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.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Taidgh Beirne red card rescinded

“Having considered the Player’s and other evidence and reviewed the footage, the Disciplinary Committee accepted the Player’s submissions that whilst an act of foul play had occurred, it did not meet the red card threshold,” a release from the hearing read.

A committee chaired by Christopher Quinlan KC managed the hearing, with former international referee Wayne Erickson (Australia) and former international player Becky Essex (England) assisting.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Second-best possible outcome (best being it not getting upgraded in the first place).

 

[Strewthcobber]

Will be interested to read the outcome on that one if ever published.

Head contact? Yes
Foul play? Yes
Degree of danger?
* Foul Play Review Officer at the game thinks high, and no mitigation because there's no attempt to tackle.
* Judiciary must think it was a lower threshold than that

World Rugby process guidance says this

Low danger • Indirect contact • Low force • Low speed • No leading head / shoulder / forearm / swinging arm

 

[Major Tom]

Taidgh Beirne red card rescinded

It's the right call but geez we're good at looking after the northern hemisphere.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Does the fact the pass to Beaugan was forward have any effect? Could Bierne have argued he was bracing for contact with a dummy runner?

 

[Major Tom]

Yeah I thought the forward pass did have an effect. But the bloke did brace and hit him in the head so I'm not sure how mitigation brings that down.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Does the fact the pass to Beaugan was forward have any effect? Could Bierne have argued he was bracing for contact with a dummy runner?

You can't shoulder a dummy runner in the head either, so I don't think it really changes anything, it's still foul play.

 

[Major Tom]

The dumbest thing was how long it took to get an outcome. Should have been shown a yellow card pretty quickly and then take your 10mins to upgrade it. I know they had technical difficulties but seriously.
Also, WR (World Rugby) need to explain why it got rescinded. Was it yellow but not red? Was there not enough force? Was there mitigation?

 

[JRugby2]

The dumbest thing was how long it took to get an outcome. Should have been shown a yellow card pretty quickly and then take your 10mins to upgrade it. I know they had technical difficulties but seriously.
Also, WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) need to explain why it got rescinded. Was it yellow but not red? Was there not enough force? Was there mitigation?

The explanation is kind of there in the decision - in that the judiciary didn't believe it met the somewhat subjective thresholds.

They will never explain the decision further as to say what specific elements they think the FPRO/TMO/Referee got wrong in the moment (and rightly so - this will achieve absolutely nothing but open up a torrent of abuse towards a team charged with making fairly quick decision in a pressure moment)

 

[Strewthcobber]

The explanation is kind of there in the decision - in that the judiciary didn't believe it met the somewhat subjective thresholds.

They will never explain the decision further as to say what specific elements they think the FPRO/TMO/Referee got wrong in the moment (and rightly so - this will achieve absolutely nothing but open up a torrent of abuse towards a team charged with making fairly quick decision in a pressure moment)

6 nations rugby are usually petty good at releasing their judiciary decisions, so I think we may well get the entire outcome published.

I suspect it will come down to a different opinion on whether Beirne was "leading with the shoulder" or not.

As you say, very subjective, and in a hearing with leagal representation, probably not surprising that we get different outcomes within the process

 

[Major Tom]

The explanation is kind of there in the decision - in that the judiciary didn't believe it met the somewhat subjective thresholds.

They will never explain the decision further as to say what specific elements they think the FPRO/TMO/Referee got wrong in the moment (and rightly so - this will achieve absolutely nothing but open up a torrent of abuse towards a team charged with making fairly quick decision in a pressure moment)

Yeah, I get that it didn't meet the thresholds, would just prefer they were open and transparent to which one/s exactly.
Officials got it wrong by the fact it was rescinded so wouldn't they be open to abuse still? Was there any point where this resulted in more abuse or are we just guessing?
People the abuse refs are cowards and are probably going to do it no matter what.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah, I get that it didn't meet the thresholds, would just prefer they were open and transparent to which one/s exactly.
Officials got it wrong by the fact it was rescinded so wouldn't they be open to abuse still? Was there any point where this resulted in more abuse or are we just guessing?
People the abuse refs are cowards and are probably going to do it no matter what.

Sure - but if something is on fire you don't try and douse the flames with more fuel. This stuff is usually quite subjective so it's incredibly hard to give absolute clarity and also appease everyone. The referee team have very stringent review protocols and there is accountability for repeat mistakes/ shit performance (think this was recently discussed in the thread) - and so providing public clarification is unlikely to add any actual value nor help prevent similar mistakes from happening outside the existing processes.

Most people probably see the incident and have an opinion already. Having that validated or invalidated by a post game review probably won't change people's opinions on mass especially for subjective things or 50/50 decisions - but it'll give dickheads online who hate referees more ammo.

Thought its not like for like - but Craig Joubert was effectively retired after WR (World Rugby) threw him under the bus after the QF debacle. You can draw parallels to the Rassie/ Nic Berry episode too where grievances made public turned the usual post game wash up into a weeks long saga.