PDA

View Full Version : That should never be seen in our game - Kolelishvili vs. Barnes



talbazar
16-01-16, 04:01
Hi All,

This is something that should never be seen in our game.

I'm stunned that Barnsey only gave a penalty for this...
Has anyone got any further information?

Article and short video
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/75952415/clermont-flanker-could-face-suspension-for-pushing-referee-wayne-barnes

Longer (and wider) video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MN72CkFLfM

Any thoughts?
I'd go straight RC on this...

Cheers,
Pierre.

menace
16-01-16, 07:01
:wow::wow::wow::wow::Looser::Looser::Looser::Loose r:

The Fat
16-01-16, 08:01
I know it's not much of a prize, but I'd bet my left nut he gets cited and suspended

Ian_Cook
16-01-16, 10:01
Its so blatant and so obvious that you have to wonder if he knew it was WB, and that he didn't just think it was an opponent encroaching over the offside line.

Not making excuses for him, but if you you were going to pick any referee to do that too, WB is just about your last choice.

ctrainor
16-01-16, 12:01
I cannot believe Wayne did not issue a red card. Very poor decision. That will leave us all open to a shove

beckett50
16-01-16, 12:01
Whilst it is wrong we don't know whether the player was shouting to WB to move out of his way.

I think on balance a PK is about right, but let's wait and see if the CO gets involved.

menace
16-01-16, 13:01
Whilst it is wrong we don't know whether the player was shouting to WB to move out of his way.

Even if he was....no excuse to be that physical.

WB was in an empty channel and he was not obstructing the players view.

Can't understand how WB arrived at a decision without showing a card!

4eyesbetter
16-01-16, 13:01
Not even in football would they accept that sort of treatment.

SimonSmith
16-01-16, 14:01
Be depressed

https://www.facebook.com/groups/usarugbyreferees/

leaguerefaus
16-01-16, 17:01
Be depressed

https://www.facebook.com/groups/usarugbyreferees/
Surprised not to see any suggestions that Wayne should have "stood his ground" and shot the player.

L'irlandais
16-01-16, 18:01
Don't put ideas in their heads, next thing they will being saying the U.S. rugby Union is infringing their rights not allowing referees open carry on the field of play.

Paule23
16-01-16, 21:01
That's absolutely nuts and no excuse. I got barged from behind once or twice today and thought the video was going to be something similar. But a blatant shove, then back in line? What was all that about?

:wtf:
:norc:

Taff
17-01-16, 21:01
What time in the game did this happen?

Rushforth
17-01-16, 21:01
17th minute or something like that, I think.

Taff
18-01-16, 09:01
So it wasn't obvious at that time that they were going to lose.

I know it doesn't excuse what he did but it may explain what he did.

FlipFlop
18-01-16, 09:01
For me, and with TV replays (which I assume WB had access to, as it is foul play), I see that:


WB is not in the way of play.
the player deliberately come a fair way up from the offside line (not accidental)
the player then retreats to the offside line
WB is not in his line of sight to the ball
There is no reason for the player to put his hands on WB in this situation


So result is clear cut. Red.

FlipFlop
18-01-16, 09:01
Have to say - in a game recently got bumped twice in the back by the same player in open play. Second time I gave a clear warning to the captain, 1 could be accidental, second time I was giving benefit of doubt and only penalise it, if it happened a 3rd time then it had to be deliberate, and I would act accordingly.

Speaking to spectator afterwards, the result was: first they didn't see, and so likely to be accidental, 2nd was deliberate, and they thought I should have red carded him there and then, but understood I couldn't be sure.

L'irlandais
18-01-16, 10:01
Good point Flipflop. Having gotten away with it once, only encouraged you player to reoffend.

The referee WB managed the situation, whether we agree, or not with how he managed it.
What is genuinely sad is that the Disciplinary (http://www.epcrugby.com/discipline/index.php) people, have not seen fit to cite the player and make an example. Currently the message is, do what you like, ERC will not punish such behavior.
Perhaps if that shove ended his playing season, it would give our "professional" elite some food for thought.

His missus would certainly give him an ear-bashing for it.

crossref
18-01-16, 10:01
SA Referee Article on this
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-pushing-referee/2830582/

they believe he will be cited and they show the tarrifs that apply...

