i think you will find that they can go back two plays in general play, there was only one after the penalty was awarded against McMahon for dragging O'donoghue off Higgenbotham.
for foul play they can intervene at any time
All valid points.I agree it's messy but important. In the earlier game do you think deysal should have been carded for the kick ? Not seen at the time by the ref
Earlier in the year Rebs v Clan, dangerous tackle on Stirzaker, play on call, no referral from either AR or TMO so player stays on. Cited post game and gets a few weeks holiday. But if he had been sent off because the TMO or the AR had the balls to refer it to the ref, the highlanders would have had to ply with 14 for 75 mins and 13 for 10. May well have changed the outcome.
I am not suggesting that anything other than dangerous or foul play be dealt with in this way.
Might be messy but it is probably good for the lawyers and SC, @Inside Shoulder.
But didn't Adam Byrnes get a 10 weeks suspension for calling Tom Carter a 'liar'?
How the hell can you get suspended for that????
.
well then you have to go back to no technology and law no. one, the referee is the sole arbiter of fact, and everyone just lives with the 50/50, bad and plainly outrageous decisions as we did before. i am happy with that but i suspect not many will be.All valid points.
Its not so much about what punishment the offence deserves if detected at or shortly after its committed or even a comparison with the punishment given when cited. I'm not condoning foul or dangerous play.
I haven't seen the kick/stomp yet.
The analogy that occurs to me from last night is formula 1: they have the champagne spraying and then weeks or months down the track the result is overturned or confirmed and it detracts from the credibility of the sport - I suspect the sponsors get the pics of the champagne spraying and use them even if the driver is subsequently DSQd.
The application of the rugby laws already has a credibility issue with the general public.
All valid points.
Its not so much about what punishment the offence deserves if detected at or shortly after its committed or even a comparison with the punishment given when cited. I'm not condoning foul or dangerous play.
I haven't seen the kick/stomp yet.
The analogy that occurs to me from last night is formula 1: they have the champagne spraying and then weeks or months down the track the result is overturned or confirmed and it detracts from the credibility of the sport - I suspect the sponsors get the pics of the champagne spraying and use them even if the driver is subsequently DSQd.
The application of the rugby laws already has a credibility issue with the general public.
Will Ed O'dungbrain go down in history as the first Australian professional rugby player found guilty of eye gouging? Adam Byrnes avoided that ignominy by appealing his ban and having it overturned.
He deserves at least 6 weeks off for the shear fucking stupidity of putting his fingers anywhere near Higgers eyes. Eyes are sacred.
But didn't Adam Byrnes get a 10 weeks suspension for calling Tom Carter a 'liar'?
How the hell can you get suspended for that????
It was a sign of respect. He called him "Phat", y'all.JP Pietersen should get fined $50 for calling Corey Flynn "fat" the other night.
No place for that sort of behaviour on the rugby field.
Hmm - which definition - pretty hot and tempting or pussy hips ass tits?It was a sign of respect. He called him "Phat", y'all.
That is or was a major difference from league: they could not pull the try once awarded.The funny thing is IS that this is just an application of the existing laws with an extension allowing for the technology.
Years ago (in the 90s) I saw a length of the field try called back on the report of the Touch Judge, IN A TEST MATCH, against a PI team from my very vague memory. The ref had called play on and awarded the try. The TJ marked the sport of the offence and when he caught up to the ref, after the try was awarded. It was duly cancelled and a penalty awarded at the site of the offence.
No difference to what happened here, except they all had the benefit of video replay which clearly shows Ed O scrunching his across the face of a prone player he had pinned. You do yourself no credit defending that or criticising a process that has always been there.
I'd like them to go back as far as Richard Loe's effort in Brisbane.Even after they've stopped the game for the general buffo - he's awarded the penalty for it etc etc.
There'd never be any end to it.
Much as I hate to suggest anything from the other code they need a match review committee style arrangement rather than being able to over call and reverse already penalties on the day.
What if there'd been a kick for goal form Walsh's decision - goes over and then boofhead says I'd like to have another look at it.
How far back can they go?
Last week?