June Internationals not involving Australia

[Brumby Runner]

Surely, the TMO had all the angles to JC would have had, and all the discussion between the ref and TMO should be ample for a correct ruling to be made. I think the JC is trying hard to tin plate the Ref/TMO's collective arses while overturning what was in all sensibility an incorrect decision.

 

[Braveheart81]

Surely, the TMO had all the angles to JC would have had, and all the discussion between the ref and TMO should be ample for a correct ruling to be made. I think the JC is trying hard to tin plate the Ref/TMO's collective arses while overturning what was in all sensibility an incorrect decision.

There are maybe 7 or 8 cameras in the ground filming the game. They definitely don't show that many angles on the big screen for the referee.

 

[Dan54]

Personally I thought it shouldn't be a red, nor many of these, and now the judiciary have said no for reasons the ref couldn't see or have time to consider everything, it basically will take red cards for this offence out of the game, either that or refs and TMOs will have to look at even more replays!! Perhaps it time to say no jumping for the ball, it to dangerous.

 

[Dan54]

There are maybe 7 or 8 cameras in the ground filming the game. They definitely don't show that many angles on the big screen for the referee.

I thought the TMO could get extra angles

 

[Braveheart81]

I thought the TMO could get extra angles

It doesn't mean they are shown all of them whilst making their decision.

Clearly they could have asked if there were any more angles but they're balancing thinking they have enough footage to make a decision and not wanting to delay the game for too long.

 

[Dan54]

It doesn't mean they are shown all of them whilst making their decision.

Clearly they could have asked if there were any more angles but they're balancing thinking they have enough footage to make a decision and not wanting to delay the game for too long.

Yep but according to the judgement they made a rushed decision, because they didn't have all the angles, and have the time to make a good decision, basically takes an awful lot of red cards out of game.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm not sure we'll stop seeing red cards for these sort of challenges full stop. Just perhaps the directive will be that they should err on the side of a yellow card when there is some doubt.

The key point they've leaned on to say that it shouldn't have been a red card is the bump from ALB being part of the cause.

I'd be very surprised if they started adjudicating that Kwagga Smith's challenge from the Super Rugby final wasn't still a red card.

It will be interesting to see how they go. I certainly don't think they're going to suggest that the referee and TMO can take much longer making decisions and ensure they watch every available replay. Part of the problem with the replays shown is that the focus was on the challenge, and didn't include the ALB contact.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Effectively David Croft etc rescinded the red card because of the collision which happened earlier with another player.

Would the ref even be looking at that?

If he has too, then we're going to be looking at a lot more replays to decide during the game

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Blue]

Fair points Blue. I notice Kriel was used on the weekend. Spot for him in the starting line up?

Unlikely. Talk is of an Esterhuizen / Am Sharks midfield which can only be better.

 

[Dan54]

Effectively David Croft etc rescinded the red card because of the collision which happened earlier with another player.

Would the ref even be looking at that?

If he has too, then we're going to be looking at a lot more replays to decide during the game

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Yep it certainly seems to point that this is the way they want the refs to go,

 

[Braveheart81]

Yep it certainly seems to point that this is the way they want the refs to go,

I'm not getting that vibe from the quotes in the article.

I think the one takeaway will be for referee/TMO to see whether there are any mitigating circumstances that caused the collision.

 

[Dan54]

I'm not getting that vibe from the quotes in the article.

I think the one takeaway will be for referee/TMO to see whether there are any mitigating circumstances that caused the collision.

Agree BH, the takeaway is that they will need to check to look further to see if there are mitigating circumstances, though they also said that the ref didn't have the time to make the correct decision, it points to refs either taking longer, looking further back and at more angles, or risk making wrong decisions again. As it is regardless of how it has been explained they are saying Gardiner and Ayoub got it wrong.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I thought the TMO could get extra angles

Yeah. Wasn't it just last week that the TMO said he had more vision not available to the officials and public that confirmed a knock on had occurred in the action of scoring a try, in the Wallabies/Irish test match?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm not sure we'll stop seeing red cards for these sort of challenges full stop. Just perhaps the directive will be that they should err on the side of a yellow card when there is some doubt.