L
aws 10.4 (s) and 10.4 ()

Verbal Abuse of Match Officials
Lower end: 6 weeks
Mid range: 12 weeks
Top end: 18+ weeks
Maximum: 52 weeks

Threatening Actions or Words at Match Officials
Lower end: 12 weeks
Mid range: 24 weeks
Top end: 48+ weeks
Maximum: 260 weeks

Physical Abuse of Match Officials
Lower end: 24 weeks
Mid range: 48 weeks
Top end: 96+ weeks
Maximum: Life

So -- 24 weeks?

dave_clark
18-01-16, 10:01
well it bloody well should be. at times you can argue that the ref was in the way and, while not deserving to be barged, was at least partially to blame. that just seems like a charge out of nowhere. and if we let that go...

DocY
18-01-16, 10:01
So -- 24 weeks?

I vaguely remember a similar incident with a Waikato(?) prop - same sort of actions from the player, but he pushed the ref over. I think he got 5 weeks.

FatherFlipper
18-01-16, 11:01
Would love to hear WB's take on it now that the dust has settled.

I've heard him on mic when he's been admonishing players saying that they have a responsibility for the game. My personal take is that this is one occasion where he has failed in that. With a trickle down effect, it wouldn't be a great leap of the imagination to have this happen at lower levels, and players thinking they can get away with it. From WB's point of view, at his level, it can be dealt with afterwards by citing committee. At our level, with no access to TMO and various camera angles, we have to make a snap decision on it. What one week could be a shove to get us out of their line, could quite easily escalate the following week into something more serious.

winchesterref
18-01-16, 18:01
Citing has been announced.

L'irlandais
18-01-16, 19:01
Disciplinary Hearings - Round 5 (http://www.epcrugby.com/news/32311.php#.Vp0st0qkqrU) Citing complaints.

chrismtl
18-01-16, 19:01
I'm glad to see that he's been cited. It sets a very bad precedent if he's allowed to do this and it goes unpunished. That being said, I see this going one of 2 ways. A light slap on the wrist along the lines of 2-5 weeks, or hopefully they make an example of him and we never see this again in a match by any player for the fear of the potential repercussions.

You'll see a ref standing exactly where WB was quite often, and there's a reason for that. Usually the ball will go narrower or wider of where he was. If it starts to go to him, he'll slip between the defensive line and not be in the way. The ref has to stand somewhere, and it's not for the players to like or dislike where he is. I've had players ask me to move nicely, and I almost always will if I'm able to. If a player did this to me, he definitely wouldn't be continuing with the rest of the match.

Crucial
19-01-16, 00:01
It was Big Ben Tameifuna playing for Waikato that did the same (to GJ) and got 5 weeks after.
I think that similar to this case the ref was in the way and there was no malice at all, just an unthinking reaction in the heat of the moment. (BT was right on the tryline under the posts and had little room to move as it was without GJ right in his way)
You can clearly see the player watching the ruck and looking to do his job in defence, anticipating that he may need to run in that channel. We can't see the attacking team in that clip, but I would assume there are attacking players lined up there or the defence wouldn't be.
No excuse for the contact, but certainly there is mitigation. I would expect a ban similar to BT's.
WB has terrible positioning at times for an elite ref.
It looks to me like the player has decided from WBs body language that he isn't going to move from there. He has planted his feet.
It is a fair enough place to stand while watching the breakdown, but as a player I would hope that as soon as the ball was won by the attackers he would move out of the way ready for the next breakdown.

4eyesbetter
19-01-16, 01:01
It is a fair enough place to stand while watching the breakdown, but as a player I would hope that as soon as the ball was won by the attackers he would move out of the way ready for the next breakdown.

Would you take two steps forward, push him hard in the shoulder, and then retreat back onside? There's no moment for this to be in the heat of; the ball is stuck in a ruck and the halfback is only starting to dig for it by the time the whistle blows.

Phil E
19-01-16, 11:01
Low end 24 weeks. How much do you get off for not eating the biscuits?


Law 10.4 (m) Physical abuse of match officials

Under World Rugby's Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 10.4 (m), Physical abuse of match officials, carries the following sanction entry points – Low End: 24 weeks; Mid-Range: 48 weeks; Top End: 96 weeks to life

SimonSmith
19-01-16, 14:01
A maximum of 50%, but that assumes exemplary previous disciplinary history as well as other mitigating factors. They'd have to work REALLY hard to get to 50%

Shelflife
19-01-16, 14:01
Personally I think its a weak message to send out from Barnes, Ive been told to move Ref and hands push on me to guide me out of the way and they were told in no uncertain terms not to lay hands on me again.

