sa Samoa

[Adam]

Your pitch?

Gee, if that is how the referees think of "their" game. Then I am worried. This is the same problem I think Nigel Owens has. It isn't his game, or his pitch. It is about the players and not about the egos.

It's definitely your pitch if someone gets injured and they sue.

[damo]

It's definitely your pitch if someone gets injured and they sue.

Jesus. Refs getting sued for what happens on a rugby field? Glad I don't live in the UK


And I owe an apology to Nigel Owens for implying that he was at fault for the RC, clearly it was appropriate for him to act on the advice of the AR. Still think it was very marginal, and made to look a lot worse than it was by some ridiculous play acting by the SAffer, and I thought he got in more than enough blows to the head to send himself pretty close to RC territory.

[Toby Warren]

Jesus. Refs getting sued for what happens on a rugby field? Glad I don't live in the UK.

happens very veryrarely and only when the ref is negligent. We also have insurance cover for this.

[Ian_Cook]

Your pitch?

Gee, if that is how the referees think of "their" game. Then I am worried. This is the same problem I think Nigel Owens has. It isn't his game, or his pitch. It is about the players and not about the egos.

Of course, if you are Matt Goddard, not only is the pitch yours, so is the ball!!

[Bryan]

From my view as an AR the report to the referee for unsighted foul play has to be clear, concise, and accurate.
- My impression is that Stuart Terheege achieved two of those things.

It all started with the Samoan player on the ground cynically and deliberately holding on to the South African player
Then the South African player strikes the Samoan on the ground, repeatedly, to break free.
The Samoan player gets up, and lashes out at the South African player (I didnt see this as a punch at all, but nor was it some silly Brian Moore "slap")
The South African goes to ground *cough* rather easily *cough*

The only two relevant statements in my report would be the first two: there's a cynical attempt to obstruct an opponent, and the retaliation from the South African Player is completely unncessary. At that point it would have been "both to the bin" (these two idiots can have a spell for 10 minutes).

My belief is that the AR saw the Samoan lash out at the South African player and believed he hit him pretty hard in the face (the AR was smart to not use "punch" but rather "strike") and felt it was a Red Card Offense. If that's his view, ok. I may not support it, but he cant see things from all angles.

Where I thought there was a poor decision was not addressing the actions of the South African player; this player should have been put in the bin. The repeated retaliatory striking of an opponent was completely unnecessary.

[Agustin]

From my view as an AR the report to the referee for unsighted foul play has to be clear, concise, and accurate.
- My impression is that Stuart Terheege achieved two of those things.

It all started with the Samoan player on the ground cynically and deliberately holding on to the South African player
Then the South African player strikes the Samoan on the ground, repeatedly, to break free.
The Samoan player gets up, and lashes out at the South African player (I didnt see this as a punch at all, but nor was it some silly Brian Moore "slap")
The South African goes to ground *cough* rather easily *cough*

The only two relevant statements in my report would be the first two: there's a cynical attempt to obstruct an opponent, and the retaliation from the South African Player is completely unncessary. At that point it would have been "both to the bin" (these two idiots can have a spell for 10 minutes).

My belief is that the AR saw the Samoan lash out at the South African player and believed he hit him pretty hard in the face (the AR was smart to not use "punch" but rather "strike") and felt it was a Red Card Offense. If that's his view, ok. I may not support it, but he cant see things from all angles.

Where I thought there was a poor decision was not addressing the actions of the South African player; this player should have been put in the bin. The repeated retaliatory striking of an opponent was completely unnecessary.

I like this analysis - thanks.

[Ian_Cook]

Where I thought there was a poor decision was not addressing the actions of the South African player; this player should have been put in the bin. The repeated retaliatory striking of an opponent was completely unnecessary.

And some of those blows struck the Samoan player in the head... grounds alone for dismissal.

[All The Time Ref]

The Samoan reaction on facebook and twitter is very sad indeed.



http://twitter.com/#!/Eliota_Sapolu (The Samoa / Gloucester player!) Disrepute charges?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/To-Nig...81664535192006 Wishing that Nigel would die of AIDS!?????????????

http://www.facebook.com/pages/To-the...937307?sk=wall

[peperami]

Where I thought there was a poor decision was not addressing the actions of the South African player; this player should have been put in the bin. The repeated retaliatory striking of an opponent was completely unnecessary.

Would you have not gone red for the strikes from the South African player that made forceful contact with the Samoan players head. I have watched the replay and I am left wondering whether both players should have gone for a red card.

Though I think we can agree that both players should at least have had a small rest.

Ben

[Buzz]

And some of those blows struck the Samoan player in the head... grounds alone for dismissal.

It's unfortunate that the AR didn't put as much emphasis on the the actions of the SA player as he did on the Samoan player, then perhaps NO would have issued cards to the both