PDA

View Full Version : Was the Shaw red correct or not?



Account Deleted
21-06-04, 00:06
What do you all think? For me it is YES!

Davet
25-06-04, 11:06
50/50 call. Anyone who uses a knee in like that runs the risk. But Shaw did not seem to attck Robinson with any vigour, it was more of a nudge than anything.

The real question is why Nigel Williams was so slow to blow up when Robinson killed the ball in the first place. If he had done so, and I would always recommned refs blow quickly in this sort of situation in order to avoid exactly this sort of "player policing", then maybe there would have been no problem and a far better game all round.

Account Deleted
27-06-04, 11:06
The point about iit being a nudge is irrelevant. It was foul play. The fact that a poor referee (NW). was slow to react is also irelevant. even if he had been quicker an act of retaliation was still on the cards. The very fact that Woody saw it a "acceptable" to give the NZ player a message that he was on the wrong side shows that teams today find acts of foul play to be acceptable. Thus we get players being told to ""kill the ball", to "Hit him late - to let him know you've got his number", to "give him a shoeing" etc.

The even more worrying issue in my mind is this; The disciplinary committee found Shaw "not Guilty" due to a "Technicallity" and NOT because there was no offence. Surely the fact that the TJ sought clarification over the number of the player prevented the wrong man walking.

I would have accepted a verdict of Guilty and the Red card being "sufficient" punishment. I can't accept "not guilty due to a Tecy". Lawyers everywhere will now scour the law book toget bans overturned just as our courts suffer the same scourge.

Also one final point.

Nigel Williams and the TJ did not spoil the game by sending a player off. The player did that by offending. He let himself and his team down. He let the fans and the viewers down. He let everyone involved in that game down. If he did not retaliate he would not have walked!

(and I can't believe I'm defending Nigel Williams here!)

Davet
27-06-04, 13:06
Yes, kneeing a player in the back is foul play.

The referee has a three options available for dealing with foul play, he can admonish the offender, caution and temporarily suspend, or send off.

It is not, as you appear to be suggesting an automatic red card.

The choice of option surely depends on the severity of the foul play. In this case it was pretty harmless, so why go for the nuclear option? Perspective at all times.

And to back up the claim that it was not particularly malicious, Robinson himself was later recorded as saying he had not actually felt it.

Sorry, but in this case I think Williams let his judgement be over-ridden by the combination of a TJ who was so far away he really could not see what happened, and the crowd who were baying for blood.

Account Deleted
27-06-04, 16:06
Williams took the advise of the TJ who state it should be red. Now the ref should have good reason to override a TJ when hw himself did not see the offence. So I can not blame the ref (as stated an acknowledged poor ref here is Wales).

There had been a few off the ball incidents and the game did see a fracas fresulting from the offence. I therefore feel that the message that the red sent out was the right one.

I have stated that the red card could be accepted as sufficient punishment for the offence.

League mate
27-06-04, 23:06
I think the ref made his call based on a TJ's call as well , in which case he does not have the advantage of a tv replay so keeping it in perspective was not his option , quite rightly the player concerned should not have been there but wether he felt it or not a knee to the back is up their with eye gouging .What I did notice is on a couple of occasions line out ball was won with the outside hand . As well as a few other things I thought that was illegal ?
I also think that the ref will look at the tape and realise he has a few things to work on but to get better they need to have these games .I remember Paddy having a shocker in the past so even the best have bad days don't you agree

Davet
28-06-04, 14:06
You can win a lineout with your outside hand so long as both hands are above your head.

didds
29-06-04, 08:06
"teams today find acts of foul play to be acceptable. Thus we get players being told to ""kill the ball", to "Hit him late - to let him know you've got his number", to "give him a shoeing" etc."

and this hasn't been the case in the almost 30 years I've been playing rugby, and undoubtably before?

You're being very naive if yo think this is a modern problem i.e. "teams today". Meads breaking catchpole's arm? Skinner "sorting" out the SA front row? BL 99 call?

If anything the game today is FAR cleaner than it ever was. Yes it still has a way to go, but lets not kid ourselves that foul play is a modern phenomona. 10 years ago Shaw wouldn't even have faced a disciplinary tribunal, TMO or no TMO - I cite Jamie Joseph 1993 v England!

didds

League mate
01-07-04, 01:07
yes I think the modern game is better for the camera's etc . I think it has cleaned up dramatically and the knee was a small matter but as a ref I hate seeing the guys who don't learn and rugby is their license to commit thuggery . In league especially high shots are a real pain and i've noticed in union the tackles are getting higher with more tolerance towards them .

