Refereeing decisions

[yourmatesam]

Play on for me. As a player I was always coached to present "hard points" to the defender - ie shoulder, forearm, elbow, hip, knees and to tense up on contact - exactly what this guy did.

I reckon that's an over-reaction from an inexperienced referee on the big stage.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Play on for me. As a player I was always coached to present "hard points" to the defender - ie shoulder, forearm, elbow, hip, knees and to tense up on contact - exactly what this guy did.

I reckon that's an over-reaction from an inexperienced referee on the big stage.

As usual it all turns on the question of fact, namely, whether he lifted his elbow at all prior to contact.

 

[Braveheart81]

Barely a penalty for mine. All of the damage was done when he had his elbow tucked in. In just looks bad because he then lifts his elbow to clear the player away.

I agree with this. I think he'd have been fine if replays didn't show him raising his arm into the player even though the main contact happened when his arm was still tucked at his side.

 

[yourmatesam]

As usual it all turns on the question of fact, namely, whether he lifted his elbow at all prior to contact.

I don't believe he lifted his elbow prior to contact, it was at his hip and he lifted it after contact to clear the defender from his path.

No issue from me. It looks bad because the defender got himself belted.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't believe he lifted his elbow prior to contact, it was at his hip and he lifted it after contact to clear the defender from his path.

No issue from me. It looks bad because the defender got himself belted.

Not arguing with you because I could not make up my mind - my reaction was the same as Braveheart's original statement.
My fence sitting inconsistent conclusion is: didn't deserve a penalty but I'm not surprised he was sent off.

 

[Highlander35]

When the decision was made, a card was coming.

Was it a penalty? I don't know, I really don't know. As I think I said in the USA/Canada thread, it's the sort of match I'd have wanted to lose, as with a couple of exceptions, we were awful.

Sent from my LG-P713 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

It's definitely one of those situations where something only comes of it because a player has been knocked out (or close to) on the ground and the break in play results in replays being looked at.

 

[D-Box]

It's a bit unfair on the Canadian player as the Scotland player was only knocked out as he was in a terrible position to make a tackle. It is becoming a theme in the three contact codes in Aus that the sanction is worse depending on the injury, even when the injured player contributes.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

It's a bit unfair on the Canadian player as the Scotland player was only knocked out as he was in a terrible position to make a tackle. It is becoming a theme in the three contact codes in Aus that the sanction is worse depending on the injury, even when the injured player contributes.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

This seems to be driven by the combination of stopping play for the injured player and using replays.

Everything always looks worse in slow motion as well. I think the Canadian player was unlucky to get sent off but if the same thing happened again, I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar result.

 

[Harv]

At the time and now, looking at it again, I think it's a penalty. But it's not a red. The ref said he had "no choice" but to send him off (once he decided he'd illegally sconed him). Seems ludicrous as the Scotsman's head was in a terrible possie. Interested to know from minds greater than mind (refs' and small children) if he was obliged (by the letter of the law) to send him off. Certainly, I'm assuming common sense would dictate that refs have some discretion in deciding what kind of illegal contact was made. Understand why the Canucks were furious -- they had a shot at what would have been a deserved victory, but, for mine the ugly truth was it was enough to turn the penalty around even though a red card was a stupid and unnecessary consequence.

 

[yourmatesam]

At the time and now, looking at it again, I think it's a penalty. But it's not a red. The ref said he had "no choice" but to send him off (once he decided he'd illegally sconed him). Seems ludicrous as the Scotsman's head was in a terrible possie. Interested to know from minds greater than mind (refs' and small children) if he was obliged (by the letter of the law) to send him off. Certainly, I'm assuming common sense would dictate that refs have some discretion in deciding what kind of illegal contact was made. Understand why the Canucks were furious -- they had a shot at what would have been a deserved victory, but, for mine the ugly truth was it was enough to turn the penalty around even though a red card was a stupid and unnecessary consequence.

