Drew Mitchell - not suspended

[DPK]

10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play. A player, must not, while the ball is out of play,
commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned
and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.
(b) A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who then commits a second
cautionable offence within the Foul Play Law must be sent-off.

 

[RedsHappy]

I guess the other thing we must all reflect upon here is that, across just two sequential matches, we have had two serious issues with discipline by key players, Cooper and Mitchell. Both have been very costly (assuming we assess that Cooper would have added value v NZ, which I do).

 

[Scotty]

http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/LawsRegs/0/COMPLETELAWSEnglish2008_6019.pdf

Page 43, 10.5 b

Link isn't working for me?

 

[MrTimms]

Link isn't working for me?

10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play law must be
admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended, or sent-off.
(b) A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who
then commits a second cautionable offence within the Foul Play
law must be
sent-off.

 

[Scarfman]

So, two yellows equals a red, except that knocking a ball out of the hands is not in the foul play laws. Typical laws - you need a judge to make an interpreation of law.

Anyway, the first yellow was bullshit of the highest (ie Kaplanesque) rank, and the second was fair enough, even though he might not have heard the general warning.

A bit unfortunate, and in my opinion, Mitchell is still our best winger. Some fucker has to break the line!

 

[Scotty]

So we are not sure if Joubert's assertion that two yellows makes a red is in fact correct? Thomond will probably post on this in about 12 hours.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

So, two yellows equals a red, except that knocking a ball out of the hands is not in the foul play laws. Typical laws - you need a judge to make an interpreation of law.

Anyway, the first yellow was bullshit of the highest (ie Kaplanesque) rank, and the second was fair enough, even though he might not have heard the general warning.

A bit unfortunate, and in my opinion, Mitchell is still our best winger. Some fucker has to break the line!

It is, but I agree with the rest.

 

[Crow]

So we are not sure if Joubert's assertion that two yellows makes a red is in fact correct? Thomond will probably post on this in about 12 hours.

It is correct, see DPK's post above:

(b) A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who then commits a second
cautionable offence within the Foul Play Law must be sent-off.

First he got done for a dangerous tackle,
Then he got hit under the repeated infrigements law

10.3 REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe
any law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question
of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned
and temporarily suspended. If that player then commits a further
cautionable offence, or the same offence, the player must be sent
off.

(b)Repeated infringements by the team. When different
players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the
referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated
infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the
team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and
temporarily suspends the guilty player(s) for a period of 10
minutes playing time. If a player of that same team then repeats
the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).
Penalty: Penalty Kick

 

[Scarfman]

It is, but I agree with the rest.

It's against the law, but it's not in the "foul play" part, right?

I hate these arguments.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

It's against the law, but it's not in the "foul play" part, right?

I hate these arguments.

No... and can come under a number of the foul play section depending on interpretation.

IRB definition- Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that
is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes
obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and
misconduct which is prejudicial to the game.

Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or
stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the
ball.

Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe
any law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question
of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.

Repeated infringements by the team. When different
players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the
referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated
infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the
team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and
temporarily suspends the guilty player(s) for a period of 10
minutes playing time. If a player of that same team then repeats
the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).

Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do
anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the
playing enclosure.

Misconduct while the ball is out of play. A player, must not,
while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct
or in any way interfere with an opponent.

 

[Blue]

That's pretty black and white BG.

The second card was then quite obvious. He had warned both teams.

The first card is the dodgy one. It was soft, and not Joubert's fault but Kaplan's. The ref acts on what the touchie tells him. I am as yet to see the ref override a yellow recommendation from a touchie (in fact has anyone ever seen this at test level?).

The way I see Kaplan is he is nature's way of bringing balance. You know, ying and yang, cause and effect, Dickenson and Kaplan. That sort of thing.

Isn't nature wonderful?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Elsom got the warning about the niggly stuff, but did he go back and tell his team. Don't think so. It's silly but there are so many other silly things that go "unpunished" during a test match.

 

[Blue]

Elsom got the warning about the niggly stuff, but did he go back and tell his team. Don't think so. It's silly but there are so many other silly things that go "unpunished" during a test match.

Yeah I was surprised at the team that Elsom just ran back and said nothing. He doesnlt like talking much, that much is obvious from interviews and the little that he talks on the field.

Having said that. Mitchell doesn't strike me as the listening kind. He'd probably have done it anyway.

 

[fatprop]

Yeah I was surprised at the team that Elsom just ran back and said nothing. He doesnlt like talking much, that much is obvious from interviews and the little that he talks on the field.

Having said that. Mitchell doesn't strike me as the listening kind. He'd probably have done it anyway.

that was after Elsom was warned not to scream at the ref, he needs to learn ref management.

 

[mark_s]

Elsom got the warning about the niggly stuff, but did he go back and tell his team. Don't think so. It's silly but there are so many other silly things that go "unpunished" during a test match.

The blacks had been the offending in this regard early in the game so Elsom complains. Joubert says tell him and McCaw that he will take strong action next time. Ch7 shows McCaw very clearly telling his team to put the ball down and get back onside ASAP from now on, which his team listen to and obey very dutifully. God knows what Elsom told his team, but sure enough we are the next ofenders and off we go. Pretty much sums up the difference between these two teams.

 

[lartsua]

I agree. Very soft yellow card and McCaw is untouchable. How many times does the referee have to say "hands away 7" before he uses the yellow card.
McCaw was on the wrong side of the ruck every time he made a tackle and nothing happened.

 

[#1 Tah]

Why the fuck is drew the only specialist winger in our squad!?!?!

 

[Ash]

Ioane was there, but redid his shoulder. Shepherd is there, and has been playing a lot more winger than fullback for a while. You can argue that both Ioane and Shepherd were specialist wingers who can cover other positions (13 for Ioane and 15 for Shepherd).

Turner should be called in for Ioane, but the problem is that there are no 13s left. Mortlock is gone, Chambers is gone, Ioane is gone, all that's left with experience is Cross, who hasn't been in good form for a while. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) will surely have to step into 13 with Cross being called into the squad. The outside back injury toll is pretty disastrous for the Wallabies - Horne, Ioane, Hynes, plus those who may have been in contention - Mortlock, Chambers, Davies. If the Wallabies get desperate at 13, all that's left is Inman and Turinuri.

 

[#1 Tah]

and Turner. He has been killing it at 13 for the woodies.

 

[naza]

and Turner. He has been killing it at 13 for the woodies.

Turner can go fuck himself with a 10 foot wooden canoe. He is the king of not turning up in big games. His disappearing act in the Aus 'Barbarians' A side would have made Houdini proud.

It annoys me that people keep asking sarcastically 'why is so & so not in the team ? robbie/selectors have NFI'. Uh, so & so missed out because they've been handed opportunities on a silver platter and haven''t stepped up.