Reds v Rebels, Sat May 17 @ 7:40

[Slim 293]

The weren't in his eyes, they brushed over his eyes.

The IRB states "eye or eye area"..............

The fact that it appears that he's dug his fingers in around that area would justify his sending off at the time..........

Anyways, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one...........

 

[Scoey]

semantics, he believed there was a problem, the video ref's advise had to be relied on by Walsh. Walsh worked hard to ensure the guy was clear, which was reasonable as well. But then he had to rely on the advice provided.

Whether it happens in the first minute of the last minute is simply immaterial, foul play is foul play

Here is a hint, if EOD doesn't attack the face, there is no circus, there is no need for the video ref to intervene.

It's not semantics and frankly it's a bit of a cop out to call it that. So how far would you say it is ok for a TMO take play back? Logically there needs to be a point. Don't confuse your disagreement with the outcome of Ed's hearing with your reaction to the process that got him there.

A decision had been made and play had continued. If there's a beef with the foul play as you call it, there is a process to deal with that after the game.

 

[Scoey]

I'll go further to say this. A process was applied and a decision made, during a game which in review after the game was found to be incorrect. Why then would we not question how that process was applied and explore if there is an opportunity for improvement? Head in the sand approach much?

 

[fatprop]

Isn't the WHOLE point of having a match review official? Countless times we've had off the ball crap referred to the judiciary after the game was finished. So in this instance, if Walsh didn't want a bar of it after the TMO brought it to his attention, he should have dropped it and moved on.

Hell, Walsh should have taken a leaf of Giteau's book and given some "I'm the captain" material to the TMO.

Someone posted earlier about Higgers having his hands around the eye area of EO'D, so both players should be brought into this debate rather than just one.

Walsh could have, if he was confident enough in his own position to over rule, he wasn't and did the right thing. It was too bad a thing to let it pass with his assistant confident in what he saw.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-eyegouge-claims/story-e6frg7o6-1226924573214

Until now, the media has been unusually quiet about the presser.

I thought Big Kev'd got away with saying some naughty words.

 

[Slim 293]

The fact that Ed was cleared, the red card removed form his record, and the TMO stood down for one week would indicate that the way it was handled was in fact fucked.

Not exactly..........

It is understood Leszczynski will be removed from the Reds-Highlanders game not because he made an error but because SANZAR does not want the focus to be on the TMO in the lead-up to the game.

SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters supported the TMO’s decision to advise Walsh that O’Donoghue had eye-gouged Higginbotham.

It was reasonable for the TMO to conclude O’Donoghue had eye-gouged Higginbotham because he had placed his hand over the player’s eyes.

“In the end, the TMO is dealing with a real-time decision, viewing the footage, and he doesn’t have the benefit of the evidence before a judicial hearing that the judicial officer considered when he heard the matter last night,” Peters said.

 

[Scoey]

So it's also reasonable to also assume that Higgers eye gouged Ed because he placed his hand over Ed's eyes as well.

Thanks for clearing that up. Oh wait, they didn't reach that conclusion did they. Only Ed got red carded. I'd say the handling of that is still pretty fucked.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daz]

Ok, clearly my friendly warning about moving on was not really heeded. Fair enough.

Thread closed. Go talk about the next game and let this one go.