Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I'm pretty sure World Rugby can appeal any judiciary decision (at least at international level) it's just a very rare occurrence:
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Proud Pig
Tom Lawton (22)
This one to me is staggering. He has a history of playing the "they can't run without a head" game and somehow this is not worthy of a sanction.
With his history it should have been a minimum of 6 games but his record and his history do not equate as he has been continually let off.
It should be free reign to take his head off in the world cup for anyone that is playing England.
With his history it should have been a minimum of 6 games but his record and his history do not equate as he has been continually let off.
It should be free reign to take his head off in the world cup for anyone that is playing England.
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
I found it pretty telling when George Ford was interviewed by the BBC he said... "... it's great for us, in terms of having our captain and leader back in and.. well not back in but get away with umm... with obviously going through the process and cracking on as normal".
I agree Ford, getting away with it is about how I think most supporters (and I suspect many players) of the sport see this outcome. I really hope RA is lining up some future pro-quo after Adam Casselden, John Langford & David Croft concluded this one.
I mean I already feel icky that Sexton is pushing it by having a
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Farrell had apparently previously completed the extra training in tackle technique. A decision to ban him would have cast doubt about the effectiveness of that let out clause in the judical process, surely. Couldn't have that happen,
John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
Well he must not have actually completed the training. Maybe he attended but he certainly didn't learn anything
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
I wondered somewhat facetiously if the all Aussie panel decided it was better to have him take up one of the 33 spots in Englands squad than someone else. If you are serving time out during the tournament you can’t be replaced right? Given the smellies are on our side of the draw.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Lol KOB, just goota hope he doesn't kick winning points against Wallabies in a knock out game huh?
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
You can definitely be replaced in the squad, you just can't come back in after your suspension.
I don't think a suspended player can be withdrawn. I.e. if in your first match someone gets suspended for the entirety of the RWC you are effectively working with a squad of 32.
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
My bad then, do you have a source for that? I find that quite incredible.
I can't find a primary source on it at the moment but have seen it referenced in a few places.
In 2019 Samoa had two players suspended for three matches each following their first match.
Neither were replaced in their squad. That isn't definitive given there isn't anything to support Samoa trying to have them replaced but it would have made sense that they were if they could given Samoa were little chance of getting through to the knockout stages so they had two players unavailable for their remaining games.
Neither were replaced in their squad. That isn't definitive given there isn't anything to support Samoa trying to have them replaced but it would have made sense that they were if they could given Samoa were little chance of getting through to the knockout stages so they had two players unavailable for their remaining games.
RemainingInTheGame
Allen Oxlade (6)
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
Looks like the Red card, not red card might still be a Red card.So Owen Farrell's Red card, actually not red card cleared.
Rugby World Cup 2023: Owen Farrell cleared to play after Wales red card overturned - BBC Sport
England captain Owen Farrell is clear to play in the World Cup after his red card in Saturday's warm-up with Wales is overturned.www.bbc.com
This one doesn't sit right. This was poor technique that resulted in poor Basham failing his HIA. The optics are really not good, nor do I feel it's the correct application of the laws as they currently are.
Owen Farrell red card: World Rugby appeals against decision to overturn dismissal - BBC Sport
England captain Owen Farrell is once again a doubt for the start of the World Cup as World Rugby appeals against a decision to overturn his red card.
www.bbc.com
Turning into a bit of a farce this one.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Not so much about the decision itself, but about the way in which the Law is worded.
On the weekend I was Ground Marshal for Subbies Div 4 finals. Sydney Irish v Redfield preliminary.
Irish take a goal line drop out quickly, and not all their players are behind the line (most are still retreating from the field of play).
Ball goes 5m, Irish player who kicked it regathers and play goes on.
Relevant Law is here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/12 and states
19. The team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball when it is kicked. Those who are in front of the ball when it is kicked may be sanctioned unless they retire and do not interfere with play until they are put onside by the actions of a team-mate. Sanction: Scrum.
This is interesting to me, because yet again it isn't really clear what the intent of the Law is:
The team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball when it is kicked.
yet also and simultaneously:
Those who are in front of the ball when it is kicked may be sanctioned unless they retire and do not interfere with play until they are put onside by the actions of a team-mate.
The sanction is scrum, so how is a ref supposed to apply this? Could go either way in this instance.
In this case the basic application of "material effect" applied and I think was the right call at the time. However when the basic principles of offside are taken into account, you could easily take the path that Irish should have waited until everyone was onside.
The ref isn't wrong in either case, which means the Law, as it is written, is superfluous. "Punish them for (thing) unless (other thing that immediately and obviously contradictory)" is not a great way to run a ship...
On the weekend I was Ground Marshal for Subbies Div 4 finals. Sydney Irish v Redfield preliminary.
Irish take a goal line drop out quickly, and not all their players are behind the line (most are still retreating from the field of play).
Ball goes 5m, Irish player who kicked it regathers and play goes on.
Relevant Law is here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/12 and states
19. The team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball when it is kicked. Those who are in front of the ball when it is kicked may be sanctioned unless they retire and do not interfere with play until they are put onside by the actions of a team-mate. Sanction: Scrum.
This is interesting to me, because yet again it isn't really clear what the intent of the Law is:
The team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball when it is kicked.
yet also and simultaneously:
Those who are in front of the ball when it is kicked may be sanctioned unless they retire and do not interfere with play until they are put onside by the actions of a team-mate.
The sanction is scrum, so how is a ref supposed to apply this? Could go either way in this instance.
In this case the basic application of "material effect" applied and I think was the right call at the time. However when the basic principles of offside are taken into account, you could easily take the path that Irish should have waited until everyone was onside.
The ref isn't wrong in either case, which means the Law, as it is written, is superfluous. "Punish them for (thing) unless (other thing that immediately and obviously contradictory)" is not a great way to run a ship...
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
The Laws have become more plain English over time. I am not sure it has made them any easier to interpret. The previous spirit of this Law was that it was OK to be in front if you were caught out by the speed of the game and did not interfer until put onside.
RemainingInTheGame
Allen Oxlade (6)
No.
Law 18.8.a (table):
A player, in their own half, kicks the ball indirectly into touch in the opposition’s 22. Either the team did not take the ball into their half, or a tackle, ruck or maul took place within the half, or an opponent touched the ball within the half. This variation does not apply at a kick-off or any type of restart kick.
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
Alrighty, I'll delete my message to Eddie.