In this case it was a straight red for me, unfortunately players will now think that this is acceptable or that similar is acceptable.

Shelflife
19-01-16, 16:01
12 weeks should soften his cough and make anyone think twice about laying hands on a ref again.

FatherFlipper
19-01-16, 16:01
14 weeks - just come through....

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/14601704/clermont-auvergne-viktor-kolelishvili-hit-14-week-ban-pushing-wayne-barnes

chrismtl
19-01-16, 16:01
I guess he got the 50% reduction of the original suspension. Still, I'm glad he didn't get away lightly.

crossref
19-01-16, 17:01
The Citing Officer is no pushover

FlipFlop
19-01-16, 18:01
Did WB go to the TMO for this in the game?

For me it is strange that a PK becomes a 14 week ban. How wrong can a ref get something, that they notice, and have the ability to go to the TMO for?

being one level out is acceptable (YC for a low level red for example). But that far? Strikes me of refs being told - don't RC, leave it to the citing officer.

crossref
19-01-16, 18:01
being one level out is acceptable (YC for a low level red for example). But that far? Strikes me of refs being told - don't RC, leave it to the citing officer.

that was certainly the way the RWC was reffed. Were there any RC at all? I am struggling to recall any, but there were many, many citings and bans, the vast majority for incidents that the ref had dealt with on the day, mostly with the help of the TMO.

Rushforth
19-01-16, 19:01
I decided not to post yesterday, having written something about being able to see both sides.

A push to the chest during open play is clearly a moment of madness. It is also different to a sneaky push in the back during play, or a push to the chest with the ball dead.

Giving a red card so early in the game may clearly affect the final result. Do we as spectators want games decided because one side is a man down for more than an hour?

Yet would any of us be genuinely intimidated by such as stupid sequence of steps forwards, obvious push in the own 22, and then immediate steps back? I'd honestly be thinking "hold on, what on earth just happened there?" WB might not be perfectly positioned, but he can move himself away if asked, as said.

Most player comments I've seen elsewhere are "straight red", EVEN if they think WB was poorly positioned. They sometimes slip up verbally - players that is - but fortunately any kind of physical contact is rare, and even then mostly accidental, and followed up with an apology, in my experience at least.

If I have any criticism of WB, it would be that by not giving a RC he takes away the option to give a recommendation as to the punishment. RC + apology could have been basic 3 weeks for RC +100% added by citing commissioner for being a stupid action involving a referee. On the other hand, perhaps at pro level a 14 week ban is preferable to one of 6 weeks in combination with the match being played.

Would players at lower levels prefer 14 weeks personally to 6? I think not. Red card them, even if it is after just 17 minutes of the game, and if they apologise after the match, don't throw the book at them.

Pegleg
19-01-16, 21:01
Giving a red card so early in the game may clearly affect the final result.

That's not our problem as referees. We only issue the card, we do not commit the offence. The Player chose to offend, not the referee. The player crossed the line, not the referee.

Our job is not to worry about how a card might impact the game. Ours is to deal with offences as they occur.

Crucial
19-01-16, 21:01
Would you take two steps forward, push him hard in the shoulder, and then retreat back onside? There's no moment for this to be in the heat of; the ball is stuck in a ruck and the halfback is only starting to dig for it by the time the whistle blows.

Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning his actions at all. I just think it was a case of the player anticipating ahead of play, WB doing what he should (as ball has not yet been clearly won), and the player having a momentary lapse of judgement. I would think that as soon as he did it he probably wondered himself what he had just done and apologised.
I also think that WB probably realised all of this which is why he thought the best course of action at that moment was simply to talk and penalise.
Referees are oft quoted justifying their own mistakes by saying 'players make plenty of them as well'. This, to me, is the equivalent of a howler from a player.
I do agree though, that is is the type of howler that cannot go unpunished and the sanctity of the referee has to be upheld by setting an example.

Crucial
19-01-16, 21:01
That's not our problem as referees. We only issue the card, we do not commit the offence. The Player chose to offend, not the referee. The player crossed the line, not the referee.

Our job is not to worry about how a card might impact the game. Ours is to deal with offences as they occur.

I understand the sentiment but this approach is contradictory to other game management. Do you penalise every infringement or apply letter of law in all cases? No, because you are charged with managing the game fairly for all parties.