The ref said that because once he started looking at it, something had to happen. This is exactly what happened with Steve Walsh in the Reds game recently.

Once they start reviewing these type of incidents, they generally end up resulting in a card. I think it's wrong that this happens in the game that they are seeing slow-mo videos of incidents that they missed. Neither AR/TJ indicated they had any issues with the contact, it was only on replay that the TMO got involved.

And the TMO duffed it.

 

[terry j]

it's the slo mo that really stuffs things up.

in the jwc yest a SA got yellowed for a 'high tackle'. It did reach his head at the end of the tackle, but no way in the beginning. But, watch in slo mo and you 'ignore' that the entire incident only takes milliseconds (so absolutely NO chance to change or influence what occurs), yet we 'see it' over the span of five seconds (say).

And come to completely wrong conclusions IMO.

 

[D-Box]

The only question that should have been asked is how many contacts a game look exactly the same without the concussion. The Canadian did what he probably does every contact, just most players aren't dumb enough to tackle with their head. Compare this "lead with the elbow" with Du Plessis' one from the All Blacks game last year which was technically only a yellow

Bismarck Du Plessis elbow fend on Liam Messam - S…:

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[suckerforred]

At the time and now, looking at it again, I think it's a penalty. But it's not a red. The ref said he had "no choice" but to send him off (once he decided he'd illegally sconed him). Seems ludicrous as the Scotsman's head was in a terrible possie. Interested to know from minds greater than mind (refs' and small children) if he was obliged (by the letter of the law) to send him off. Certainly, I'm assuming common sense would dictate that refs have some discretion in deciding what kind of illegal contact was made. Understand why the Canucks were furious -- they had a shot at what would have been a deserved victory, but, for mine the ugly truth was it was enough to turn the penalty around even though a red card was a stupid and unnecessary consequence.

Ruling from the IRB referees pannel is that deliberate 'attacking' the head = Red Card.

Was this deliberate? - I don't think so but listening to the one sided conversation between Ref & TMO they came to that conclusion. Once there yes red is the only option.

Personally, I think that it was the stupidity of the Scottish player that got himself knocked out. It probably does look bad that the Canadian player lifted his elbow after contact was made.

 

[suckerforred]

The only question that should have been asked is how many contacts a game look exactly the same without the concussion. The Canadian did what he probably does every contact, just most players aren't dumb enough to tackle with their head. Compare this "lead with the elbow" with Du Plessis' one from the All Blacks game last year which was technically only a yellow

Bismarck Du Plessis elbow fend on Liam Messam - S…:

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

That is leading with your elbow.............. ONly thing is that BPD first yellow in that game shouldn't have counted......

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You want leading with an elbow....I'll give you leading with an elbow and then some

 

[Scoey]

Tonight in the Rebels vs Reds, Lachie Turner was YC'd for tackling Bryce Hegarty in the air. It didn't look flash at full speed but not a shocker either.
Ref awards a penalty and while Hegs is still down being treated presumably the touchie suggests another look.
Ref calls for sone footage on the big screen where you can see that Bryce gets his timing all wrong and actually catches the ball before his back foot leaves the ground.
Result. Penalty upgraded to penalty and YC.
I don't understand.

Whilst I probably wouldn't have supported a YC straight away I could understand it. But when the replay shows the tackled player catching the ball and then jumping into the tackle and a YC is given to the tackler based on that then I'm stumped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Highlander35]

There was some post in the Rebels thread which suggested that:

Taken out in the Air = penalty

Player on his back = penalty + yellow card

Player on his head = penalty and Red

With no way around that.

 

[Scoey]

Yeah I saw that, but that is based on the assumption that the player has jumped into the air to catch the ball.

Pretty sure it's illegal if you have the ball and you have your feet on the ground, to jump into a tackle. I know that's not what Hegs was trying to do but it is what he did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sully]

I think in todays climate the card was justified. But I think the Rebels player providing the shepherd, Jones I think, was the greatest contributing factor.