Ireland v New Zealand
- Thread starter Ian_Cook
- Start date
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
Agreed.
Harry
Active member
What I saw in multiple replays from many angles was:
A short pass (possibly forward) to B10 who gathered the ball almost as he collided with a passive defender who only put his arms in front of himself as protection.
Had the defender bent forward to get lower he would have hit B10 before he caught the ball. It was that close.
I fail to see what the defender could have done different. B10s head contacted with the defenders shoulder.
The decision went to the bunker who turned yellow to red.
A far more dangerous collision at the end of the half was penalty only. Didn't seem consistent to me
A short pass (possibly forward) to B10 who gathered the ball almost as he collided with a passive defender who only put his arms in front of himself as protection.
Had the defender bent forward to get lower he would have hit B10 before he caught the ball. It was that close.
I fail to see what the defender could have done different. B10s head contacted with the defenders shoulder.
The decision went to the bunker who turned yellow to red.
A far more dangerous collision at the end of the half was penalty only. Didn't seem consistent to me
Which collision are you referring to?
Harry
Active member
It seems only highlights are available to me now and it's not included
The "victim", Beauden Barrett didn't think it justified a red card either.
www.bbc.com
Ireland 13-26 New Zealand: Beauden Barrett 'gutted' for Tadhg Beirne after controversial red card
New Zealand's Beauden Barrett says he is "gutted" for Tadhg Beirne after the Irish second row was sent off early in Saturday's 26-13 defeat in Chicago.
www.bbc.com
That's irrelevant really.The "victim", Beauden Barrett didn't think it justified a red card either.
Ireland 13-26 New Zealand: Beauden Barrett 'gutted' for Tadhg Beirne after controversial red card
New Zealand's Beauden Barrett says he is "gutted" for Tadhg Beirne after the Irish second row was sent off early in Saturday's 26-13 defeat in Chicago.
At the risk of swimming against the tide here; how can it not be a red card?
I understand the ‘protecting himself’ perspective. However, he is in the defensive line, there is only one ball on the pitch and carrier is running straight at him.
The whole point of multiple runners, late passes, is to confuse the defence, to make them think the ball is going elsewhere, so I don’t think this is a valid defence.
I do though think he was unlucky. But I’m not sure that luck comes into the determination of the sanction.
I understand the ‘protecting himself’ perspective. However, he is in the defensive line, there is only one ball on the pitch and carrier is running straight at him.
The whole point of multiple runners, late passes, is to confuse the defence, to make them think the ball is going elsewhere, so I don’t think this is a valid defence.
I do though think he was unlucky. But I’m not sure that luck comes into the determination of the sanction.
attacker ran straight into him.
both Barrett and Berne were watching the ball and not their collision.
This goes into the folder as "rugby incident" and should be yellow at worst.
My understanding of a 'rugby incident' would be a collision etc for which nobody gets penalised.
Shelflife
Referees in Ireland
Heres my take as an Irishman.
Beirne is in the defensive line. He steps into BB and makes contact. He didn't think that BB was going to get the ball but he still stepped into him to take him out as a supporting player.
Once he decides to step into BB he buys a ticket in the head contact lottery, Unfortunately for him he makes direct head contact and the fact that he doesn't wrap means that there is no mitigation.
True hes not tackling BB but he wants to make contact with him. If he didn't want to make contact with him he could have stepped back and let BB through (but we know thats never going to happen in a pro game)
So he took a chance and it ended badly for him, thems the breaks.
The other side of the argument that there wasn't a lot of force in it or there was no injury to BB so its fine doesn't wash with me, he didn't get injured this time but we don't want players picking up head injuries anytime which is the whole point of policing the head contact area.
Beirne is in the defensive line. He steps into BB and makes contact. He didn't think that BB was going to get the ball but he still stepped into him to take him out as a supporting player.
Once he decides to step into BB he buys a ticket in the head contact lottery, Unfortunately for him he makes direct head contact and the fact that he doesn't wrap means that there is no mitigation.
True hes not tackling BB but he wants to make contact with him. If he didn't want to make contact with him he could have stepped back and let BB through (but we know thats never going to happen in a pro game)
So he took a chance and it ended badly for him, thems the breaks.
