• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Refereeing decisions

Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
terry j said:
in any case, I always thought 'third man in' somehow applied to continuing a fight. hardly what that rebels player did.
Click to expand...

Correct, I suspect that Walsh realised that he erred in not stopping the wrestle earlier and then blew for the first penalty that came into his head.
 
Hawko

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
And now the judiciary has exonerated EOD, reasoning that its OK to mangle someone's face providing both players say eye gouging wasn't involved and totally ignoring the video evidence.
 
Scoey

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
It was just a couple of high spirited blokes rough housing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rebel rouser

Rebel rouser

Ted Fahey (11)
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
The IRB states that is as offence to make "contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent"........


http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

He obviously hasn't made direct contact with Higgers' eye (which Higgers has testified too), but due to the manner in which he used his fingers so close to the eye area he should still consider himself lucky, and despite the final outcome of the judiciary it was perfectly reasonable for the ref to have sent him off at the time............
 
Scoey

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
It was hardly Omertà. When the TMO intervened during the game it is reported the Higgers initially thought he was in trouble (presumably for his head butt?).
That is not the reaction of someone who has just been eye gouged or even had an attempt at a gouge made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
swingpass

swingpass

Peter Sullivan (51)
i have laboured under the impression all these years that sticking a partially closed fist around someones face was frowned upon, jeez just how wrong can a fella be.
to labour the point,
EOD drove into Higgers at the ruck, shouder first; Higgers took exception and pushed back, the push and shove ensued, they fell to the ground where Higgers in my opinion, did give EOD a headbutt; EOD reacted and then got on top of Higgers, applied the "facial massage" (official new term), push the head into the ground, whateva; Higgers tried to push him away with an open hand to the chin/face; McMahon rushed in and pullled EOD away. pen against McM.

so i dont think now and didnt on saturday that Higgers was blameless, it is further evidence of his impetous behaviour and he really shouldnt have reacted at the ruck. i didnt think EOD actually eye gouged in the classic "methode a la francais", but i thought then and still do, that putting a vice type grip on an opponents face near their eyes is a stupid and reckless act, much like the unintentional but dangerous taking a player out in the air, deserving of the TMO's interference and a card.

the SANZAR ruling i feel is appalling and sets a bad precedent. it will also probably inhibit both AR's and TMO's from making such calls again.

in the end the better team won, EOD remains a saint and the reds faithful have blown off a lot of pent up steam. all round good result.
 
boyo

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
swingpass said:
i have laboured under the impression all these years that sticking a partially closed fist around someones face was frowned upon, jeez just how wrong can a fella be.
to labour the point,
EOD drove into Higgers at the ruck, shoulder first; Higgers took exception and pushed back, the push and shove ensued, they fell to the ground where Higgers in my opinion, did give EOD a headbutt; EOD reacted and then got on top of Higgers, applied the "facial massage" (official new term), push the head into the ground, whateva; Higgers tried to push him away with an open hand to the chin/face; McMahon rushed in and pulled EOD away. pen against McM.

so i don't think now and didn't on Saturday that Higgers was blameless, it is further evidence of his impetuous behaviour and he really shouldnt have reacted at the ruck. i didnt think EOD actually eye gouged in the classic "methode a la francais", but i thought then and still do, that putting a vice type grip on an opponents face near their eyes is a stupid and reckless act, much like the unintentional but dangerous taking a player out in the air, deserving of the TMO's interference and a card.

the SANZAR ruling i feel is appalling and sets a bad precedent. it will also probably inhibit both AR's and TMO's from making such calls again.

in the end the better team won, EOD remains a saint and the reds faithful have blown off a lot of pent up steam.
Click to expand...


I like everything except the last phrase., so I have fixed it for you
 
swingpass

swingpass

Peter Sullivan (51)
boyo said:
I like everything except the last phrase., so I have fixed it for you
Click to expand...
i quite liked the original.
everyone seems satisfied, rebs got the points, reds righteous indignation upheld, brumbies and tahs fans able to stoke the fire. whats not to like ?
(apart from the SANZAR result)
 
Mr Doug

Mr Doug

Dick Tooth (41)
Those of us older members remember the days in rugby when the expression "The referee is the sole judge of fact" applied.
Obviously, this no longer applies, as it now appears to be: "The TMO is the sole judge of fact". My 'Official Match Day Program' from Saturday's Reds v Rebels match lists the "Match Officials" as Steve Walsh, Referee, Matt O'Brien, Assistant Referee, Damien Mitchelmore, Assistant Referee. No mention of a TMO, which suggests the QRU doesn't regard that person as a "match official", (of any importance).
After last Saturday's stuff-up, they may rethink their position on TMOs!!

IMO, most experienced refs (at club level at least), would have left the two combatants and their respective "seconds" to sort it out, and continue to do what they are engaged to do, namely referee a Rugby match, not a melee involving four of the 30 players on the field.

To many Reds fans, Steve Walsh is a 'serial offender'.
 
Hawko

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
Mr Doug said:
Those of us older members remember the days in rugby when the expression "The referee is the sole judge of fact" applied.
Obviously, this no longer applies, as it now appears to be: "The TMO is the sole judge of fact". My 'Official Match Day Program' from Saturday's Reds v Rebels match lists the "Match Officials" as Steve Walsh, Referee, Matt O'Brien, Assistant Referee, Damien Mitchelmore, Assistant Referee. No mention of a TMO, which suggests the QRU doesn't regard that person as a "match official", (of any importance).
After last Saturday's stuff-up, they may rethink their position on TMOs!!

IMO, most experienced refs (at club level at least), would have left the two combatants and their respective "seconds" to sort it out, and continue to do what they are engaged to do, namely referee a Rugby match, not a melee involving four of the 30 players on the field.

To many Reds fans, Steve Walsh is a 'serial offender'.
Click to expand...


No one except a Queenslander thinks the Grasshopper was a good League referee and in State of Origon clashes he just let incidents go and continued to watch the play. The end result was some pretty ugly brutality.

Walsh was obviously concerned and you can see him trying to keep an eye on what's going on and the play by looking back and forth. He did let the play go on, until there was a stoppage in play yet still you want to pillory him. Then, in the discussions with the TMO, he was clearly pretty unsure about seeing a red card offence that the TMO insisted he could see. And yet you persist that Walsh is a "serial offender", presumably because he didn't exonerate EOD and send off Higgers.

If anything, Walsh favoured Queensland in the way the incident was handled. The TMO was the official who reported the gouge. OK, if you don't like Walsh you've got plenty of friends, but the facts do not support your allegations of bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top