Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 65

Thread: Why no red card?

      
  1. #1

    Referees in Scotland


    Soc/Assoc
    .
    Grade
    Level 7
    Join Date
    13 Dec 08
    Posts
    129
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    14

    Default Why no red card?

    It's been more than 24 hours since the Pro 14 final and having had time to reflect I'm still mystified by Nigel Owen's decision to only award a yellow to Rob Carney for a dangerous tackle that saw him take Stuart Hogg out in the air while following up his own kick. Hogg was injured out of th game having landed badly following the incident.

    I've seen suggestions that NO may have made the decision becuase Hogg landed shoulder rather than head first; somehow I can't see this as being an appropriate call, but all thoughts welcomed.

  2. #2
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Rugby Nederland
    Grade
    WR level 2
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    1,146
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    306

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    Guidance is: landing on back or shoulder is yellow, head or neck is red. The latter is more dangerous because of the risk of neck injury.

    Hogg seemed to be badly concussed, having landed unfortunately, but that in itself is not a reason to escalate the expected sanction.

  3. #3
    Coach/Referee

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    03 May 13
    Posts
    763
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    147

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    * Leinster Referee
    *Leinster Supporter

    I thought it was a fair call.

  4. #4

    Referees in Australia
    Drift's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    06 Jan 10
    Posts
    1,816
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    82

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    Just seen it, YC is the right call. Lands on his shoulder/back.

  5. #5

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    4,297
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    214

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    His name is Rob Kearney. I don’t believe Nigel Owens bottled the decision. Rather, fair play to him for not be influenced by an aggressive reaction from the home supporters. He assessed the collision on the basis Blue15 had his eye on the ball. He avoided judging the incident entirely on the outcome. The fact that Stuart Hogg was concussed is unfortunate, but not a reason to escalate to a Red Card.

    As a Munster supporter I genuinely wanted Glasgow to win that game. But the sourgrapes from the Warriors head coach after was a bit hard to stomach and changed my opinion on the outcome. I thought Leo Cullen was closer to the truth. He said «*Referees are inconsistent, some times it’s play on, sometimes Yellow and sometimes Red*». RK came back on with 4 minutes on the clock, so the difference between Red or Yellow was minimal anyway. Glasgow had already let the game slip away and needed a miracle at that stage, missing the conversion certainly didn’t help. Leinster’s head coach was right in saying a team needs to adapt to the consequences of the referee’s decision, nothing more.

    Glasgow will need to look elsewhere to attribute the blame for their defeat:
    1. Kicking the ball back to opposition far too often,
    2. Not managing to adapt play in the greasy conditions,
    3. Or insisting on going up the middle right to the bitter end, when it clearly wasn’t paying off in points.
    Not to mention, 4. running the ball from inside their own ingoal, WTF? Take your pick, but leave Nigel out of it.
    Last edited by L'irlandais; 27-05-19 at 09:05.
    "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."
    John Henry Newman

  6. #6

    Referees in Scotland


    Soc/Assoc
    .
    Grade
    Level 7
    Join Date
    13 Dec 08
    Posts
    129
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    14

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    Based upon your feedback, I've looked at the incident again on video, at the appropriate law and the ref guidance.

    The law says:

    Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

    Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
    Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
    Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
    Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position

    The ref guidance (April 2015 - Laws Representation Group) says:

    Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
    The options given were:
    Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
    Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
    Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
    Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

    Based upon the outcome, the laws and the outcome (unlss I am using outdated guidance) then it has to be a red card. While NO noted that he thought the impact was shoulder, the law and guidance don't appear to change the direction that a RC was the appropriate route. That said, the footage from various angles show head and shoulder hitting the ground together. Kearney having his eye on the ball is immaterial because he was not contesting for the ball.

    L'irlandais, for clarity I was not disputing the outcome of the game, simply seeking views on this one incident; as with any game, there was plenty of scope for dialogue on other issues. I thought both coaches comments on the incident were reasonable with Rennie noting; "I'll let officials decide that sort of stuff" when asked about the incident and recognisng that Warriors were not clinical enough which seemed reasonable.

  7. #7
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    07 Dec 18
    Posts
    23
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gracie View Post
    Based upon your feedback, I've looked at the incident again on video, at the appropriate law and the ref guidance.