I think what you mean is that this falls into a category of 'must apply law irrespective of consequences'.

Would be better if WR issued RC guidelines that drew where that line is (at different levels) because, as pointed out earlier, it appears that RWC games especially set a different bar for on field RCs (perhaps after the Warburton RC in 2011)

Dickie E
19-01-16, 23:01
Did WB go to the TMO for this in the game?

For me it is strange that a PK becomes a 14 week ban. How wrong can a ref get something, that they notice, and have the ability to go to the TMO for?

being one level out is acceptable (YC for a low level red for example). But that far? Strikes me of refs being told - don't RC, leave it to the citing officer.

it is difficult to deal objectively with an incident that you are personally involved in - it kind of looks pompous. For example, if someone touches the Queen, it would look odd for her to deal with the issue there & then. She would remain calm & dignified and let others deal with it later.

I imagine that if the push had been on an AR then WB would have been pulling cards.

Perhaps he should have gone to the TMO for an independent opinion.

Pegleg
19-01-16, 23:01
I understand the sentiment but this approach is contradictory to other game management. Do you penalise every infringement or apply letter of law in all cases? No, because you are charged with managing the game fairly for all parties.

I've said no such thing. I've said It is not our place to avoid taking the required action for fear of spoiling the game. The soiling of the game is done by the player not us. If the action requires a card then we should give it without fear or favour or worrying about "spoiling the game".

That is very different from your insinuation. Issuing cards when required is an essential part of managing a game.

Pegleg
19-01-16, 23:01
it is difficult to deal objectively with an incident that you are personally involved in - it kind of looks pompous. For example, if someone touches the Queen, it would look odd for her to deal with the issue there & then. She would remain calm & dignified and let others deal with it later.

I imagine that if the push had been on an AR then WB would have been pulling cards.

Perhaps he should have gone to the TMO for an independent opinion.

The Queen analogy is not helpful. It is hardly the same. The Queen is some one with no real power to act, apart form being fair too old to achieve anything worthwhile. She also has bodyguards there to protect her. A referee doe not. However, he does have the power to act. Indeed he has the duty to protect the ref who comes after him. Barnes got it wrong. The Citing officer was then left to do his work for him. Citing officers should be picking stuff up the ref / To3 miss not correcting mistakes.

Rushforth
19-01-16, 23:01
Barnes got it wrong. The Citing officer was then left to do his work for him.

Pegleg, how many matches have you refereed? How many at a level where there was a genuine stake have you been part of a team of three (or four)?

How many times have you refereed a game in which this kind of bizarre incident happened?

SimonSmith
20-01-16, 01:01
Giving a red card so early in the game may clearly affect the final result. Do we as spectators want games decided because one side is a man down for more than an hour?

That's Chopperesque. It's also not our responsibility, as I think Cj said to the Australian winger when he sent him off for a silly second yellow


If I have any criticism of WB, it would be that by not giving a RC he takes away the option to give a recommendation as to the punishment. RC + apology could have been basic 3 weeks for RC +100% added by citing commissioner for being a stupid action involving a referee. On the other hand, perhaps at pro level a 14 week ban is preferable to one of 6 weeks in combination with the match being played.

Would players at lower levels prefer 14 weeks personally to 6? I think not. Red card them, even if it is after just 17 minutes of the game, and if they apologise after the match, don't throw the book at them.

I might be wrong, but I don't think the referee gets to make a recommendation as to sanction at that level. They certainly don't in the discipline cases I handle.
I'm also baffled by your math. How do you get to 3 weeks, based on the guidelines laid out in Regulation 17?

Dickie E
20-01-16, 02:01
The Queen analogy is not helpful. It is hardly the same.

Yeah, a bit clumsy. It was the best I could think of.

But I still think the optics wouldn't have been great if WB had pulled out a red. He would (maybe) have appeared as petulant, a bit Joffrey Baratheon-esque. "How dare you touch me, don't you know who I am?"

menace
20-01-16, 04:01
It was Big Ben Tameifuna playing for Waikato that did the same (to GJ) and got 5 weeks after.
I think that similar to this case the ref was in the way and there was no malice at all, just an unthinking reaction in the heat of the moment. (BT was right on the tryline under the posts and had little room to move as it was without GJ right in his way)
You can clearly see the player watching the ruck and looking to do his job in defence, anticipating that he may need to run in that channel. We can't see the attacking team in that clip, but I would assume there are attacking players lined up there or the defence wouldn't be.
No excuse for the contact, but certainly there is mitigation. I would expect a ban similar to BT's.
WB has terrible positioning at times for an elite ref.
It looks to me like the player has decided from WBs body language that he isn't going to move from there. He has planted his feet.
It is a fair enough place to stand while watching the breakdown, but as a player I would hope that as soon as the ball was won by the attackers he would move out of the way ready for the next breakdown.


