• 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

Lood De Jager permanent red card vs France/Franco Mostert permanent red card vs Italy

shebeen said:
So you're inferring that it was going to be legal/penalty only but Ramos dropping so significantly was what made it a straight red? Therefore it's only "always illegal" at the last instant....Do you see how this becomes so problematic?
Click to expand...

"Penalty only"... is illegal. Everyone in this discussion besides you seems to consider the incident illegal, that's correct. And it was illegal from the outset, so it is unproblematic to say it was always illegal. It wasn't always a red card, that's outcome-based, and an inherent risk of committing illegal acts these days.

shebeen said:
The player has altered his tackle technique so much go this low, which is what has been asked for.
Click to expand...

Players are also asked to alter their "tackle technique" not to shoulder charge.

shebeen said:
Not hiding behind any natural bias, but will always call out double standards. I wonder if any here would admit to not being impartial against the green the other way?
Click to expand...

Oh please, can we keep the Springbok persecution complex in the comments section of social media? Most people don't really care enough about the boks to orchestrate a hate campaign, whatever your media may be telling you. Of course, if the decision had been different the French fans would have been complaining about anglophone refereeing bias, so either way we'd be having a discussion.

shebeen said:
You probably saw it most famously here first.


Coincidentally AG was the ref here too.
Click to expand...

This was indeed an illegal hit, and WR later explicitly used it as an example of a high tackle that should have been called. Would you argue that AG shouldn't learn from his mistakes, but make another one in SA's favour to be fair? Or are you going to sell the "international refs are biased against my team and that's why the call went that way" line on a referee forum?
 
shep said:
Is there guidance anywhere from WR on that, or is it something you just have to know?

Korobiete's famous covering tackle against SA was a bit similar (not because it was high, but because the attempt to grasp was with the other arm)
Click to expand...

There's nothing official as far as I know.

Koroibete's tackle was an interesting 50/50 call; I can't remember the on-field discussion, but I thought the post-match review question was whether his leading arm was prevented from wrapping by the dynamics of the tackle? I think even now it's a divisive one.
 
shebeen said:
So you're inferring that it was going to be legal/penalty only but Ramos dropping so significantly was what made it a straight red? Therefore it's only "always illegal" at the last instant....Do you see how this becomes so problematic? The player has altered his tackle technique so much go this low, which is what has been asked for.


Not hiding behind any natural bias, but will always call out double standards. I wonder if any here would admit to not being impartial against the green the other way?


I can agree with this - there are thin margins in this, but if the outcome is that it's not worth tackling as a second tackler then we'll have a different sport. All the mitigations that got Beirne off would apply here. Barrett stayed down and was visibly dazed and play was stopped, Ramos got back up once he saw play was on and charged in at the next ruck, never went for HIA. Beirne got downgraded to a yellow, which is what AG was going for initially.
Click to expand...
I'm not inferring anything. I'm implying it - you infer my implications.

But it isn't an implication - it's a statement of fact, as you've acknowledged yourself, however inadvertently.

Yes, had the contact been to the chest it would have been a PK at least - meaning it's illegal.
As soon as we have that baseline established, it's axiomatic that no mitigation can be applied to the rest of the situation.
As a result of that, the contact to the head is a red card.
 
Apart from a shoulder charge, what else would be an "always illegal" action? Maybe tackling player without the ball. Anything else?
 
Dickie E said:
Apart from a shoulder charge, what else would be an "always illegal" action? Maybe tackling player without the ball. Anything else?
Click to expand...
Late tackle on a kicker. Although that's technically a player without the ball...

"Tackling" a player who's off feet?
 
Rich_NL said:
Oh please, can we keep the Springbok persecution complex in the comments section of social media? Most people don't really care enough about the boks to orchestrate a hate campaign, whatever your media may be telling you.
Click to expand...
It's a long standing thing isn't it? So I guess to fit the narrative, we have to label De Jager's actions as "thuggery" otherwise it's a YC to the bunker for a 20min red max?.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987127805147066600
 
On "first"view might be somewhat misconstrued because the review take a few minutes but when people cringe initially and that cringe remains after deconstructing and then finally reviewing at full speed it seems to me there is nowhere to go, other than red.

If on review there is some mitigation and head movement in slow motion is entirely due to chest tackle then the cringe subsides and the determination might be different.

He also states a technical offence leads to 20 min red.

But the key question is has learning occured?
 
Last edited:
BikingBud said:
On "first"view might be somewhat misconstrued because the review take a few minutes but when people cringe initially and that cringe remains after deconstructing and then finally reviewing at full speed it seems to me there is nowhere to go, other than red.

If on review there is some mitigation and head movement in slow motion is entirely due to chest tackle then the cringe subsides and the determination might be different.

He also states a technical offence leads to 20 min red.