The other side of the argument that there wasn't a lot of force in it or there was no injury to BB so its fine doesn't wash with me, he didn't get injured this time but we don't want players picking up head injuries anytime which is the whole point of policing the head contact area.
didds
Resident Club Coach
Maybe he should, have been lower already.
this is where OB would say "Not be in the position in the first place".
I fail to see how anybody is surprised. The current regs around head impacts is bound to throw these cards up.
didds
Resident Club Coach
This.
Agreed. No notes.
Two amateur questions, if I may. Not sure exactly how to phrase them, so kindly give me some rope!
1) I’ve heard that the “low degree of danger” mitigation shouldn’t apply because Beirne’s action was what the laws describe as “always illegal.” Is that the case here? I googled a bit but couldn’t find a clear explanation. Does the mitigation not apply because the referee and TMO considered the degree of danger not to be low, or is there another reason it was ruled out?
2) Hypothetical: If a pass is deemed forward, but this is only recognized after a review for foul play has been initiated, does that affect the judgment call? If so, how?
To clarify: the referee doesn’t spot the forward pass and calls the TMO to check for foul play. During the review, the TMO describes the head contact incident but also notes that the collision occurs after a forward pass.
Thanks in advance.
1) I’ve heard that the “low degree of danger” mitigation shouldn’t apply because Beirne’s action was what the laws describe as “always illegal.” Is that the case here? I googled a bit but couldn’t find a clear explanation. Does the mitigation not apply because the referee and TMO considered the degree of danger not to be low, or is there another reason it was ruled out?
2) Hypothetical: If a pass is deemed forward, but this is only recognized after a review for foul play has been initiated, does that affect the judgment call? If so, how?
To clarify: the referee doesn’t spot the forward pass and calls the TMO to check for foul play. During the review, the TMO describes the head contact incident but also notes that the collision occurs after a forward pass.
Thanks in advance.
In this case, yes to 1 - from a source inside the FPRO box.
1. No mitigation if the act is deemed ‘Always Illegal’, which I suggest it was.
2. No, not for serious foul play.
Yes to which question or all?
Thank you all for the answers.
This probably reflects more what I would like or expect the laws to consider, rather than what they actually do, which might be kinda silly in this forum, but anyway: I try to put myself in the defender’s shoes. Attackers are coming at me fast and from close range. There are dummy runners everywhere, split-second decisions to make, the lot. I don’t have many tools to work with, but one of them is gauging whether a runner is behind or level with the BC. If he’s not (i.e., he has moved ahead of the BC), it seems reasonable for me to assume the ball won’t be passed to him. If it is passed to him, then it also seems reasonable that I’ll have less time to react (and, in theory, the play shouldn’t even have reached that point!). Is it really so far-fetched to think this could serve as some kind of mitigation in a situation like this?
I am in no way suggesting this should completely excuse nor condone foul play, but it does look important in terms of context.
Thanks.
This probably reflects more what I would like or expect the laws to consider, rather than what they actually do, which might be kinda silly in this forum, but anyway: I try to put myself in the defender’s shoes. Attackers are coming at me fast and from close range. There are dummy runners everywhere, split-second decisions to make, the lot. I don’t have many tools to work with, but one of them is gauging whether a runner is behind or level with the BC. If he’s not (i.e., he has moved ahead of the BC), it seems reasonable for me to assume the ball won’t be passed to him. If it is passed to him, then it also seems reasonable that I’ll have less time to react (and, in theory, the play shouldn’t even have reached that point!). Is it really so far-fetched to think this could serve as some kind of mitigation in a situation like this?
I am in no way suggesting this should completely excuse nor condone foul play, but it does look important in terms of context.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
Low degree of danger isn't a mitigating factor, it determines what card you're on from which you start mitigating.
However, Beirne is stepping in and bringing his shoulder forward, at the very least an assertive brace. It's not a passive 'soak', as we've seen for other low degree incidents.
Watching it, I thought he was unlucky but I expected a red.
However, Beirne is stepping in and bringing his shoulder forward, at the very least an assertive brace. It's not a passive 'soak', as we've seen for other low degree incidents.
Watching it, I thought he was unlucky but I expected a red.