• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
I must admit I thought it was not too bad when watching game live, but after seeing it again I not sure.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
Braveheart81 said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1685309009480273921

This is quite unbelievable that there was no sanction during the match.

It has correctly been cited and the Pumas player will almost certainly be suspended.

Unbelievably reckless from the Pumas player.
Click to expand...
Watching this with my wife, I immediately said that it would be a red, maybe a yellow. Could not believe it got nothing - it's not like there isn't precedent for this.
 
KevinO

KevinO

Geoff Shaw (53)
The saving grace was he got the ball, but there needs to be a rule change about contact with a kicker. Yes it's dangerous, but I understand why it was considered ok when he got the ball. Don't know how you change the rule as the game is so quick to avoid all contact with a player kicking.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
KevinO said:
The saving grace was he got the ball, but there needs to be a rule change about contact with a kicker. Yes it's dangerous, but I understand why it was considered ok when he got the ball. Don't know how you change the rule as the game is so quick to avoid all contact with a player kicking.
Click to expand...
John Kirwan goes through how he thinks this should be officiated on the newest edition of the Breakdown on Stan and youtube.
 
Tex

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
KevinO said:
The saving grace was he got the ball, but there needs to be a rule change about contact with a kicker. Yes it's dangerous, but I understand why it was considered ok when he got the ball. Don't know how you change the rule as the game is so quick to avoid all contact with a player kicking.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's the inconsistency.

Dangerous cleanouts are often highly successful. The player is blasted out but some thick-necked Boer lock has done it by attacking the head.
 
Eyes and Ears

Eyes and Ears

Bob Davidson (42)
IMO the elite referees have become very used to watching foul play in slow motion replays that they forget how to handle foul play in real time ie they are effectively on autopliot waiting for the TMO to highlight it for them.
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
waiopehu oldboy said:
Two week suspension for what was deemed a "low level" offence:

www.news24.com

Pumas fullback cops 2-week ban for aerial collision with Bok No 9 Williams | Sport

Argentina fullback Juan Cruz Mallia has received a two-week suspension for his aerial challenge on Springbok scrumhalf Grant Williams.
www.news24.com www.news24.com
Click to expand...

Fuck me dead. No consistency
"The Committee considered all relevant factors of World Rugby's Head Contact Process and sanctioning table, but given the evidence from both the referee and the coach as to how successful charge downs of kicks are viewed by match officials and as to how coaching of players is conducted as a consequence, the Committee decided that a mid-range sanction would be wholly disproportionate to the player's fault and that the foul play merited a low-range entry point of two weeks."
Click to expand...

A reminder that Blyth got three weeks for what was arguably a more legitimate attempt.
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
elementfreak said:
The Argentinian player successfully charged the ball down, Blyth didn't. Not sure how you think Blyth had a more legitimate attempt when he failed...
Click to expand...
Valid point. Reckless may be a more appropriate term

I can understand the argument around Blyth being in more of a position to mitigate (being on the ground and 'in control' of his movements), but is being in control but failing to mitigate worse than not being in control at all? I guess we have the answer to that now
 
molman

molman

Jim Lenehan (48)
For those who shoot people down for calling out wrong calls from AR's, like they don't happen. The AR totally got it wrong for Dupont's should have been try in at the ~28min mark in the France v Scotland game. If that'd been a RWC game and that's 7 points wiped.
 
elementfreak

elementfreak

Trevor Allan (34)
molman said:
For those who shoot people down for calling out wrong calls from AR's, like they don't happen. The AR totally got it wrong for Dupont's should have been try in at the ~28min mark in the France v Scotland game. If that'd been a RWC game and that's 7 points wiped.
Click to expand...

So here's the question for you. Would you rather the on field team not make tight calls, which they think are right, and have that try scored just for the TMO to bring it back if they were in touch, or would you rather have a human error call like that happen once in a blue moon?
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
molman said:
For those who shoot people down for calling out wrong calls from AR's, like they don't happen. The AR totally got it wrong for Dupont's should have been try in at the ~28min mark in the France v Scotland game. If that'd been a RWC game and that's 7 points wiped.
Click to expand...
While it was the wrong call, you can't say it definitely stopped the try. The Scottish players on that sideline had basically stopped playing and gave Dupont a free run in support.
 
Last edited:
John S

John S

Peter Fenwicke (45)
I think the (IMHO) clanger of the weekend was Steward not getting a red for his tackle in the air?

Tweet from Andy Goode - please excuse Andy's comments as I in no way agree with him, but only example I could find.
 
John S

John S

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Maybe he did land on his side, but the risk/danger was high - he tried to wrap, but around the legs in the air - there was no way Adams was going to land any other way than on his side and potentially head. It didn't look great. I'm sure I've seen a red for less, but I can't recall so not going to rely on that in my defence.

If he did hit his head on the ground - he should have gone off (don't think he did?).
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
John S said:
Maybe he did land on his side, but the risk/danger was high - he tried to wrap, but around the legs in the air - there was no way Adams was going to land any other way than on his side and potentially head. It didn't look great. I'm sure I've seen a red for less, but I can't recall so not going to rely on that in my defence.

If he did hit his head on the ground - he should have gone off (don't think he did?).
Click to expand...

The landing is what determines the severity of the card. If he'd landed closer to his head/neck it would have been a red card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top