Reds v Rebels, Sat May 17 @ 7:40

[Train Without a Station]

Walsh watched in on the big screen repeatedly and said he didn't see a gouge. Not he wasn't sure, he said he didn't see one.

That frame looks bad if it's the start of an action attacking the eyes, but it's the end of an action pushing the face. It's misleading.

 

[Scoey]

Definitely at least a penalty...

Any ref that sees that is not going to take it lightly, so I don't think it's fair to accuse the ref of costing the Reds the match.....

You just don't go near the face....

Quite right. You should never go near the face. Red card for sure. Oh wait........

 

[Sully]

Okay kiddies step back from the keyboard. @slim 293 give it a rest.

 

[RugbyReg]

I assume he used the Steve Moore defence of an illegal reaction to an illegality doesn't count?

 

[tranquility]

I assume he used the Steve Moore defence of an illegal reaction to an illegality doesn't count?

Haha.

 

[Ruggo]

Regardless of the SANZAR judiciary lottery, the decision to send him off was correct at the time....

That's the problem Slim in my view.

 

[Ruggo]

I assume he used the Steve Moore defence of an illegal reaction to an illegality doesn't count?

Funny how we haven't seen that dickhead justification in the Deysal incident. Was that not the same petty holding back of a player as was the case in the Quirk incident.

 

[Mr Doug]

Given that Quade is out for up to 16 weeks, does anyone else feel that the action by Laurie Weeks (to grab Quade and drag him over the touch line from the left side, as his head was twisted to the right), was a contributing factor to the severity of his injury? It looked bad on the clip shown on ABC news yesterday morning.

 

[boyo]

I assume he used the Steve Moore defence of an illegal reaction to an illegality doesn't count?

Or the Chewbacca defence.

 

[ChargerWA]

The worst part about dragging a player into touch is its illegal. You've got to release the tackled player on the ground.

But I don't remember any malice in what Weeks did. Just looked like a part of any game in real time.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Just to get it right from the outset, Ed was never charged with eye gouging. He was charged with conduct contrary to good sportsmanship.
Kind of makes Kev's comments post match a bit more justified now doesn't it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it doesn't. He could've easily said "we are going to have a good hard look at it and will answer questions/make a statement thereafter".

 

[qwerty51]

Just to get it right from the outset, Ed was never charged with eye gouging. He was charged with conduct contrary to good sportsmanship.

That's because eye gouging isn't explicitly in the laws.

 

[Slim 293]

That's because eye gouging isn't explicitly in the laws.

It takes some digging as it's not listed in the laws section on the IRB website, but it's specifically listed in Regulation 17 regarding "recommended sanctions" -

Law no.
10.4(k)

Description
Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area

Entry Point Based on Scale of Seriousness of the Playerʼs conduct, which constitutes the offending – Lower End (LE), Mid Range (MR), Top End (TE)
LE – 12 weeks
MR – 18 weeks
TE 24+ weeks

Maximum
Sanction
156 weeks

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

What I find most interesting about his document is that AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Phipps could've potentially earned a minimum of 6 weeks on the sidelines for their verbal abuse of officials earlier in the year..........

 

[Quick Hands]

Walsh watched in on the big screen repeatedly and said he didn't see a gouge. Not he wasn't sure, he said he didn't see one.

That frame looks bad if it's the start of an action attacking the eyes, but it's the end of an action pushing the face. It's misleading.

What, so he was trying to push his head through the ground was he?

 

[Quick Hands]

Definitely at least a penalty...

Any ref that sees that is not going to take it lightly, so I don't think it's fair to accuse the ref of costing the Reds the match.....

You just don't go near the face....

We can assume from the decision that SANZAR endorses this behaviour?

Are they trying to outdo the IRB at incompetence?

 

[Scotty]

Same as punching I guess. Looks like everything goes these days.

Although with the Moore there was no doubt as to the intent.

 

[Quick Hands]

It takes some digging as it's not listed in the laws section on the IRB website, but it's specifically listed in Regulation 17 regarding "recommended sanctions" -



http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

What I find most interesting about his document is that AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Phipps could've potentially earned a minimum of 6 weeks on the sidelines for their verbal abuse of officials earlier in the year....

I guess we are to assume that SANZAR have a different definition of "the eyes or the eye area" than the rest of us.

 

[Tex]

Good news for EOD.

 

[fatprop]

It highlights the inaccuracy at the breakdown from the Reds this season, EOD missed his eyes from that close

 

[daz]

It appears that SANZAR have issued a "gloves off/anything goes" instruction for Super Rugby.

Clubs will need to add a guide dog to the medical staff, I suppose.