Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Imagine what some people would be saying if Bakkies Botha was in the EOD role.
Reds v Rebels, Sat May 17 @ 7:40
- Thread starter oztimmay
- Start date
- Status
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Thanks. I was going to post that but as a Saffa that would have seemed like looking for excuses.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Maybe the Reds will do precisely that.
Just because the SANZAR Judicial Officer has exonerated him based on the evidence they considered doesn't mean that his employer can not take some action.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Imagine if it had been Hannibal Lecter in the EOD role.
Not really apples and oranges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Id like to think the reaction would be harsher on a player with serious form, than a bloke pushing 30 who has never committed a similar offence in his career.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
But you guys aren't arguing on severity of penalty, in which case prior form does come into it. You guys are saying that nothing happened requiring even a penalty and that all EOD did was put his hand on the face. So prior form doesn't come into guilt or innocence. Do you think that what EOD did was wrong and should be punished? Or are you guys happy with that sort of stuff?
Maybe the QRU could put it on their 2015 junior rugby poster. I bet the mums will be lining up to get their sons playing rugby.
Maybe the QRU could put it on their 2015 junior rugby poster. I bet the mums will be lining up to get their sons playing rugby.
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
Forget the EOD poster, if I was the Tahs or any of the other OZ sides I'd be firing out a 20 second ad with images of Horwill's post game interview, in the lead up to the next derby.
"WEEZ WAZ ROBBED"
[Insert image]
"QLD rugby - do they ever stop whinging"
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
^^^48 hour limit for citings isn't there?
At least that is for on-field stuff.
The Thought Police are usually on to negative comments about like a seagull onto a chip at Huskisson Beach. Maybe the big fella got away with it?
At least that is for on-field stuff.
The Thought Police are usually on to negative comments about like a seagull onto a chip at Huskisson Beach. Maybe the big fella got away with it?
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
I am arguing that the way it was handled was fucked. I'm saying that a number of things happened that warranted a penalty. The on field ref was watching the whole thing, he made a decision and play had moved on. Then it was called back 50m, we sat through minutes of replays, we watched two officials arguing about what had happened and then the game was handed on a platter to one of the teams.
It's interesting that you use the angle of marketing the game to younger players because if that's how you are happy for games to play out then I don't reckon many young players will be even asking their mums if they can play.
What Ed did is always going to land him in hot water. There were other very similar infractions in that melee that also should land a player in hot water, yet the officials decided not to look at them at all.
The fact that Ed was cleared, the red card removed form his record, and the TMO stood down for one week would indicate that the way it was handled was in fact fucked. If an incident like that is missed, there is a citing process to make sure they don't go unpunished. Now the Rebels could have made a complaint, but given that both their medical staff and Higgers testified for Ed, I'd say they weren't that worried about it. The Citing commissioner or whoever reviews the matches also could've cited Ed which they did, and he was cleared.
Disagree, the video ref appears to have been proven wrong, but he is obligated to advise the ref of foul play the ref may have missed. I fail to see how that is a negative
So to me, the process was correct and I think a great improvement, and watching the video, you can see the concern that needed to be highlighted.
(Personally, I still don't understand how EOD actions appear to be allowed, just leave the face alone, end of conversation, have a few weeks to consider it would have been the fairest outcome, it is just a terrible precedent)
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Except the video ref didn't advise, he insisted. When Walsh challenged him he said he was sure.
The process in theory is a good one, but the opportunity for the video ref to intervene had passed. There will always be stuff that is missed and there are other processes in place for that.
The circus that was the end of that game should be avoided at all costs. At a time when the game is struggling and they are looking at ways to attract new viewers, that was a debacle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
semantics, he believed there was a problem, the video ref's advise had to be relied on by Walsh. Walsh worked hard to ensure the guy was clear, which was reasonable as well. But then he had to rely on the advice provided.
Whether it happens in the first minute of the last minute is simply immaterial, foul play is foul play
Here is a hint, if EOD doesn't attack the face, there is no circus, there is no need for the video ref to intervene.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
The issue is the TMO's insistence on something, which he was wrong about.
Nothing wrong with looking at it. But as soon as he said there was definitely a Red Card offence, Walsh had no real choice. In my view, Walsh's actions were correct. He repeatedly gave the TMO the chance to say he wasn't certain, indicating he saw nothing worthy of action himself, and when the TMO said he was absolutely certain, he made the call, as he should in that case.
As I stated earlier Fatprop, whilst I'm glad everything is so clear cut and black and white in your world. But both players had their hands over each other's faces, they both showed restraint to avoid any penalty offences against each other.
Comments like yours reek of a bloke who is either a hypocrite, or never stepped foot on a rugby pitch.
Nothing wrong with looking at it. But as soon as he said there was definitely a Red Card offence, Walsh had no real choice. In my view, Walsh's actions were correct. He repeatedly gave the TMO the chance to say he wasn't certain, indicating he saw nothing worthy of action himself, and when the TMO said he was absolutely certain, he made the call, as he should in that case.
As I stated earlier Fatprop, whilst I'm glad everything is so clear cut and black and white in your world. But both players had their hands over each other's faces, they both showed restraint to avoid any penalty offences against each other.
Comments like yours reek of a bloke who is either a hypocrite, or never stepped foot on a rugby pitch.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
The major difference being EOD had his fingers dug into Higgers' "eye area"..........
Fair enough, Higgers has backed him up at the judiciary that he hasn't made direct contact but the match officials can't be faulted for penalising him at the game for an act that should be avoided.........
Deliberate, reckless or whatever.........
And that's my take on it.
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
Isn't the WHOLE point of having a match review official? Countless times we've had off the ball crap referred to the judiciary after the game was finished. So in this instance, if Walsh didn't want a bar of it after the TMO brought it to his attention, he should have dropped it and moved on.
Hell, Walsh should have taken a leaf of Giteau's book and given some "I'm the captain" material to the TMO.
Someone posted earlier about Higgers having his hands around the eye area of EO'D, so both players should be brought into this debate rather than just one.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Slim,
The weren't in his eyes, they brushed over his eyes. Hence why he was let off the charge. You cannot claim that a player acquitted of an eye gouging charge had his fingers "in the eyes" of another player, when the only evidence, is one single frame which looks like he is potentially attempting to begin a gouging motion.
The footage in real time shows it's not the case, its the end of a palming motion.
The weren't in his eyes, they brushed over his eyes. Hence why he was let off the charge. You cannot claim that a player acquitted of an eye gouging charge had his fingers "in the eyes" of another player, when the only evidence, is one single frame which looks like he is potentially attempting to begin a gouging motion.
The footage in real time shows it's not the case, its the end of a palming motion.
- Status