But the key question is has learning occured?
Click to expand...
That one surely could have gone to the bunker instead of a snap decision using a stadium screen of a permanent red?
I guess I'll have to let the impartial decide this one again, but might as well update the topic title accordingly.

Learning? I guess we've learnt that the Boks will have another hearing chaired by some NH giving a 6 week ban.
 
One of the problems with the bunker is the choise of outcome. Currently we have either:

YC only and the player is back in 10

or

20 minute Red and the player stays off and is replaced after 20

We need option 3 FULL RED.

We can use a different colour card if you like and the bunker decides between the three options. The "bunker" becomes Of for a 10 miniute review" after 10 one of the three options are delivered.
The bunker allows a referee to "opt out". This way a full on Red does not get minimised due to the on pitch ref not seeing enough to go to RED or is the ref "opts out".
 
Or just accept the long standing premise that underpins our game and leave the ref to it - Nothing, penalty only, Yellow or Red. If it takes too long arguing about mitigation then perhaps it was a very weak case in the first place.

We go down these paths and we end up tying ourselves in knots.

Only need to look at soccer to see what a shambles VAR is
 
shebeen said:
That one surely could have gone to the bunker instead of a snap decision using a stadium screen of a permanent red?
I guess I'll have to let the impartial decide this one again, but might as well update the topic title accordingly.

Learning? I guess we've learnt that the Boks will have another hearing chaired by some NH giving a 6 week ban.
Click to expand...
yes it could have gone to the bunker, that is what I expected.

The question really was whether there was head/neck contact, which was not clear from my TV. However, the TMO said that there was head contact, so really that left the ref with no option.

It was quite clearly NOT a snap decision.
 
Mipper said:
yes it could have gone to the bunker, that is what I expected.

The question really was whether there was head/neck contact, which was not clear from my TV. However, the TMO said that there was head contact, so really that left the ref with no option.
Click to expand...
There wasn't direct head contact. Anyone can see that and the bunker would have picked that up given a bit more time. TMO led the decision and the on field team took it as gospel truth.

I don't recognize the TMO, but he got a LOT wrong elsewhere in the game. It's a total minor point in the end as it had zero outcome in the game, but Pollard slotted a drop goal, under penalty advantage. TMO pulls it out, due to obstruction on one of the chasers. (Pollard slots the advantage penalty from right in front so 3 points either way).

You might not be able to view this clip, but the actual chaser leaps into a prop who never changes his line and even gets an elbow to the head before a theatrical dive with waving arms ( we are at the home of Juventus remember). He is 5m+ from the actual kick so never even a realistic charge down.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

I have never seen Kolisi complain about decisions to a ref before, but he lost his cool over it.
If there is a citing, the TMO could be thrown under the bus here slightly. His decision making was that bad.


Mipper said:
It was quite clearly NOT a snap decision.
Click to expand...

Maybe unfortunate wording, but compared to a bunker call it was a relatively quick review.
The end result is that for the second consecutive week we've seen a permanent red that should have gone to the bunker, and BOTH times the on field ref who is now feeling that heat has been let down by being given the wrong information.
 
"I have never seen Kolisi complain about decisions to a ref before, but he lost his cool over it.
If there is a citing, the TMO could be thrown under the bus here slightly. His decision making was that bad." Shebeen


I have seen it and I don't watch a lot of pro rugby.
 
Last edited:
dickell said:
Far worse was the Feyi-Waboso incident which was exceedingly dangerous. Should have been straight red. Reason for yellow was said to be because he landed on his back. Only red if he ended up with a broken neck?
Click to expand...
Agreed, have seen red for way less than this one. A lot of citings going on but I guess this one never triggered.


Marc Wakeham said:
"I have never seen Kolisi complain about decisions to a ref before, but he lost his cool over it.
If there is a citing, the TMO could be thrown under the bus here slightly. His decision making was that bad." Shebeen


I have seen it and I don't watch a lot of pro rugby.
Click to expand...
ok sure. I'd like to believe you but you'd need to be a lot more specific. There was this during a press conference between games, so not on the actual pitch.

www.skysports.com

Springbok captain Siya Kolisi says he 'didn't feel respected at all' by referee Nic Berry in first Lions Test

Siya Kolisi: I dont really want to get into it to be honest. I dont want to get involved in that, I just didnt feel I was given the same access to the referee. Watch second South Africa vs British & Irish Lions Test live on Sky Sports Lions from 3pm on Saturday (kick-off 5pm)
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com


Dickie E said:
www.thesouthafrican.com

Disciplinary committee makes call on Mostert red card - report

A big decision has reportedly been made after a disciplinary committee review of the red card handed down to Franco Mostert against Italy.
www.thesouthafrican.com www.thesouthafrican.com
Click to expand...
Downgraded to yellow and free to play.
Appeal for De Jager today as well (he stayed with the squad)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top