The key point they've leaned on to say that it shouldn't have been a red card is the bump from ALB being part of the cause.

I'd be very surprised if they started adjudicating that Kwagga Smith's challenge from the Super Rugby final wasn't still a red card.

It will be interesting to see how they go. I certainly don't think they're going to suggest that the referee and TMO can take much longer making decisions and ensure they watch every available replay. Part of the problem with the replays shown is that the focus was on the challenge, and didn't include the ALB contact.

I don't think you are right with that argument BH. I clearly saw the bump in real time and on replay. There is really no reason why the ref and TMO should not have seen it too and considered it in their decision.

If nothing else, this matter highlights a couple of issues imo. First of all, there is too much interference with chasers, and the action by ALB should have been (maybe would have been but probably doubtful), a penalty to France had the collision with Barrett not gone so wrong. The second issue is that collisions in the air can be, and this one was, an accident. There was no intent to take out the other jumper nor to harm him. Accidental collisions do not warrant a red card in any circumstances regardless of outcome.

 

[Derpus]

I'm not sure we'll stop seeing red cards for these sort of challenges full stop. Just perhaps the directive will be that they should err on the side of a yellow card when there is some doubt.

The key point they've leaned on to say that it shouldn't have been a red card is the bump from ALB being part of the cause.

I'd be very surprised if they started adjudicating that Kwagga Smith's challenge from the Super Rugby final wasn't still a red card.

It will be interesting to see how they go. I certainly don't think they're going to suggest that the referee and TMO can take much longer making decisions and ensure they watch every available replay. Part of the problem with the replays shown is that the focus was on the challenge, and didn't include the ALB contact.

They should just say you can't jump anymore. The uncertainty and endless process of completely fucked games seems like a worse outcome than just removing jumping altogether.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Effectively David Croft etc rescinded the red card because of the collision which happened earlier with another player.

Would the ref even be looking at that?

If he has too, then we're going to be looking at a lot more replays to decide during the game

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I actually think the reasons given are just a smokescreen. I reckon the JC didn't agree that the incident warranted a red card and they had to construct an explanation for rescinding it that didn't leave egg all over the ref's and TMO's faces.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think you are right with that argument BH. I clearly saw the bump in real time and on replay. There is really no reason why the ref and TMO should not have seen it too and considered it in their decision.

If nothing else, this matter highlights a couple of issues imo. First of all, there is too much interference with chasers, and the action by ALB should have been (maybe would have been but probably doubtful), a penalty to France had the collision with Barrett not gone so wrong. The second issue is that collisions in the air can be, and this one was, an accident. There was no intent to take out the other jumper nor to harm him. Accidental collisions do not warrant a red card in any circumstances regardless of outcome.

There's a video of the first half here. The incident starts at about 11 minutes in.

Most of the replays shown either exclude the contact from ALB or show it from an angle that doesn't really help you much (the head on one).

Most of the replays they look at only focus on the contact between Fall and Barrett.

The only one that shows there is much of a bump is the second last one and by then it seems like they have pretty much decided.

 

[Braveheart81]

They should just say you can't jump anymore. The uncertainty and endless process of completely fucked games seems like a worse outcome than just removing jumping altogether.

Oh come on. It happens about twice a year.

 

[Derpus]

Oh come on. It happens about twice a year.

Yeah, so one Super Rugby final ruined, one international test match. Granted reds only happen occasionally, but certainly yellows are more common and are still pretty damaging to a teams chances.

 

[Up the Guts]

I actually think the reasons given are just a smokescreen. I reckon the JC didn't agree that the incident warranted a red card and they had to construct an explanation for rescinding it that didn't leave egg all over the ref's and TMO's faces.

Certainly seems like let's just all blame ALB and forget about the whole thing.