Has Woodencock been cited or not?

[Harfish]

The IRB/SANZAR have had a clear approach for many seasons to attempt to eradciate these types of tackles because of the potential for serious neck and head injuries. These types of injuries reflect poorly on our game and put further pressure on the de-powering of the scrum, where most neck injuries are believed to occur.

This edict has been passed to referees at all levels in New Zealand but I will dispute one point there. Since 2005 there has only been one (1) serious neck injury from a scrum. Most serious injuries now occur in the tackle and breakdown area now.

Effectiely the powers that be think that the Quade/Fourie tackles should be red-carded but I don't think that they want teams penalised that heavily on the field. The referees are only prepared to red card the worst of the spear tackles and referee managament are OK with this. Therefore we have almost a quasi league system for spear tackles where the referee applies a penalty (and ususally YC) on the field and the judiciary review the tackle after the game and generally apply a suspension.

I don't disagree but they simply cannot have it both ways. Either an instance of foul play is worthy of a yellow/red card or it isn't. Neither Cooper nor Fourie deserved red cards under what New Zealand referees are trained to do, but I think their actions were worthy of suspension.

Just curious, how is what Woodcock did any different to Dean Mumm (who I think got 2 weeks) or Bakkie Botha did to Adam Jones?

Back to Woodward, I think it is more appropriate to compare this incident to Mumm and IMO neither should be suspended for their actions - YCs would be sufficient.

But Woodcock wasn't yellow carded, isn't the judiciary there to punish incidents that are not dealt with, or incorrectly dealt with?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

No, the judiciary is there to deal with incidents that should have been red-carded. There is currently no mechanism for retrospective yellow cards.

I was trying to infer that neck injuries don't actually occur that much at scrums but when neck inury stats are reviewed, it is assumed that they are caused by scrums.

I believe that I was saying that both Woodcock and Mumm deserved YCs but not suspensions.

 

[Joe Blow]

No, the judiciary is there to deal with incidents that should have been red-carded.

So you are saying that the citing officials and judiciary feel tha both Fourie and Cooper should have been sent off with a red for their tackles?

 

[Joe Blow]

Either way there was enough there for the citing official at least to have it looked at.
If at that point it was decided that there should be no futher action taken then so be it.

You cannot tell me that this was not as serious as either of Fouries or Coopers citing offences.
Some refs may have sent him off......they make mistakes occasionally on the run you know.

Jesus.....Shmoo was cited and he got 2 yellows and a red for nothing???????????
Did he need another red on top of his impressive Melbourne haul?

 

[Grandmaster Flash]

[video=youtube;_kLEcVW7DAs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLEcVW7DAs&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Off topic but look who drags in all the Wallabies and does the talking in the huddle. Pocock.

 

[Groucho]

Erm, at the risk of being controversial here (why change the habit of a lifetime), it doesn't look as bad as I thought it did originally so can see why not cited.

Stupid move by Woodcock, but hardly as dangerous as I originally thought, Woodcock actually stops before he hits him. And if I was going to be completely one eyed, I'd even say Finger seems ok after the hit & then turns around, notices he has the penalty & Kaplan is looking then suddenly seems to be in a lot of pain.

Yellow Card - definately. Red card offence - definately not. And the citing procedure states must be red card offence, therefore the correct decision has been made by the laws of the game

(Make no mistake, I dont' agree with that, but the laws have been followed here).

That being the case (and I agree, those are the laws) then why are referees only producing yellows for tip tackles, which the subsequent automatic suspensions indicate must actually be automatic reds?

 

[fatprop]

I still don't think it was worth a citing

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Groucho/Harfish - is it that anything not carded on the field, must be a red card offence to be citable? And that's how Cooper/Fourie got banned and Woody got off?

I.e, so if you get a yellow on the field, you are automatically cited, if you get nothing, then you can only get cited if it's red cardable?

Again, I don't agree with it if that's the rules, but just trying to make some sort of sense/consistency about it.

 

[Tiger]

Off topic but look who drags in all the Wallabies and does the talking in the huddle. Pocock.

And have a look at Gits going berko at Robinson!

 

[RugbyReg]

And have a look at Gits going berko at Robinson!

wow and do you reckon FC is having a go back? That's an interesting little development.

 

[DPK]

wow and do you reckon FC is having a go back? That's an interesting little development.

Didn't really look like they were going off at each other, more like they were exclaiming about the Woodcock incident.

 

[mark_s]

I see nothing at all in the Gits-FC dialogue there. What stands out to me after watching this again is that Kaplans instructions are very vague. He says that Him (Kaplan), McCaw and the All Blacks having an "obligation" and then talks about no more and thats it, but WTF is he actually saying? Its a deanism at its best and conveniently lets both Aus and NZ players and supporters interpret it anyway they want.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

So you are saying that the citing officials and judiciary feel tha both Fourie and Cooper should have been sent off with a red for their tackles?

Yes, JB, that is exactly what I am saying. But it is not in line with the thinking of the referee fraternity.

 

[Groucho]

I see nothing at all in the Gits-FC dialogue there. What stands out to me after watching this again is that Kaplans instructions are very vague. He says that Him (Kaplan), McCaw and the All Blacks having an "obligation" and then talks about no more and thats it, but WTF is he actually saying? Its a deanism at its best and conveniently lets both Aus and NZ players and supporters interpret it anyway they want.

I think Kaplan was saying "We who controls himself controls the game," which he'd recently read, but couldn't remember where.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Either way there was enough there for the citing official at least to have it looked at.
If at that point it was decided that there should be no futher action taken then so be it.

You cannot tell me that this was not as serious as either of Fouries or Coopers citing offences.
Some refs may have sent him off......they make mistakes occasionally on the run you know.

Jesus.....Shmoo was cited and he got 2 yellows and a red for nothing???????????
Did he need another red on top of his impressive Melbourne haul?

The citing official would most likely have reviewed it at the ground after the match and then decided that it was not a red card offence.

Schmoo was not cited. He got an automatic date with the judiciary because he was red carded.

I can say the Woodcock incident was not as serious in the eyes of the IRB/SANZAR. Their argument would be that tip tackles have a greater chance of serious injury ie head or neck injury. I think the difficult part is that generally tip tackles are a matter of poor technique whereas Woodcock's was a deliberate act with malice and that is one of the reasons why everyone is so fired up.

 

[Hawko]

If the law doesn't allow for the citing of a yellow card offense post game then the law is an ass and needs to be changed. I fail to see how Quade gets two weeks and Fourie four after being yellow carded on the field, but Woodcock gets off because of referee inaction on the field.

The Dean Mumm incident from the Reds/Tahs game puts the lie to this nonsense. For a similar but lesser grade offence Mumm was yellow carded. He was then cited and banned for two weeks. So yellow card offences can be cited. Major Raggerly should watch a bit more than NZ only games and he would be aware of the precedents set. The NZ game precedents show that blatant spear tackles are only penalty offences and that they will not be cited. See Chiefs vs Crusaders, tackle by Sir Richie McCaw the blameless.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Hawko - I probably watch more global rugby than you've tied your own shoes. Granted, I don't wach much Aussie club, but I barely miss an international and follow as many wrap ups from Europe as possible on top of whatever S14 games I can see here in HK. I will conced that I did not see the Dean Mumm incident.

My questions are based around my confusion for the below:

a) Fourie & Cooper have been banned for YC offences which were picked up
b) Woodcock hasn't been banned for a YC offence not picked up in the match.

Now, if you'd mind politely telling me which lie should be put to rest & what I would have learned if I was watching more than NZ only games (which, just as an fyi to you, makes up about 10% of my rugby viewing on an annual basis - not out of choice tho).

 

[Hawko]

Hawko - I probably watch more global rugby than you've tied your own shoes. Granted, I don't wach much Aussie club, but I barely miss an international and follow as many wrap ups from Europe as possible on top of whatever S14 games I can see here in HK. I will conced that I did not see the Dean Mumm incident.

My questions are based around my confusion for the below:

a) Fourie & Cooper have been banned for YC offences which were picked up
b) Woodcock hasn't been banned for a YC offence not picked up in the match.

Now, if you'd mind politely telling me which lie should be put to rest & what I would have learned if I was watching more than NZ only games (which, just as an fyi to you, makes up about 10% of my rugby viewing on an annual basis - not out of choice tho).

Poor choice of words on my part, I did not mean to directly accuse you of lying. The issue I was raising was that Dean Mumm was yellow carded for a tackle in the S14, round 1. It was similar in nature to Woodcock's, but not as blatant. He was subsequently cited and banned for two weeks. So a citing commissioner can cite a player who is yellow carded, it has actually happened. If you say that Mumm's offence was a red card then you also have to say Woodcock's was also a red card and therefore should have been cited. If I was king then both players would have got a yellow with no further action. But I am not. With the precedent set from Mumm's citing and suspension it is beyond credibility to say that Woodcock has been treated properly within the laws.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The Dean Mumm incident from the Reds/Tahs game puts the lie to this nonsense. For a similar but lesser grade offence Mumm was yellow carded. He was then cited and banned for two weeks. So yellow card offences can be cited. Major Raggerly should watch a bit more than NZ only games and he would be aware of the precedents set. The NZ game precedents show that blatant spear tackles are only penalty offences and that they will not be cited. See Chiefs vs Crusaders, tackle by Sir Richie McCaw the blameless.

The action taken on the field is not relevant to the citing process. A citing officer cites a player when he feels a red card should have been issued. Therefore he can be cited when the player has been penalised or when he receives a YC or even when it is missed altogether. The citing process does not cover situations where a penalty was awarded and it should have been a YC (which is what most people feel would have been appropriate for the Woodcock situation). In the Dean Mumm situation, the citing officer felt a red card was appropriate and Mumm was sent to the judiciary and suspended. I think this was harsh and also inconsistent with the Woodcock situation.

 

[chief]

Look I think its as simple as this. Consistency. It's the key word.

Woodcock not being carded is inconsistent alone, but a citing is inconsistent.

I don't agree with a citing but Fourie and Cooper both were suspended, and they were also dealt with on field.

As far as I'm concerned, Australia can now do that to the All Blacks, and even if a YC is given, no citing can be given.