I decided not to post yesterday, having written something about being able to see both sides.

A push to the chest during open play is clearly a moment of madness. It is also different to a sneaky push in the back during play, or a push to the chest with the ball dead.

Giving a red card so early in the game may clearly affect the final result. Do we as spectators want games decided because one side is a man down for more than an hour?

Yet would any of us be genuinely intimidated by such as stupid sequence of steps forwards, obvious push in the own 22, and then immediate steps back? I'd honestly be thinking "hold on, what on earth just happened there?" WB might not be perfectly positioned, but he can move himself away if asked, as said.

Most player comments I've seen elsewhere are "straight red", EVEN if they think WB was poorly positioned. They sometimes slip up verbally - players that is - but fortunately any kind of physical contact is rare, and even then mostly accidental, and followed up with an apology, in my experience at least.

If I have any criticism of WB, it would be that by not giving a RC he takes away the option to give a recommendation as to the punishment. RC + apology could have been basic 3 weeks for RC +100% added by citing commissioner for being a stupid action involving a referee. On the other hand, perhaps at pro level a 14 week ban is preferable to one of 6 weeks in combination with the match being played.

Would players at lower levels prefer 14 weeks personally to 6? I think not. Red card them, even if it is after just 17 minutes of the game, and if they apologise after the match, don't throw the book at them.

Can't quite think of the word I'm looking for.......oh that's it....BOLLOCKS!

menace
20-01-16, 04:01
The Citing Officer is no pushover
No - but the judicial panel is. 12 weeks discount for saying 'sorry'?!:wtf::buttkick::shrug::deadhorse::holyshe ep::chair::Looser::Looser::Looser:
What a f@cking joke.

FlipFlop
20-01-16, 09:01
But I still think the optics wouldn't have been great if WB had pulled out a red. He would (maybe) have appeared as petulant, a bit Joffrey Baratheon-esque. "How dare you touch me, don't you know who I am?"

Have to say I disagree. In a grassroots game with no AR/TMO, I can see a PK only, as you might not be sure what really happened. But at that level, for something so serious, do what we are always told - take your time. Ask to review on TMO, or ask TMO to look and tell you if you should review. Then it is a considered judgement.

And the optics would still look good. He was pushed, he considered it, he reached a decision that anyone in rugby would stand by - deliberately pushed the ref = Red Card.

And generally he isn't afraid of issuing the RC - just ask Hartley.... (for something that if he had ignored etc, no spectator would have noticed)

DocY
20-01-16, 09:01
Did WB go to the TMO for this in the game?


I don't think so, though it looked like he had a look at a replay on the screen and I think that reduced the sanction.
If this happened at a lower level game, all the ref (who was looking the other way) would know was that someone's come up to them and pushed them and there's only going to be one outcome.
I can only think that after seeing the replays it put a bit of doubt in his mind and he started thinking "maybe I was actually in the way".

didds
20-01-16, 10:01
did anything happen about Cole's "collision" the other week?

I can't find the video now.

didds

FatherFlipper
20-01-16, 10:01
No - but the judicial panel is. 12 weeks discount for saying 'sorry'?!:wtf::buttkick::shrug::deadhorse::holyshe ep::chair::Looser::Looser::Looser:
What a f@cking joke.

This always gets me whenever I read these reviews - "good conduct at the hearing". That should be the standard, he's a grown adult ffs - I would certainly be adding weeks on if he was a complete knob in the hearing, but showing remorse, saying please and thank you and smiling politely is just basic "being a human 101". Certainly shouldn't be a reference point for deciding a ban length!

4eyesbetter
20-01-16, 21:01
Yeah, a bit clumsy. It was the best I could think of.

But I still think the optics wouldn't have been great if WB had pulled out a red. He would (maybe) have appeared as petulant, a bit Joffrey Baratheon-esque. "How dare you touch me, don't you know who I am?"

By this logic, how would any referee ever be able to penalise any player for any dissent?

Rushforth
20-01-16, 22:01
By this logic, how would any referee ever be able to penalise any player for any dissent?

