Refereeing decisions

[Rob42]

I think the best way to provide public feedback on ref decisions is something like Nigel Owens' Whistle Watch - somewhat removed from the match broadcast, and someone's who's independent of the actual ref or ref association. They got themselves into trouble with reviewing the non-decision in the Springbok-Wallaby game by chasing the clicks with "WERE THE WALLABIES ROBBED?!" headlines - that was a mistake. The actual review by Owens was pretty sensible.

Pushing refs into press conferences would be very unwise.

 

[Dctarget]

Can someone explain to me a sane take on this Saffa player being banned for coconut twisting? On twitter it's getting frankly bizarre with MAGA-esque takes that Springboks should refuse to play again or they should publish the emails of the judiciary.

Do they have the right to be aggrieved? I can't be bothered doing a deep dive into it.

 

[Braveheart81]

I haven't looked into it in massive detail but their issue is that there is seemingly no definitive video angle showing the incident and that the judiciary has essentially gone with the victim's testimony combined with the South African player's hand's proximity to the groin area at the time the player reacted.

 

[Sully]

He's basically been found guilty on the say if one player. No other evidence at all and says he didn't do it.

 

[Dctarget]

Hmm interesting. Not envious of these decision makers. Similar to when a player makes a racist/homophobic comment, very difficult to prove but high incentive to punish.

Also to be honest, the bloke throwing some absolute punches at the Saffa is pretty good evidence that something fucked happened.

 

[Sully]

Hmm interesting. Not envious of these decision makers. Similar to when a player makes a racist/homophobic comment, very difficult to prove but high incentive to punish.

Also to be honest, the bloke throwing some absolute punches at the Saffa is pretty good evidence that something fucked happened.

That doesn't mean he's throwing them at the correct guy.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Standard of proof for everything under Regulation 17 is

"17.15.1 The standard of proof for all matters under this Regulation 17 shall be on the balance of probabilities."

Which probably means you can ban him on the basis of he "probably" did it. There's no beyond reasonable doubt here

 

[dru]

Standard of proof for everything under Regulation 17 is

Which probably means you can ban him on the basis of he "probably" did it. There's no beyond reasonable doubt here

One bloke says he did. The other says he didn't. Does that meet "on the balance of probability"? Seems short to me though I'm no lawyer.