• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Ireland v New Zealand

Cross said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dangerous play (9.11 to 9.26) will always trump a forward pass, knock on, etc so still a card & PK. However, if a PT was on the cards, the forward pass would negate that
 
Cross said:
Thank you all for the answers.

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.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Looking at it frame by frame, TB is very unlucky here. NR takes three steps before passing. TB has to cover the (1)dummy, (2)BB on a short ball as well as (3 & 4)two more runners behind.

TB only takes a half step forward from the ruck, and since it's a very late pass to BB it's basically man and ball at the same time. If anything NR has passed too late or BB has over run it, and goes straight into TB. It's so clumsy from NZ, what we call a hospital pass - BB has eyes only on the ball and doesn't even know he's running into a lock until the last instance.

There is nothing practical TB could have done better to anticipate which of the 4 options he needed to defend. I'd love to see the transcript of how this got to a Red from a Yellow. He got a red card for standing his ground. He got a red card for standing his ground. (had to write that twice)


1762243216391.png
 
Will be interesting to read the why if overturned on appeal. Wonder if Sir Nige will be rolled out to explain it on behalf of WR.
 
www.rte.ie

Beirne cleared to face Japan after red rescinded

Tadhg Beirne has been cleared to play in Ireland's Quilter Nations Series clash with Japan on Saturday after a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday night saw the red card he incurred against the All Blacks rescinded.
www.rte.ie www.rte.ie

Having considered the player's and other evidence and reviewed the footage, the Disciplinary Committee accepted the player’s submissions that whilst an act of foul play had occurred, it did not meet the red card threshold.

The 20-minute Red Card was thus rescinded. As a result, the Player is now free to play and available for selection this weekend.
Click to expand...
 
So, having read the Committee’s explanation, it does make sense. Although I find it mildly disappointing.

Given the fact that the difference between Red and Yellow is, effectively, the subjective view on whether it is of high or medium danger then they must have determined the latter.

“Other evidence” would likely include the view of Beauden Barrett, who was quite clear that he would help him to avoid a red. Naturally, if he tells the committee that he felt it low or medium force, then it’s very difficult to stay at Red I guess.
 
Mipper said:
So, having read the Committee’s explanation, it does make sense. Although I find it mildly disappointing.

Given the fact that the difference between Red and Yellow is, effectively, the subjective view on whether it is of high or medium danger then they must have determined the latter.

“Other evidence” would likely include the view of Beauden Barrett, who was quite clear that he would help him to avoid a red. Naturally, if he tells the committee that he felt it low or medium force, then it’s very difficult to stay at Red I guess.
Click to expand...
They make it up as they go along.
 
didds said:
They make it up as they go along.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose that’s what we get when the laws/guidelines require a subjective determination.

One thought I did have, that Barrett could have mentioned it to the ref at the time….
 
but they didn't keep the talent on the pitch. The ref YCd him and the TMO RCd him. The talent was not kept in the pitch.
 
SimonSmith said:
They are actually consistent.

If you remember that the starting point is "do all you can to get and keep the talent on the field as much as possible" a lot of the decisions make sense.
Click to expand...
This, if you remember they started off with the starting point of ensuring the safety of those on the pitch and now we are where Simon states.

Sure there was a low degree of danger this time, but next time in a similar scenario he clips him on the jaw and breaks it.

Sure there was nothing malicious in it, but upright into a tackle /contact situation is dangerous.
 
The starting point should be "make the game safe so that Mrs Smith is keen for little Johnny and Jenny to play".

And given the talent are professional players, they should be able to play to the laws.

But the immediate needs of the TV producer trump the long time interest of the game.

Youth coaches get "but they do it on TV".

And Mrs Smith decides that maybe frisbee in the park is safer.
 
didds said:
but they didn't keep the talent on the pitch. The ref YCd him and the TMO RCd him. The talent was not kept in the pitch.
Click to expand...
"keep the talent on the field as much as possible"

Is this not part of the point? had it been a "fulo" red then Irelad woud have been down to 14 for the rest of the game. This policy brought them back to 15 after 20 mins. No doubt Beirne would have been subbed at some point so that particular "talent would not have been on for the full 80 anyway.
 
It seems that there will always be a fundamental difference of opinion in supporting or decrying the principle of 20 min red cards.

The margins are tight but those margins are set by the actions of the players, give themselves a bigger margin then they will be sound. Look to play at the edge and sometimes you will called for overstepping the mark.

No different from a jackle in front of the posts after the clock has run down, gamble away and if you get away with it you're a superstar. Get pinged and you're a muppet who should have known better.

So much variability in human performance and human responses but now we also have variability in the review and application of what most people thought were baselined steps to assure player safety.

Nothing to see here, move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top