Refereeing decisions

[Derpus]

How Jesse Kriel stayed on the field is unbelievable. If Dempsey had fallen to the ground and held his head a la Marx or Vermeulen, would the TMO/ref been forced to look more closely at it?

I don’t like how rugby is going with this. I’m OK with card for head contact but it has to be consistent. We saw Grant Williams knocked out vs Argentina a few weeks back with no on-field penalty.

The inconsistency is a bit of a joke unfortunately.

This is why simulation exists in Football. Back in the rough old days there would regularly be players whose careers ended early because they would get hacked to bits (hell, even Brazilian Ronaldo was ruined to an extent and that wasn't even that long ago). So they cracked down on the foul play endangering players and players started simulating injury to ensure the foul was noticed. This is also why they don't really push to remove it - because the alternative is worse.

Seems inevitable that diving will become a bit more prevalent. Its probably unpalatable to a rugby audience but why shouldn't a player go down to ensure foul play is noticed and duly punished? Particularly if the chance it won't otherwise be punished is considerable.

Hell, it might even be the case that if players stayed down after head contact as a rule there would be greater consistency.

 

[Bullrush]

This is why simulation exists in Football. Back in the rough old days there would regularly be players whose careers ended early because they would get hacked to bits (hell, even Brazilian Ronaldo was ruined to an extent and that wasn't even that long ago). So they cracked down on the foul play endangering players and players started simulating injury to ensure the foul was noticed. This is also why they don't really push to remove it - because the alternative is worse.

Seems inevitable that diving will become a bit more prevalent. Its probably unpalatable to a rugby audience but why shouldn't a player go down to ensure foul play is noticed and duly punished? Particularly if the chance it won't otherwise be punished is considerable.

Hell, it might even be the case that if players stayed down after head contact as a rule there would be greater consistency.

Does soccer have a TMO?

Rugby currently has 3 refs on the field and another looking for incidents in the bunker. We don't need players simulating injuries - particularly when there has been no foul. We need the refs making the calls on head contact.

 

[Wilson]

Does soccer have a TMO?

Rugby currently has 3 refs on the field and another looking for incidents in the bunker. We don't need players simulating injuries - particularly when there has been no foul. We need the refs making the calls on head contact.

Yes, they have VAR (video assistant referee) for ruling on goals, penalties, clear red cards and ensuring the correct player is carded:

Video assistant referee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Derpus]

Does soccer have a TMO?

Rugby currently has 3 refs on the field and another looking for incidents in the bunker. We don't need players simulating injuries - particularly when there has been no foul. We need the refs making the calls on head contact.

Honestly I don't think it matters what you think they 'need'. It's already happening.

 

[Bullrush]

Honestly I don't think it matters what you think they 'need'. It's already happening.

And yet I've given two recent examples of clear and obvious head contact that went completely unpenalised and, therefore, hasn't happened. If you don't want to see 'simulating' then
1. refs have to call these consistently and
2. players who take a dive need a consequence eg. automatic HIA

 

[dru]

This is why simulation exists in Football. Back in the rough old days there would regularly be players whose careers ended early because they would get hacked to bits (hell, even Brazilian Ronaldo was ruined to an extent and that wasn't even that long ago). So they cracked down on the foul play endangering players and players started simulating injury to ensure the foul was noticed. This is also why they don't really push to remove it - because the alternative is worse.

Seems inevitable that diving will become a bit more prevalent. Its probably unpalatable to a rugby audience but why shouldn't a player go down to ensure foul play is noticed and duly punished? Particularly if the chance it won't otherwise be punished is considerable.

Hell, it might even be the case that if players stayed down after head contact as a rule there would be greater consistency.

Personally I think that the video ref should be checking for any obvious diving, deem it unsportsmanlike, and ask the ref to reverse the penalty. If it is consistent by an individual player it should be picked up by some form of review committee with player suspensions similar to a YC.

 

[Derpus]

Personally I think that the video ref should be checking for any obvious diving, deem it unsportsmanlike, and ask the ref to revers the penalty. If it is consistent by an individual player it should be picked up by some form of review committee with player suspensions similar to a YC.

They do have rules for that in Football too but the players have got very good at only going down when there is enough contact for there to be at least the chance of a foul. A full blown dive is pretty rare.

 

[dru]

They do have rules for that in Football too but the players have got very good at only going down when there is enough contact for there to be at least the chance of a foul. A full blown dive is pretty rare.

Sure, it would become less likely, As an example though, the infamous face slap to Nick White - should have been penalty Australia, follow by penalty reversed due to the no dickheads policy.

 

[Dctarget]

I knew this shit happened. Stirlo in the latest GBRAU podcast tells a story how they tracked the ball's flight during one six nations and could accurately tell where it crossed the touch line to the mm. Apparently the touchies had such an unconscious bias to Ireland that they were gaining 40m+ whereas Italy where in the negative.

