Matt Giteau's Yellow Card?

[Ali's Choice]

Fair or not?

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision to sin bin Giteau, you'd have to admit that it was a crucial, arguably match changing decision. Up until that point the Brumbies held a 10-6 lead, and were looking comfortable. Ten minutes later, the Crusaders led 16-10 and were full of confidence. The momentum had completely shifted.

 

[barbarian]

I don't know about game changing. The bulk of the damage was done with 15 on the ground, the Brumbs actually did OK with 14.

Thought the yellow was unfortunate, but he put himself in the wrong position anyway so shouldn't complain when he gets binned in the red zone.

 

[Ali's Choice]

I don't know about game changing. The bulk of the damage was done with 15 on the ground, the Brumbs actually did OK with 14.

Thought the yellow was unfortunate, but he put himself in the wrong position anyway so shouldn't complain when he gets binned in the red zone.

I thought it was game changing in the sense that it completely changed the momentum of the contest.

I tend to agree with your other sentiments. Harsh decision, but on balance probably fair. At real speed, I thought it was a blatant penalty. But then when watching on the slow mo replays there was doubt if he actually touched the ball. Regardless, he shouldn't have been lying there in the first place.

 

[Scarfman]

I only watched the first half. The ref seemed to blow the whistle every single ruck. Although with the Crusaders, that's probably justified.

 

[louie]

The Brumbies weren't taking line breaks or drilling out the phases before the yellow card. The Crusaders where building towards a late first/early second half killing (like the week before). While it helped them i doubt weather the result or the overall performances would have been that different.

 

[Tank]

On the slo mo, "maybe" it should not have been a yellow. I still think definitely penalty because if you can roll your body away, why are your legs still there.

However, and somewhat strangely given my first comment, I am firmly in the "more yellow cards" camp. I believe the yellow card is grossly underused. I hate so much seeing an offence be a penlty in the first half and the same offence be a card in the last 10 mins of the game. If it is cynical, yellow card. To me that should be the case in the first minute of the game - I would like to to think players will very much get the message straight away and then we may see more tries and less penalties... Don;t get me started on the people who reckon penalties should be worth less points...

Before you all jump up and down on me, yes, I also agree that that puts more onus on the refs and they are already struggling. We all bash Richie McCaw for getting away with so much - I wish he wouldn't but I hardly blame him. Refs need to be consistent and apply the card early.

Oh if the refs could be good and consistent...

One final thought for those that may suggest to harsh a penalty to give a yellow card, why not make a yellow 5 mins?

 

[kiap]

The Brumbies weren't taking line breaks or drilling out the phases before the yellow card. The Crusaders where building towards a late first/early second half killing (like the week before). While it helped them i doubt weather the result or the overall performances would have been that different.

No one would say the Crusaders lose the game without Giteau's YC. That's not the issue, though. Cynical and deliberate obstruction of the ball being cleared, or a harsh call? I say that the 10 in the bin was a harsh call when there was no contact with the ball or the opposition player.

 

[Ali's Choice]

On the slo mo, "maybe" it should not have been a yellow. I still think definitely penalty because if you can roll your body away, why are your legs still there.

However, and somewhat strangely given my first comment, I am firmly in the "more yellow cards" camp. I believe the yellow card is grossly underused. I hate so much seeing an offence be a penlty in the first half and the same offence be a card in the last 10 mins of the game. If it is cynical, yellow card. To me that should be the case in the first minute of the game - I would like to to think players will very much get the message straight away and then we may see more tries and less penalties... Don;t get me started on the people who reckon penalties should be worth less points...

Before you all jump up and down on me, yes, I also agree that that puts more onus on the refs and they are already struggling. We all bash Richie McCaw for getting away with so much - I wish he wouldn't but I hardly blame him. Refs need to be consistent and apply the card early.

Oh if the refs could be good and consistent...

One final thought for those that may suggest to harsh a penalty to give a yellow card, why not make a yellow 5 mins?

Making a YC worth 5 minutes would only encourage players to commit cyncial offenses, IMO. And I'm not sure it would encourage referees to issue more cards. So it would actually have a negative impact on the game.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

The Brumbies weren't taking line breaks or drilling out the phases before the yellow card. The Crusaders where building towards a late first/early second half killing (like the week before). While it helped them i doubt weather the result or the overall performances would have been that different.

Agree.

The Brumbies only try had them ahead 10-6 but they should have been 3-6 behind. It was a lucky try that shouldnt have been a try. On replay I dont know whether Giteau should have been sent off as it seemed very subtle but I wouldnt agree that it was match changing. Anyone who saw the interview with Blackadder at half time wouldve known the Crusaders were or already had been given a few rockets at the break and responded accordingly in the second half.

As I said elsewhere the ref wasnt real good but the Brums were worse and the Crusaders woke up in the second half. Anyone who thinks the Brumbies may have won that game or even could have got themselves within 10 of the Crusaders, well, whatever it is your drinking, send some my way.

 

[Newb]

i'm going to say unfair but didn't make the difference of a fart in a hurricane on the game. the brumbs were never going to be in that match, one way or another. no heart for it.

he did what he had to in bringing the man down and making it slow on the recycle, which i don't blame him for. and if you saw the slo mo it was the fellow crusader that actually tapped the ball out of ellis's hands while he had his eyes up. gits never actually made contact with the ball. but did he roll away entirely? no.

 

[Hawko]

Agree.

The Brumbies only try had them ahead 10-6 but they should have been 3-6 behind. It was a lucky try that shouldnt have been a try. On replay I dont know whether Giteau should have been sent off as it seemed very subtle but I wouldnt agree that it was match changing. Anyone who saw the interview with Blackadder at half time wouldve known the Crusaders were or already had been given a few rockets at the break and responded accordingly in the second half.

As I said elsewhere the ref wasnt real good but the Brums were worse and the Crusaders woke up in the second half. Anyone who thinks the Brumbies may have won that game or even could have got themselves within 10 of the Crusaders, well, whatever it is your drinking, send some my way.

This entirely misses the point. In the past two games the Crusaders have been clearly advantaged by refereeing decisions. The advantage was not result changing in either case, but that misses the point too. Everyone is becoming so used to the Crusaders getting an advantage that down Crusader way when they occasionally are treated even-handedly they think they are being deliberately targeted. The yellow card was not harsh, it was wrong. No contact was made by Giteau's leg with either the ball or the player. Ellis dropped it cold. The referee guessed wrong, based on what he thought he saw. Now a short arm penalty or a turnover in that situation is bad but you get on with it. A sin bin offence is just too important to guess at. Heaven knows there were plenty of ruck infringements that he could have penalised with people playing the ball on the ground and going off their feet.

Some of the referees are just not coping, even ones like Pollock who are internationally rated. I don't know how to fix it but I do know its broken.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

This entirely misses the point. In the past two games the Crusaders have been clearly advantaged by refereeing decisions. The advantage was not result changing in either case, but that misses the point too. Everyone is becoming so used to the Crusaders getting an advantage that down Crusader way when they occasionally are treated even-handedly they think they are being deliberately targeted. The yellow card was not harsh, it was wrong. No contact was made by Giteau's leg with either the ball or the player. Ellis dropped it cold. The referee guessed wrong, based on what he thought he saw. Now a short arm penalty or a turnover in that situation is bad but you get on with it. A sin bin offence is just too important to guess at. Heaven knows there were plenty of ruck infringements that he could have penalised with people playing the ball on the ground and going off their feet.

Some of the referees are just not coping, even ones like Pollock who are internationally rated. I don't know how to fix it but I do know its broken.

Still a little upset over the tahs game? Lol. Well, respond to your hearts content. I'm watching canes and chiefs now, maybe you should move on also.

 

[Nusadan]

Still a little upset over the tahs game? Lol. Well, respond to your hearts content. I'm watching canes and chiefs now, maybe you should move on also.

Cracker of a game, eh? Two teams having a real go....it seems to be like that between two Kiwi teams each time I watch...

 

[Raugeee]

I joined this forum because I'm absolutely fed up watching Super15 games being reffed by Kiwis in New Zealand whilst playing an overseas side. It's a disgrace. That was one of the worst send offs since Kaplan yellowed Elsom in that Bledisloe game in 2006. It's not as though that hair trigger decision making is reciprocated to the Kiwi sides when their own refs are in charge, at home!

I don't mind watching great sides like Canterbury annhilate others but for goodness sake, neutral referees are an absolute neccessity. Garratt Williamson should be hauled over the coals for that decision but will he be? If there ever is match fixing or corruption how could anyone ever tell if such gross incompetency and bias goes left unpunished?

 

[lily]

A mate of mine asked today why all the Canterbury home games are done by work experience kids. After the last couple of weeks I think he has a point.

 

[Scarfman]

Welcome Raugeee, I'm not sure I 100% agree with you, but I DO feel that non-neutral referees has been a disaster. Too much pressure on the refs, and they start reffing badly.

 

[Gagger]

Welcome Raugee - good to come out swinging!

 

[Raugeee]

Thanks Scarfman, I'll accept 99% agreement!

 

[Raugeee]

Hi Gagger, a delegation of concerned rugby lovers needs SANZAR and also Paddy O'Brien to know we want someone to redress this difficult situation.

 

[maxdacat]

is there a replay on the web....i recall from the one it the match it seemed a marginal call (at best)....would be good to verify it.