Reductio ad absurdum?

Players know damn well when they've crossed the line, most of the time. Their team mates are not surprised when a lippy player gives away an extra ten metres or gets a YC.

There are those who argue that it was good game management to only give a penalty originally. I am not of that opinion myself, but the argument was sound nonetheless, before the citing commissioner made it serious.

Would the manhandling shown in the video be worth a yellow card between two players? No, of course it would not; it was a small shove by the standards of any code of rugby.

My personal opinion is that such an incident should be red-carded consistently, whether it takes place with ball live or dead. Strict consistency is important in protecting grass-roots referees, and I believe that to be more fundamental than the pro game.

In particular I would rather see a RC for this kind of incident, even if the subsequent ban is only 3-6 weeks/matches, or perhaps especially in that case. Apparently my opinion is bollocks according to a person who will be ignored by me from now on who has none. So be it.

Again, the incident in question was so bizarre that I'm not surprised a card was not issued. In my opinion nobody would have been surprised if one had, and even expected it to be of red colour.

Pegleg
20-01-16, 23:01
Pegleg, how many matches have you refereed? How many at a level where there was a genuine stake have you been part of a team of three (or four)?

How many times have you refereed a game in which this kind of bizarre incident happened?

374 games. For the teams involved there was something at stake in around 300. Not as much as in Europe but every play has his or her own world cup. Barnes did us all a disservice. No I've never been pushed over, knocked over accidentally but not pushed. I don't issue a lot of cards but sorry that incident had RED painted all over it. Clearly the DC agreed with the CO and me.

Dickie E
21-01-16, 01:01
Apparently my opinion is bollocks according to a person who will be ignored by me from now on who has none. So be it.



You must be PMing with someone. There is no post in this thread that suggests, even vaguely, that your opinion is bollocks.

menace
21-01-16, 05:01
Apparently my opinion is bollocks according to a person who will be ignored by me from now on who has none. So be it.



You must be PMing with someone. There is no post in this thread that suggests, even vaguely, that your opinion is bollocks.

Twas me Dickie...in post #47.

It was in reference to this...




Giving a red Red card them, even if it is after just 17 minutes of the game, and if they apologise after the match, don't throw the book at them.

I stand by my comment. IMO opinion it's bollocks to downgrade an offence for a physical attack that was calculated and deliberate simply because a hollow 'sorry' is rolled out. I certainly won't be saying sorry for saying it....because I meant it. Rushforth is obviously feeling wounded by it. Though I won't be losing any sleep that I'm in his ignore list....so be it. he's appeared on mine more than once in the past. :hap:

ctrainor
21-01-16, 05:01
This I'm sorry is really hollow both at the hearing and immediately after the game. It should be totally discounted. I never take these apologies seriously though in the past I have put it on a red card form as I have been told to.
It's usually the club Blazers who encourage the player to do it and more often than not it is not the players first offence.
The last guy I sent off, for dissent, I didn't get an apology but many of his team mates said to me thank f*ck somebody has sent him off, we are down to 14 every week when he plays.

Dickie E
21-01-16, 05:01
Twas me Dickie...in post #47.



Ah, yes

Phil E
21-01-16, 12:01
In particular I would rather see a RC for this kind of incident, even if the subsequent ban is only 3-6 weeks/matches, or perhaps especially in that case.

I don't understand why you think giving a red card will result in a lesser sentence than a citing?

The Low End for this offence is 24 weeks. The maximum reduction for not eating the biscuits is 50%.

That applies regardless of whether it's a red card on field or a citing.

Rushforth
21-01-16, 13:01
I don't understand why you think giving a red card will result in a lesser sentence than a citing?

Perhaps because I am not saying it currently will, but rather because a citing commissioner can look at the actual evidence, and so can whatever tribunal decides to do next.

There are some offences in rugby which might be punished much more seriously than they are by "us". Quite a lot of dangerous tackles for example are not deliberate, just a natural result of what happens when you throw two big bodies at each other often enough.

This incident was certainly deliberate, but in the opinion of WB clearly not seen as threatening. Imagine the exact same push on you after a player has been penalised, without him stepping back, I'd imagine most of us would consider that an act of "lèse majesté", yet it seems to happen in that game with a round ball (at the very least figuratively) all the time.

If a court of law had to rule on whether this was assault, I'd struggle to see them find anything but innocent, because it clearly wasn't assault.