Account Deleted
29-07-04, 21:07
I agree! The high tackles from, often, South Sea players are becoming the norm. I would also accept that the game has cleaned up. More to the pointwe do not need players who use knees etc to be whitewashed. Just because the game is cleaner does not excuse foul play!

Davet
30-07-04, 11:07
I agree that thuggery must be eliminated from the game as far as possible.

Tackles above the line of the shoulders are illegal, and should be penalised. The problem comes when a legal (just) tackle across the upper chest slides up to the throat. This is often seen as OK, if unfortunate.

I would normally penalise this anyway, the principle being that the tackler needs to ensure that his tackle is good. I may say hard luck to the bloke, and that I understand no malice was intended, which is why there is no card, but hey, it was high. Maybe it would be a good idea to aim lower, just so no more accidents happen.

Then we get the player who ducks into a tackle which would otherwise be legal. No thats the one where the approach above is no good, the tackler was not really at fault. And that is where I may well be reluctant to penalise.

How do others view this?

League mate
20-08-04, 02:08
on one occasion that i remember clearly an attacking player was dropping with the ball and a tackler coming in from the side and gave him a serve around the neck . I saw this as a late and dangerous high tackle because I believe the tackler still had time to adjust his tackle so judgement is still a big part of it which still makes it the responsibility of the tackler to ensure the tackle is low ( the faster the game the more concentration needed to differentiate .

didds
27-08-04, 18:08
I recall many many moons ago when I were a nipper I had a set of soccer law question cards... there was a picture of a ball about waist height (no higher) with the red player attempting to play it with his foot, and the blue player attempting to head it. The question was "who should be penalised for fangerous play" - and the answer was blue for putting his head there.

If that is the approach we should take, the clearly a player that ducks into an otherwise legitimate tackle and turns it into a high tackle is
1) not receiving a "high tackle", and
2) could even be penalised for dangerous play.

comments?

didds

Pablo
29-08-04, 16:08
I recall many many moons ago when I were a nipper I had a set of soccer law question cards... there was a picture of a ball about waist height (no higher) with the red player attempting to play it with his foot, and the blue player attempting to head it. The question was "who should be penalised for fangerous play" - and the answer was blue for putting his head there.

If that is the approach we should take, the clearly a player that ducks into an otherwise legitimate tackle and turns it into a high tackle is
1) not receiving a "high tackle", and
2) could even be penalised for dangerous play.

comments?

didds

I would be inclined to second this actually... shouldn't a player be as responsible under the Law for putting himself in danger as he would be for endangering another player? Certainly if this were to be solidified in Law then players would think twice about ducking into a tackle in an attempt to draw a penalty...

Account Deleted
31-08-04, 10:08
I recall many many moons ago when I were a nipper I had a set of soccer law question cards... there was a picture of a ball about waist height (no higher) with the red player attempting to play it with his foot, and the blue player attempting to head it. The question was "who should be penalised for fangerous play" - and the answer was blue for putting his head there.

If that is the approach we should take, the clearly a player that ducks into an otherwise legitimate tackle and turns it into a high tackle is
1) not receiving a "high tackle", and
2) could even be penalised for dangerous play.

comments?

didds


This no longer applies in football. It would not be dangerous play by either player under the present rules (I am told by a Football ref).

Account Deleted
31-08-04, 11:08
With regard to player "looking for " the penalty.
This is done in many ways of course. The "ducking in" refered to above . The player kicking ahead and then running into an opposition player (for the "late" tackle). The "Matt Dawson" special. A quick tap penalty and a run straight in to an opponent who has not got back the 10. Being just a few!
Law 10.2 Unfair play gives usa sanction to stop this.
The definition of "FOUL PLAY" also refers to anything that is against the spirit of the Laws of the game. So we have a sanction; Let's use it!

Pablo
31-08-04, 14:08
The "Matt Dawson" special. A quick tap penalty and a run straight in to an opponent who has not got back the 10.

This is actually covered specifically under the penalty/free kick Law (the final section IIRC) under "contrived infringements at a PK/FK.


Law 10.2 Unfair play gives usa sanction to stop this.
The definition of "FOUL PLAY" also refers to anything that is against the spirit of the Laws of the game. So we have a sanction; Let's use it!

This is true and all of us could do ourselves a favour by using it a bit more often...