hesitate to trial ideas so maybe in the future they'll adopt new policies in the future.
There is one thing I have learnt above all else in my time on these boards Ash: there is a vast body of rugby followers whom have convinced themselves or become convinced that the game and its status quo leaders are more or less as good as they could be, and that no management class or group sitting over it should be held to account for anything, as though the whole game is on a golden autopilot governed by a benevolent god that will always ensure the best possible outcomes for all, and that the way it is, is pretty much as good as it could be. And so, to critique what is there ruling over all the outcomes on the field of play, be it coaches, "judiciaries", CEOs or whatever, is dangerously destabilising or disloyal, and so not a good thing at all.
I don't care much for that other game. but their judiciary system with its set guidelines is without question better than our current lottery.
Should i be worried i agree with most of this?
Really am surprised they are not appealing.
Nah, just more rubbish from Greg Martin.
It was clearly a dangerous tackle. And I think he'll find that even in the NRL players are penalized for lifting somebody past the horizontal.
Pretty sure you can't appeal when the ban has been reduced due to the player admitting the offence early in the process.
Article was very biased and not really helped by the quotes to back up his opinion both coming from League players, one of which freely admitted his ignornace of the laws of Rugby.
No, an appeal against sanction and/or cost order can be made regardless of an appeal against the decision itself.
Last comment promise...
The issue here is not weather or not Digby should have been suspended, it is the inconsistancies shown in the penal system of SANZAR. By definition the tackle was a tip tackle - the tackled players hips went above his head. It is not allowed and some sanction was required against the tackling player. I think many of us were expecting 2 weeks, and having forgotton about his previous suspension, I would have been happy with 3. The fact of the matter is that Polki lifted AAC and dropped him on his head the week before and received no sanction at all, was not even penalised or warned. Sidey was warned regarding his tackle on Barnes. Strauss was given 2 weeks for a significantly worse tackle from an earlier round. And then Digby gets 5 weeks...
Fine the ref's and Judicary were advised after the Polki incident (alledgely) to crack down on the lifting tackles. That explains the Polki incident as an aberation, not the fact that Strauss was suspendend for 2 weeks and Diggers got more then double of that penality. I guess we will have to wait until the next tip tackle to see if there is going to be any consistancy from here on in.
It would seem that the biggest flaw with this process from SANZAR is the lack of a match review committee (or if they have one, they're not doing their job properly).
All the games should be rewatched afterwards and incidents like these all need to be addressed. It can't be left to a situation where some go unpunished and some get severely punished. The fact that Kade Poki was neither penalised nor suspended afterwards for his tackle on AAC is stupid. You can't have a situation where if an incident goes unpunished during a game it also goes unpunished afterwards whereas Ioane got punished during the game and afterwards for a very similar incident.
It would seem a relatively easy thing for a reasonably small group of representatives from each Union to be formed whose responsibility was to review every red, yellow and white card from the round. Maybe each week a ref, a former player and a legal type person?
Firstly - was the sanction at the time sufficient?
Secondly - categorise the offence - e.g - lifting tackle, attacking the face, striking, other foul play
AND - set a table of recommended ban periods for the more common offences.
I just for the life of me cannot understand why it is so hard to do? In this day of Skype / video-conferencing etc it can and should be done.
But somehow I know it won't.
But the Polki incident has shown that the ref does not necessarily go for a card when there is an incident that requires 'reviewing' so I don't think that it should only include those incidences that have attrached an on field sanction.
Otherwise I agree with everything that you have said Cyclo.
Does anyone have any data on the use of the white card so far? i.e. how many (I think there have onle been 2-3) and which ref's. I am guessing Bryce has not been one of them, but that is my bis showing.
This is from here
That to me seems silly.
So yellow card offences can get suspended for 5 weeks with an early guilty plea (i.e. Diggers) yet a similar tackle can't be cited by the Citing Commissioner because it was possibly only a yellow card offence that was missed completely and not a red card offence.
If you can be suspended for non red card offences, why can't you be cited for the ones that are missed?
The stupidest part of this is that he gets a 5-week suspension but due to pure luck the reds have a bye during that time so it is only 4 games. Does that mean that if this had been the last game of the season his 5 weeks could be served by the pool while the reds were on a holiday? It could make the last round a free for all for the sides not in the finals as they have no repercussions.
When so many of you think that the NRL judiciary does such a good job, it's obvious you really don't watch or follow the sport at all. Do you know how many times Kiwis have complained about inconsistencies in rulings when NZ players got banned just before ANZAC Tests while seemingly similar or worse incidents by Aussie players were over looked? And just read what some leagies are saying about their judiciary right now:
I agree that the 5 weeks seems a bit harsh but do we have to wait till someone is seriously injured or finishes their career before we decide to go hard?
From the above
Digby's was a red card offence (spear tackle). Do you know of any spear tackles that haven't been sanctioned? (IMO the AAC one was just a lifting tackle, not a spear tackle)
I can't help but chuckle over this..the old 'I slipped sir' defense.LMAO
And for those calling for 'justice4digby' armbands, I think it would be more appropriate to wear 'justice4ashley-cooper' armbands.
Digby is guilty.
Separate names with a comma.