Every fkn Bledisloe, we clear the ball and I swear the touchie is like, uhm yeah that travelled backwards actually.

 

[Derpus]

I knew this shit happened. Stirlo in the latest GBRAU podcast tells a story how they tracked the ball's flight during one six nations and could accurately tell where it crossed the touch line to the mm. Apparently the touchies had such an unconscious bias to Ireland that they were gaining 40m+ whereas Italy where in the negative.

Every fkn Bledisloe, we clear the ball and I swear the touchie is like, uhm yeah that travelled backwards actually.

The fucks the point of a touchy if we have a machine that can do the job?

 

[Derpus]

Sure, it would become less likely, As an example though, the infamous face slap to Nick White - should have been penalty Australia, follow by penalty reversed due to the no dickheads policy.

Its tricky. I think I disagree. The 'no dick heads' policy is vague and potentially arbitrary. The 'no head contact' rule is pretty straight forward.

 

[Bullrush]

Its tricky. I think I disagree. The 'no dick heads' policy is vague and potentially arbitrary. The 'no head contact' rule is pretty straight forward.

Is it?

Jack Dempsey and Grant Williams might disagree....

 

[dru]

Its tricky. I think I disagree. The 'no dick heads' policy is vague and potentially arbitrary. The 'no head contact' rule is pretty straight forward.

Yeah, I'm taking the p a bit. All the same, penalising for the head contact I agree with. I just would have reversed it.

 

[Dan54]

Have to say WR (World Rugby) are pretty correct on this really! Forums that have idiots posting 1-4 frame pictures etc to prove how wrong refs are.
It's not even the posters who should get a kick in the bollocks, but anyone who takes them as a judgement should get a clip under the ear for being dumb?

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Braveheart81]

Have to say WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) are pretty correct on this really! Forums that have idiots posting 1-4 frame pictures etc to prove how wrong refs are.
It's not even the posters who should get a kick in the bollocks, but anyone who takes them as a judgement should get a clip under the ear for being dumb?

This is a problem of their own making because they are so officious taking down any video footage people post. All people can do is post still pictures and use them as the basis for discussion.

Instead of embracing content creators who drive interest and engagement in the game, World Rugby make their life as difficult as possible by taking down their content under the guise of protecting broadcast rights.

It isn't like anyone is trying to do anything more than post short sequences of footage.

 

[Dan54]

This is a problem of their own making because they are so officious taking down any video footage people post. All people can do is post still pictures and use them as the basis for discussion.

Instead of embracing content creators who drive interest and engagement in the game, World Rugby make their life as difficult as possible by taking down their content under the guise of protecting broadcast rights.

It isn't like anyone is trying to do anything more than post short sequences of footage.

Well according to their write up, they have to block it because of agreements with broadcasters etc in countries. (I not sure if I read that right)

But regardless doesn't excuse the people who use stills or believe them! We can't blame WR (World Rugby) for our own foolishness can we?

 

[Derpus]

How the fuck can a still of two peoples heads being mushed together not be relied on to establish head contact? Seriously...

 

[Bullrush]

Have to say WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) are pretty correct on this really! Forums that have idiots posting 1-4 frame pictures etc to prove how wrong refs are.
It's not even the posters who should get a kick in the bollocks, but anyone who takes them as a judgement should get a clip under the ear for being dumb?

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

Bullshit

This is a case of ‘don’t believe your lying eyes!’

How can you get a still of head-on-head contact if it never happened? Are WR (World Rugby) suggesting it’s photoshopped? Even if there is chest on chest contact originally, this is usually considered as mitigation - not as total redemption.

 

[qwerty51]

It's funny because I agree with WR (World Rugby) but those aren't their standards for a collision sport, where the referee and TMO slow the images and find stills to send a player off because two heads touched somewhere in the collision.

 

[Dan54]

Bullshit

This is a case of ‘don’t believe your lying eyes!’

How can you get a still of head-on-head contact if it never happened? Are WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) suggesting it’s photoshopped? Even if there is chest on chest contact originally, this is usually considered as mitigation - not as total redemption.

They don't actually say photoshopped BR, they are saying that showing one frame doesn't show where original contact is. If everytime 2 heads contacted in a rugby game (or there was contact between body and head, there would be about 7 players left on field I think. What they saying is showing a photo doesn't show where original contact is, and even how hard it was.
I know it trnedy at moment to see anytime there is a head contact against team you support to scream red card, but as qwerty rightfully points out there has to be standard in a contact sport, or the game cannot be played.
I know we looking to keep game reasonably safe, but words contact sport give a clue that there is contact. Most of us remember the changes that had to be made (rightfully) when the broken necks was the thing that was in press. That was more serious than this (I believe) and I think we have got to point that some have now just gone overboard with head knocks.