Refereeing decisions

[waiopehu oldboy]

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.

I feel like had the pass not been forward Bierne might have had time to get low & get an arm in a position to wrap. Being such a big guy he might still have been too high to avoid a Yellow but might have done enough to take the Red out of the equation.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think we need to get away from thinking about this being a right or wrong kind of thing. It's a subjective difference in opinion

The gameday Foul Play Review Officer follows a different process to the Judicaial process, as per previous, in the judiciary a player has legal council presenting their side of it - this is not something available on game day.

I don't think we should expect that the two different processes always end up in the same outcome. People get arrested and then get off at court all the time

The full written decision will probably end up on this website in due time

 

[Major Tom]

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) (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.

Yeah but by rescinding the red card you’re already saying the refs got it wrong. I dont know why they can’t just clarify with ‘with more evidence or a closer look showed mitigating factors of … or upon review it’s deemed as not significant force’. Trolls are trolls, but 99% of fans just want to know why this one and Farrell’s in 2023 one got off. Or maybe there are others like this being overturned but I can’t recall.

Edit: is there now an explanation for the Farrell one?

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah but by rescinding the red card you’re already saying the refs got it wrong. I dont know why they can’t just clarify with ‘with more evidence or a closer look showed mitigating factors of … or upon review it’s deemed as not significant force’. Trolls are trolls, but 99% of fans just want to know why this one and Farrell’s in 2023 one got off. Or maybe there are others like this being overturned but I can’t recall.

You may very well get this but for a large number of people this specific point - whatever it may end up being - isn't going to change their minds.

We know this because when referees decisions are validated at judiciary we often see online commentary and articles written about why the judiciary has gotten it wrong.

My bet is WR (World Rugby) as a general rule don't see the point in trying to clarify already subjective matters if it doesn't really achieve anything, and the risk is they just put their referees in harms way.

 

[Dan54]

Even more validation of 30 minute RC too. Irish RU were against it too I believe. I can see the decision could open the door to less cards?
I can't agree with your reasoning @waiopehu oldboy that whether pass was forward or not made any difference, BB was there regardless. As I said, perhaps Beirne when defending so close to ruck should be bent a bit. I originaaly was saying just a penalty at most, but after watching it later thought a yellow was probably justified. But by letter of law can maybe see why it was upgraded, even if I didn't agree. Was pleased that BB spoke up for Beirne too.

 

[Dan54]

And talking refs decisions, in England/Wallaby test, it was interesting to think that when Potter got the intercept try it was probably a yc if he hadn't caught it cleanly. Makes that law a bit wrong to me.

 

[Major Tom]

Even more validation of 30 minute RC too. Irish RU were against it too I believe. I can see the decision could open the door to less cards?
I can't agree with your reasoning @waiopehu oldboy that whether pass was forward or not made any difference, BB was there regardless. As I said, perhaps Beirne when defending so close to ruck should be bent a bit. I originaaly was saying just a penalty at most, but after watching it later thought a yellow was probably justified. But by letter of law can maybe see why it was upgraded, even if I didn't agree. Was pleased that BB spoke up for Beirne too.

The pass was blatantly forward. Decoy runners (which is what I thought BB was) are making it harder to tackle legally. Not saying he should use the shoulder like he did but I think that’s mitigation and more reactionary than intentional. I would have like WR (World Rugby) to have just said that.

 

[Dan54]

The pass was blatantly forward. Decoy runners (which is what I thought BB was) are making it harder to tackle legally. Not saying he should use the shoulder like he did but I think that’s mitigation and more reactionary than intentional. I would have like WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) to have just said that.

Yep mate can see the point, but so we say you can take out dummy runners without arms, unfortunately that was what Beirne did even if I thought it wasn't malicious or anything. I don't even like dummy runners , but I thought that me age (don't belive they onside or something). Just think with crazy laws we got now any player in defensive line really has to be bent before contact. I didn't agree with red card, but could see following the laws the FPRO probably was correct .It seems he was basically RCed for being lazy I thought. I personally think there needs to be flexibility in the laws for these type of things, and perhaps the 20 min red is just that.
Yehaa the SH for pushing hard on that!

 

[Strewthcobber]

The pass was blatantly forward. Decoy runners (which is what I thought BB was) are making it harder to tackle legally. Not saying he should use the shoulder like he did but I think that’s mitigation and more reactionary than intentional. I would have like WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) to have just said that.

Judiciary is this instance is run by 6 Nations not WR (World Rugby).

I don't think they can say any of that because it's probably not why he got off. It's probably because they found the degree of danger of the collision was moderate, and not high. So yellow starting point, not red.

None of the mitigations you mention are part of the process at that point.

(Having said that, as a fairly careful watcher of this sort of stuff, it does feel like they just make it up as they go a lot of the time.)

 

[Major Tom]

Judiciary is this instance is run by 6 Nations not WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby).

I don't think they can say any of that because it's probably not why he got off. It's probably because they found the degree of danger of the collision was moderate, and not high. So yellow starting point, not red.

None of the mitigations you mention are part of the process at that point.

(Having said that, as a fairly careful watcher of this sort of stuff, it does feel like they just make it up as they go a lot of the time.)

Yeah, I'd like to know how they arrive at "moderate level of danger". That seems made up to me.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah, I'd like to know how they arrive at "moderate level of danger". That seems made up to me.

It is.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Had another close look at it.

Maybe the successful argument is it was indirect contact because a lot of the force/energy was taken by Beirne's braced arms on Barrett's body?

 

[Major Tom]

Had another close look at it.

Maybe the successful argument is it was indirect contact because a lot of the force/energy was taken by Beirne's braced arms on Barrett's body?

I don't think it was red card worthy. I'm fascinated how they determine force (recognize it's subjective).
You probably know the answer to this. In 2023, when Farrell got off on his shoulder charge, did they ever release why?

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't think it was red card worthy. I'm fascinated how they determine force (recognize it's subjective).
You probably know the answer to this. In 2023, when Farrell got off on his shoulder charge, did they ever release why?

Yep. The original panel found that Degree of Danger was high - so it was a red card, but then mitigated down to yellow because of......

A late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact area

but then the appeal committee said the tackle was "always illegal" because it was a shoulder charge, so no mitigation available. Hence he served a ban

Difference for this one - the judiciary found the Degree of Danger was medium (probably) - so yellow card. No mitigation required from that point

 

[D-Box]

The gameday Foul Play Review Officer follows a different process to the Judicaial process, as per previous, in the judiciary a player has legal council presenting their side of it - this is not something available on game day.

Hopefully they don't look at this discrepancy and bring in the sideline silk to argue the case.

Would tripple the match day costs

 

[JRugby2]

Hopefully they don't look at this discrepancy and bring in the sideline silk to argue the case.

Would tripple the match day costs

I wouldn't hold your breathe.