    The law says:

    Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

    Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
    Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
    Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
    Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position

    The ref guidance (April 2015 - Laws Representation Group) says:

    Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
    The options given were:
    Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
    Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
    Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
    Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

    Based upon the outcome, the laws and the outcome (unlss I am using outdated guidance) then it has to be a red card. While NO noted that he thought the impact was shoulder, the law and guidance don't appear to change the direction that a RC was the appropriate route. That said, the footage from various angles show head and shoulder hitting the ground together. Kearney having his eye on the ball is immaterial because he was not contesting for the ball.

    L'irlandais, for clarity I was not disputing the outcome of the game, simply seeking views on this one incident; as with any game, there was plenty of scope for dialogue on other issues. I thought both coaches comments on the incident were reasonable with Rennie noting; "I'll let officials decide that sort of stuff" when asked about the incident and recognisng that Warriors were not clinical enough which seemed reasonable.


    Where i would disagree with regards your analysis was that he did have his eyes on the ball (as you point out) he kept his eyes on the ball as he was attempting to catch it, attempting to catch it makes it a contest, had Hog not been there he was travelling at a speed and angle to have caught it, the jump he made (below Hogs) was in an attempt to catch it. Did he intentionally take Hog out in the air, i dont think so.

    The issue is that these incidents are unavoidable because you cannot look away from the ball if you seek to jump and catch it, or even catch it, you can then only analyse the resulting incident which is often unintentional, so the outcome is then merely based on good or bad luck. Jumping for the ball is a fantastic skill, im not convinced the unavoidable potential outcomes without any malicious intent are acceptable though.

  8. #8

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    4,297
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    214

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    You are correct in stating that Dave Rennie said «*I’ll let the officials decide that sort of stuff.*».



    For me, eyes on the ball is material, especially if RK had a reasonable chance of competing for the ball.
    Rugby is all about that, fair competition for the ball.
    Last edited by L'irlandais; 27-05-19 at 12:05.
    "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."
    John Henry Newman

  9. #9

    Referees in Scotland


    Soc/Assoc
    .
    Grade
    Level 7
    Join Date
    13 Dec 08
    Posts
    129
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    14

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blindside View Post
    Where i would disagree with regards your analysis was that he did have his eyes on the ball (as you point out) he kept his eyes on the ball as he was attempting to catch it, attempting to catch it makes it a contest, had Hog not been there he was travelling at a speed and angle to have caught it, the jump he made (below Hogs) was in an attempt to catch it. Did he intentionally take Hog out in the air, i dont think so.

    The issue is that these incidents are unavoidable because you cannot look away from the ball if you seek to jump and catch it, or even catch it, you can then only analyse the resulting incident which is often unintentional, so the outcome is then merely based on good or bad luck. Jumping for the ball is a fantastic skill, im not convinced the unavoidable potential outcomes without any malicious intent are acceptable though.
    Blindside the intent is not part of the decion it is the outcome - the YC by NO says that there was not a fair challenge and there was no contest; the only issue then is the landing; NO clealry decided the landing was on his shoulder. Unless, the guidelines that I have are out of date, then I can only conclude he made an error.

  10. #10
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    07 Dec 18
    Posts
    23
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4

    Default Re: Why no red card?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gracie View Post
    Blindside the intent is not part of the decion it is the outcome - the YC by NO says that there was not a fair challenge and there was no contest; the only issue then is the landing; NO clealry decided the landing was on his shoulder. Unless, the guidelines that I have are out of date, then I can only conclude he made an error.


    My argument is that IMO there was an attempt at a fair challenge, the interpretation of a fair challenge appears to be that both players must have an almost equal opportunity to have caught the ball, they must be at an equal height in the same space and have left the floor at the same time, they must have challenged for the ball with equal effectiveness. Although you believe you are capable of this as a player, you sometimes get it wrong. He got it wrong but there was no intent

    I understand how it is managed.

    The fact that intent is not part of the decision makes the law of questionable value. In that a player attempting to do everything correctly can be sent from the field due to the outcome. Therefore the laws of the game in this instance are not capable of keeping a player safe, as two players could do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons with the exact same intent but the fact one player did it better than the other may lead to one being injured and one being sent from the field with a red card.

    So there are a few levels of discussion......was the decision correct regards implementation and is there soemthing wrong with the way this law is implemented, in that, if players are allowed to jump for the ball in this way, they can never be kept safe as its an accident waiting to happen. Is it a reasonable risk?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •