The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
As they should. That was a farce
Rugby World Cup 2023
- Thread starter Braveheart81
- Start date
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Had to happen.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Just realised something when reading about appeal etc. As I said earlier all the WR (World Rugby) has stuffed it up with decision was off the mark as it was an independant board, but not only that it wasn't a WR (World Rugby) judiciary anyway, it was a 6N judiciary!!
I will send an apology to WR (World Rugby) on those of you that made those disparaging remarks!
I will send an apology to WR (World Rugby) on those of you that made those disparaging remarks!
John S
Peter Fenwicke (45)
I thought the main argument was that you can't compare the punishment for a tip tackle to the (non) punishment for a shoulder charge?
If you want to argue bias it helps to Compare apples with apples.
But, of course bias exists to say that there is no bias is a fallacy
John S
Peter Fenwicke (45)
For those looking at bias, this is the example to use
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think everyone agrees that Farrell should be banned, no? In fact, I don't think there is a single rugby fan on earth that doesn't think that was a corrupt as fuck decision.
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
I don't agree with the decision, but without knowing the full extent of the arguments for mitigation I am not going to call it corrupt. Why would an all Aussie panel including a former Wallaby make a decision that directly impacts the Wallabies chances?
I'll start by saying I don't think there was mitigation down from a red card and a suspension should happen but one thing that needs to be considered that I think a lot of people have glossed over is that Farrell's history and discipline record is irrelevant until the point where you get to a suspension.
Is it a red card offence and/or the severity of it doesn't consider the player's past behaviour.
Is it a red card offence and/or the severity of it doesn't consider the player's past behaviour.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Corruption isn't just brown paper bags under a table. It's using any kind of undue influence to pressure a decision maker or obtain a beneficial outcome from a system.
It was a Six Nations judiciary and the Six Nations certainly would not have wanted England's captain banned for the rugby showpiece. I daresay World Rugby wouldn't have either, until the outcry.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
OK....this is just bullshit.
GAME 1
3mins: Tate gets smashed by Barrett from the line-out on the Wallaby try line, fumbles the ball and Shannon Frizell scores the try. TMO double checks to ensure Barrett was onside but it's pretty easy and clear-cut to call the try.
7mins: Marika looks to have gone in for a try. Ref goes to TMO but on-field call is a try. TMO says to also see if ball grounded under the posts a couple of phases earlier. Marika is out-of-bounds so they go back to Valetini's carry. Ref says he did not see a grounding at the time but TMO confirms. Some would question whether Valetini's momentum carried him in a continuous movement into the goal but ref is happy with it.
26 mins: Telea goes for a quick tap and goes over for the try. Ref doesn't whistle the try but says 'He did touch it' confirms grounding with AR but still goes to TMO who confirms NO TRY.
33mins: Rolling maul from 5m line-out for ABs, try to Cody Taylor. Ref is right there to see grounding. Nothing to really check with TMO.
38mins: Savea goes over the try line but never looks like it was grounded. Ref immediately calls goal-line drop-out. No TMO.
41mins: Will Jordan scores at the end of a few passes. Clear grounding, no hint of any forward passes or anything to check. No TMO. Easy and clear-cut try.
47mins: Jordan Petaia over the try line but never looks like it's grounded. No TMO. Goal-line drop out.
58mins: Caleb Clarke dives over from a pick-and-go a metre or two out. Ref calls the try. Another pretty easy try to call.
64mins: Another easy try to call with Telea getting an offload from Jordan. Well inside the lines, clear grounding, pass backwards.
67mins: Easy try to call with Reiko scoring from a Mark Telea offload. Nothing to check with TMO.
74mins: Mo'unga goes over for a try. Ref never calls the try and calls the push on Marika before he has the ball. Penalty against ABs.
GAME 2
2mins: Markia goes over for the try. On-field decision is try, TMO checks to see if in-touch as very close to the sideline. Try stands.
6mins: Hooper breaks through a tackle or two to go over for the try. Ref calls try - no TMO.
21mins: Fa'amausili goes over but is held up. Never looked like it was grounded - ref calls it and no TMO, no try.
28mins: McDermott goes over but is flipped on his back, Savea smothers the ball and no try. Never looked like a try, no TMO.
43mins: Stevenson scores a try on an overlap. Assistant ref correctly confirms Stevenson in touch, nothing else to check, no TMO. Try.
54mins: Fainga'anuku goes over. Ref calls try as he sees the ball grounded. TMO intervenes to check grounding, player loses the ball before grounding. Ref wouldn't have seen as goal posts were originally in the way of his line of sight. No try.
63min: Finau goes over in the tackle of a couple of Wallabies. Ref is on the spot and is able to see grounding. No TMO. Try.
Were Aussie tries 'over scrutinised'? The TMO was involved in 2 of their 3 tries. Twice to confirm in touch as Marika was very close to the sideline. Once to confirm grounding which was hard to see in real time. The two times they went to the TMO, the on-field decision was TRY and they were actually wrong on one.
Were the ABs scrutinised enough? TMO disallowed 2 tries but the AB's scored 7 tries which had no reason to be scrutinised. They weren't on the sideline, the grounding was seen by the ref.
You say ref was quick to award AB tries but he didn't award the Telea try in the 26th minute of the Game 1 even though he initially thought Telea had touched the ball at the penalty spot. He went to TMO first. Ref also didn't award Mo'unga's try in the 74th min but gave penalty to Wallabies.
Fainga'anuku's try which was turned over by the TMO in the 54th min of Game 2 is exactly why we have TMOs. The ref wouldn't have seen the fumble because the goal posts are in the way. By the time he runs around them, the ball is grounded. Even the Australian commentators didn't initially see the fumble and were calling the try.
Going to the TMO or not had nothing to do with the 'ref attitude' and more to do with how the tries were scored.
Last edited:
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
The thing that stands out for me is that in the Farrell case the judiciary seems to have equated a "change of direction" with lowering of the head". There does not appear to be much lowering of the head in the incident, yet the judiciary seems not to have asked the question "What was the likely outcome had the change of direction not occurred?" In my view, the footage suggests that, on balance of probabilities, that the shoulder (with the tucked in arm) was going to contact the head of the player with or without the change of direction. That was because Farrell was far too upright and had his right arm tucked in.
So, my take on it is that change of direction did not have any significant impact on the outcome. The judiciary seems to have decided that because there was change of direction then that automatically meant there was mitigation. In my review of the footage, necessarily less thorough than the judiciary of course, change of direction in this case did not mitigate the offence. Change of direction only mitigates the offence if it puts the recipient in a more likely position to suffer head contact. In my view, the likelihood of head contact was very similar, with or without change of direction.
So, my take on it is that change of direction did not have any significant impact on the outcome. The judiciary seems to have decided that because there was change of direction then that automatically meant there was mitigation. In my review of the footage, necessarily less thorough than the judiciary of course, change of direction in this case did not mitigate the offence. Change of direction only mitigates the offence if it puts the recipient in a more likely position to suffer head contact. In my view, the likelihood of head contact was very similar, with or without change of direction.
Tomthumb
Peter Fenwicke (45)
The six nations judiciary, made up of 3 Australians, is somehow making their decision so Owen Farrell can play the pool games at the world cup. How, were they paid? threatened with violence?
We can agree or disagree with a decision without calling everything corruption
Tomthumb
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Farrell wasn't moving, so how was his shoulder going to hit guy's head if it was 2 meters away from it. The still shots do show the player well off line of Farrell's shoulder until Jamie George attempts a tackle
I think peoples dislike for Owen Farrell has a lot to do with not seeing any mitigation whatsoever, especially compared to the amount of people that seem desperate to give Labuschagne excuses for his tackle
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Where, on this forum at least, has anyone excused Labuschagne?
Tazzmania
Bob Loudon (25)
Not really comparable.
If you read the full judgement, the push by E2 on W20 created the doubt that the decision was based on, in your example there is no third party:
"After careful analysis the Judicial Committee determined that there was, in this case, mitigating features
present to reduce the degree of danger down to a point below the Red Card Test. Contrary to the
assessment by the FPRO we found, on balance, that there was mitigation present in this case.
In our respectful opinion the FPRO was in error by omitting to consider the late change in dynamics due
to E2’s interactions in the contact area with W20 which, in our opinion, brought about a sudden and
significant change in direction of W20 (the ball carrier). This late change in the dynamics denied the Player
both the time and space to adjust to avoid head contact with W20. In our opinion, it would be placing an
unreasonable burden on the Player to expect him to anticipate, foresee or predict, in the limited time
available to him, this late change in dynamics. But for the interactions between W20 and E2 we are of
the opinion that the Player had enough time and space to execute a legal tackle on W20. This, in our
opinion, is a sufficient mitigating feature in the Player’s offending to bring the level of danger down to a
point below the Red Card Test. The Player’s act of Foul Play was not intentional or always illegal to deny
him the benefit of this mitigation.
Therefore, having regard to the totality of the evidence before us we are satisfied, on the balance of
probabilities, that the decision of the FPRO to upgrade the Yellow Card to a Red Card was wrong... "
Tomthumb
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Read the comments on the linked twitter post above
"Very harsh. Last second step off the right would be a mitigating factor for me. That said it was very bad tackle technique"
"That’s not red card. At most a penalty. Ref was a bit harsh."
"This is a good example of a rugby incident to me. Nothing Lappies could have done. It happens so quickly."
This is the definition of selective outrage
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
It would've just been pressure for the decision to go a certain way - not straight cash for an outcome. If you didn't know that international sporting organisations are corrupt in this way then I've got some bad news for you.
But, fair enough. It could have been incompetence I suppose. And a complete coincidence it was Faz getting the benefit. Again.
Last edited:
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
OK - so nothing on this forum.
Comments like
"This is a good example of a rugby incident to me. Nothing Lappies could have done. It happens so quickly."
are what annoys me about the way the ref handled the Juan Cruz Mallia's charge-down on Grant Williams. In speaking to the TMO, the ref was making comments like
"completely unavoidable"
"Committed for me."
"Just a rugby incident"
The exact same words the comment above used on twitter. The charge down should have been an on-field red card.
I don't think it is selective at all. Farrell has a history of this exact same action and a history of getting away with it as well. It's more an expected outrage than selective IMO.
Tomthumb
Peter Fenwicke (45)
That we certainly agree on