Again, I agree with those who thought it should have been red immediately, simply to set a standard. In retrospect, perhaps WB wishes he had done so now, and I believe that a message has been sent should anything like this happen again, at any level, a RC is appropriate.

The player is unlikely to make the same mistake again, regardless of what the suspension term is.

All I'm pointing out is that since he hadn't been carded in the game, it became a choice of LE 24 or doing nothing. No middle ground would have been left. I'm not even saying that a lower category of offence should have been used, just that perhaps it could.

Hope that helps, my apologies if I remain unclear.

RobLev
21-01-16, 15:01
...

If a court of law had to rule on whether this was assault, I'd struggle to see them find anything but innocent, because it clearly wasn't assault.

...

Just to pick this up; I don't know what the law is in the Netherlands, but in England and Wales that was a quite clear assault (and battery) at common law.

crossref
21-01-16, 15:01
Just to pick this up; I don't know what the law is in the Netherlands, but in England and Wales that was a quite clear assault (and battery) at common law.

out of interest, how does common law deal with normal play in rugby -- ie how does it take account of context of an action which would be assault on the street, but is normal in rugby, like tackling.

OB..
21-01-16, 16:01
Just to pick this up; I don't know what the law is in the Netherlands, but in England and Wales that was a quite clear assault (and battery) at common law.Basically "assault" is making someone fear violence whereas "battery" is actual physical violence.


out of interest, how does common law deal with normal play in rugby -- ie how does it take account of context of an action which would be assault on the street, but is normal in rugby, like tackling.Volenti non fit injuria.

However this is limited to actions that might occur during normal play and does not extend to actions outside the laws of the game..

Rich_NL
21-01-16, 16:01
out of interest, how does common law deal with normal play in rugby -- ie how does it take account of context of an action which would be assault on the street, but is normal in rugby, like tackling.

One can consent to violence in the sense of organised sports - a boxing match in a ring is not assault, nor judo randori on mats, while in the streets it would be affray or similar. I think there's an anomaly in the UK in that you can't consent to be injured in private sexual play while you can in a public sport, but I'm not a lawyer.

Foul play is definitely legally open to recourse, though - I read recently of a soccer player found guilty of (IIRC) GBH for a double-footed ankle stamp that was clearly aimed at the person and smashed his leg.

FlipFlop
21-01-16, 17:01
The RFU has a legal document, that sets out what you consent to when you step onto the field of player, that outside the field might be deemed illegal.

MrQeu
21-01-16, 17:01
In Spain and in some sports, AFAIK and IANAL, if it's something inherent to the sport (a tackle), no problem. If it's something inherent to the sport but made recklessly (a tip tackle while genuinely playing the sport), no problem, just sport consequences. If it's something deliberately done not in the spirit of the sport (a tip tackle 30m away from the ball, a punch not in boxing, deliberately attacking an official, etc), well, you should go get a lawyer.

I personally know the case of a basketball ref who sued a player after a sucker punch and getting about 6000€

Rawling
23-01-16, 14:01
The RFU has a legal document, that sets out what you consent to when you step onto the field of player, that outside the field might be deemed illegal.

Do you have a link to this? Is it for a player or a referee? (Not questioning, just curious...)

Pegleg
23-01-16, 15:01
In Spain and in some sports, AFAIK and IANAL, if it's something inherent to the sport (a tackle), no problem. If it's something inherent to the sport but made recklessly (a tip tackle while genuinely playing the sport), no problem, just sport consequences. If it's something deliberately done not in the spirit of the sport (a tip tackle 30m away from the ball, a punch not in boxing, deliberately attacking an official, etc), well, you should go get a lawyer.

I personally know the case of a basketball ref who sued a player after a sucker punch and getting about 6000€


Yes you consent to play within the laws of the game you are playing. You agree to anything that may occur from the lawful playing of said game.

SimonSmith
23-01-16, 18:01
In Spain and in some sports, AFAIK and IANAL, if it's something inherent to the sport (a tackle), no problem. If it's something inherent to the sport but made recklessly (a tip tackle while genuinely playing the sport), no problem, just sport consequences.

See: Paul Elliott vs Dean Saunders

FlipFlop
24-01-16, 23:01
Do you have a link to this? Is it for a player or a referee? (Not questioning, just curious...)

I only know of the paper copy in the Museum of Rugby (which has the library as well). As far as I know, anyone can as to see it.